The clinical significance of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early-stage cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical quality plays a vital role in the treatment of malignant tumors. We investigated the classification of intraoperative adverse events (iAE) (ClassIntra) in relation to the surgical quality control of laparoscopic radical hysterectomies. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 195 patients who had undergone laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early stage cervical cancer between July 2019 and July 2021 was enrolled. Participants were classified into either an iAE or non-iAE groups in accordance with their intraoperative status. Surgical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and quality of life were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Overall, 48 (24.6%) patients experienced 71 iAE. The iAE group was associated with significantly longer operative times (mean: 270 vs. 245 min, P < 0.001), greater blood loss (mean: 215 vs. 120 mL, P < 0.001), and longer postoperative hospital stays (median: 16 vs. 11 days). Larger tumors and poor technical performance significantly increased the risk of iAE (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that iAE were the only independent risk factors for postoperative complications (hazard ratio, 15.100; 95% confidence interval: 4.735-48.158, P < 0.001). Moreover, patients who experienced iAE had significantly lower satisfaction scores and poorer quality of life (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: ClassIntra may serve as an effective adjunctive tool for surgical quality control in laparoscopic radical hysterectomies.

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer stage IB1.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare survival outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in cervical cancer stage IB1. Method: This is a retrospective study of patients with cervical cancer stage IB1 who surgically treated by either RRH or LRH. Oncologic outcomes of the patients were compared according to surgical approach. Results: In total, 66 and 29 patients were assigned to LRH and RRH groups. All patients had stage IB1 disease (FIGO 2018). Intermediate risk factors (tumor size, LVSI, and deep stromal invasion), proportion of patients receiving adjuvant therapy (30.3% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.09), and median follow-up time (LRH, 61 months; RRH, 50 months; p=0.085) did not differ significantly between the two groups. The recurrence rate was higher in the LRH group; however, there was no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.250). DFS (55.4 vs 48.2 months, p = 0.250), and OS (61.2 vs 50.0 months, p = 0.287) were similar between the LRH and RRH groups. Conclusion: In patients with a tumor size < 2 cm, the recurrence rate was lower in RRH group; however, there was no significant difference. Further large-scale RCTs and clinical studies are required to provide relevant data.

Effect of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery on postoperative wound infection in patients with cervical cancer: A meta-analysis.

The objective of this research is to evaluate the risk of postoperative infection and other risks associated with robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). Recent studies on RRH versus LRH have not been conclusive for cervical carcinoma. Our group attempted to use meta-analyses to evaluate the effects of both RRH and LRH on postoperative outcomes in order to make sure that the best operative method was used to prevent wound infections. We looked up Cochrane Library and published databases for this research and found 594 findings. Articles were screened by title and abstract and then carefully examined for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction was performed independently by two researchers. Comparison studies were used to describe the incidence of wound complications after surgery. The publication bias was assessed using Egger regression correlation analysis. There were six trials eligible for inclusion, of which 491 RRH and 807 LRH. Depending on surgery for cervical carcinoma, it is true that there is a difference in the way that surgery affects the postoperative complications. Our analysis demonstrated that the use of robotic operation can decrease the amount of blood loss during operation as compared with routine laparoscopy (MD, -77.69; 95% CI, -132.08, -23.30; p = 0.005). However, there were no statistical differences in the incidence of postoperative wound infections (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.25, 1.19; p = 0.13) and intraoperative operative time (MD, 13.01; 95% CI, -41.38, 67.41; p = 0.64) among the two procedures. There was no statistically significant difference between these two groups of patients with severe postoperative complications. Unlike other research, the findings of this meta-analysis are not consistent with the findings of the present study, which suggest that robotic operations cannot lower the rate of postoperative wound infections. However, because of the limitations and the retrospective character of the trials covered, these findings should be interpreted with care and more extensive research is required.

A multicenter noninferior randomized controlled study comparing the efficacy of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer (stage IA1 with LVSI, IA2): study protocol of the LAUNCH 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: A retrospective study and a randomized controlled trial published in a high quality journal in late 2018 have shown that laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (RH) was associated with worse survival than abdominal RH among patients with early stage cervical cancer. Radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer has been a classic landmark surgery in gynecology, therefore this conclusion is pivotal. The current trial is designed to reconfirm whether there is a difference between laparoscopic RH and abdominal RH in cervical cancer (stage IA1 with LVSI, IA2) patient survival under stringent operation standards and consistent tumor-free technique. This paper reports the rationale, design, and implementation of the trial. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint (PROBE) controlled trial. A total of 690 patients with stage IA1 (with intravascular), and IA2 cervical cancer will be enrolled over a period of three years. Patients are randomized (1:1) to either the laparoscopic RH or the abdominal RH group. Patients will then be followed-up for at least five years. The primary endpoint will be 5-year progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints will include 5-year overall survival rates, recurrence rates, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, surgery-related complications, and quality of life. DISCUSSION: The results of the trial will provide valuable evidence for guiding clinical decision of choosing appropriate treatment strategies for stage IA1 (LVSI) and stage IA2 cervical cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04934982 , Registered on 22 June 2021).

Surgical skill and oncological outcome of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: JGOG1081s-A1, an ancillary analysis of the Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group Study JGOG1081.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether surgical skill and procedure were related to oncological outcomes in cervical cancer patients who underwent Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy (LRH). METHODS: We previously assessed data of LRH from 251 patients with FIGO stage (2009) IA2, IB1and IIA1 cervical cancer collected for JGOG 1081s study. 1) The JGOG 1081s cohort study was re-examined to refine the surgical details and extend the follow-up period as chart review. 2) Unedited videos for recurrent cases and matched non-recurrent control cases were newly compared by experts for various surgical skills and surgical procedures using the modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) tool, without awareness of the recurrence status as video review. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 46 months, tumors had recurred in 31 of the 251 patients. The five-year Recurrence-Free Survival rate was 86.9% (81.8-90.6) and five-year Overall Survival rate was 93.7% (87.5-96.8). Multivariate analysis from chart reviews found that an experience with LRH of less than 20 cases per institution was an independent prognostic factor for recurrence (Hazard Ratio (HR) 2.49, 95%CI 1.12-5.53, p = 0.025). For the surgical video review, we compared 23 videos of recurrent cases with 23 background-matched non-recurrent controls. Lower modified OSATS scores from the video review were consistently trended to have a higher risk of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Our new study has found that LRH surgical experience and skill trended to have better oncological outcomes.

Radical Hysterectomy After the LACC Trial: Back to Radical Vaginal Surgery.

OPINION STATEMENT: Classical radical vaginal hysterectomy first performed by Anton Pawlik in Prague in 1888 and popularized by Frederic Schauta is now a historical technique virtually abandoned due to painful perineal incision, a high rate of urinary dysfunction, and the inability to perform lymph node assessment. However, the heritage of this approach has been still used and taught in a few centers outside their Austrian birthplace. A combined vaginal and laparoscopic approach was developed in the 1990s by French and German surgeons who designed diverse surgical techniques for which a novel classification is proposed. All these techniques are different from the so-called laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH), a term widely used for laparoscopic radical hysterectomies with vaginal extraction of the specimen. Interestingly, after the publication of the LACC trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer), the radical vaginal approach has found a very timely application. The creation of a vaginal cuff before performing radical laparoscopic hysterectomy described in 2007 by Leblanc as "Schautheim" operation can be used as a protective maneuver to avoid tumor spillage and potentially overturn the negative outcome of minimally invasive surgery in early-stage cervical cancer. As a result, the combination of radical vaginal and laparoscopic steps of surgery is one possible evolution after the LACC trial that needs further investigation. The forgotten vaginal surgical technique needs a specific learning curve. The creation of a vaginal cuff should be mastered by every gynecological oncologist.

Comparative single-center study between modified laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Since the release of the LACC trial results in 2018, the safety of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer has received huge attention and heated discussion. We developed modified laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (MLRH) incorporating a series of measures to prevent tumor spillage, which has been performed in our center since 2015. OBJECTIVE: Present study retrospectively analyzed relevant indicators of MLRH and evaluated disease-free survival (DFS) primarily in the treatment of early cervical cancer compared with open surgery. METHODS: Patients with 2014 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics clinical stages 1B1 and 2A1 cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy in the gynecological department of our hospital from October 2015 to June 2018 were enrolled retrospectively in this study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure: open radical hysterectomy (ORH) group (n = 336) and MLRH group (n = 302). Clinical characteristics, surgical indices, and survival prognosis were analyzed, including 2.5-year overall survival (OS) rate, 2.5-year DFS rate, recurrence rate, and recurrence pattern. RESULTS: Compared to the ORH group, the MLRH group exhibited a longer operative time, longer normal bladder function recovery time, less intraoperative blood loss volume, and more harvested pelvic lymph nodes (P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in postoperative complications, the 2.5-year OS, 2.5-year DFS, and recurrence rate between the two groups (P > 0.05); however, the recurrence pattern was significantly different (P < 0.05). The MLRH group mainly exhibited local single metastasis (7/11), whereas the ORH group mainly exhibited distant multiple metastases (14/16). Stratified analysis revealed that overall survival rate was higher in the MLRH group than in the ORH group in patients with stage 1B1 and middle invasion (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: MLRH does not show a survival disadvantage in the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer when compared with open surgery. In addition, MLRH shows a survival advantage in patients with stage 1B1 and middle 1/3 invasion. Considering this is a retrospective study, further prospective study is necessary for more sufficient data support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Present research is a retrospective study. The study had retrospectively registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/ ), and the registered number is ChiCTR1900026306.

Postsurgical urodynamic study of total laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for uterine cervical cancer.

AIM: To evaluate the impact on urodynamic results between the laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (LRH) following a step-by-step procedure and abdominal nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (ARH) for patients with uterine cervical cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 76 patients with cervical cancer: 35 in the LRH group and 41 in the ARH group. We analyzed their postoperative bladder function in a urodynamics study and examined the volume of resected pelvic nerves contained in parametrial sections using S-100 antibody staining. RESULTS: Estimated blood loss and hospital stay after operation for the LRH group were significantly better than those in the ARH group (p < 0.0001). As well, the number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher in the LRH group (p = 0.044). There was no difference in perioperative complications between the two groups in this study. The 5-year disease-free survival rates and overall survival rates were 91.2% and 94.0% in the LRH group and 87.8% and 95.1% in the ARH group, both respectively. Although the median residual urine volume were no statistical differences between the LRH group and the ARH group, the recovery of postoperative bladder function (uroflowmetry) in the LRH group rapidly reached presurgery levels at 1 month, and the LRH group had a smaller number of s-100 antibody stained nerves contained the parametrial sections. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that LRH following a step-by-step procedure could achieve a higher level of prevention of damage to the bladder branch of the pelvic splanchnic nerve plexus and thus restore bladder function more rapidly.

A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter.

PURPOSE: To explore the possible factors that contributed to the poor performance of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus abdominal surgery regarding progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in cervical cancer. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched (January 2000 to April 2021). Study selection was performed by two researchers to include studies reported oncological safety. Summary hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined using random-effect model. Subgroup analyses were stratified by characteristics of disease, publication, study design and treatment center. RESULTS: Sixty-one studies with 63,369 patients (MIS 26956 and ARH 36,049) were included. The overall-analysis revealed a higher risk of recurrence (HR 1.209; 95% CI 1.102-1.327) and death (HR 1.124; 95% CI 1.013-1.248) after MIS versus ARH expect in FIGO IB1 (FIGO 2009 staging) patients with tumor size less than 2 cm. However, subgroup analyses showed comparable PFS/DFS and OS in studies published before the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial, published in European journals, conducted in a single center, performed in centers in Europe and in centers with high sample volume or high MIS sample volume. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight possible factors that associated with inferior survival after MIS in cervical cancer including publication characteristics, center-geography and sample volume. Center associated factors were needed to be taken into consideration when evaluating complex surgical procedures like radical hysterectomy.

The long-term urinary dysfunction after type C2 radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer.

Radical hysterectomy (RH) may cause lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) for patients with cervical cancer. Few data are available on the long-term LUTS of these patients and whether the symptoms relate to the route of surgery remain unclear. Here, we assessed the long-term urinary dysfunction in cervical cancer patients after RH based on a self-reported questionnaire. A total of 168 patients after type C2 RH, either by laparoscopy (LRH) or laparotomy (ARH), were analysed. The median length of follow-up was 54 ± 8.35 months. The total incidence of urinary dysfunction was around 40%. Patients with LRH had more intermittent stream and feeling of incomplete emptying than those in ARH group. Our data indicate the irreversible damage of RH to urinary function of cervical cancer patients, who should be informed of the long-term and high incidence of urinary dysfunction after RH when they choose surgical treatment.Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? Radical hysterectomy (RH) with pelvic lymphadenectomy is standard surgical care for patients with cervical cancer. RH could induce urinary dysfunction, including bladder sensation loss, hypertonic and hypotonic bladder, urinary incontinence, etc. Studies mainly focus on short- or mid-term urinary dysfunction and stated that spontaneous recovery of urinary function is to be expected within 6-12 months after surgery.What the results of this study add? The lower urinary tract symptoms last for years after type C2 RH, indicating the irreversible damage of RH to urinary function of cervical cancer patients. The incidence of bladder dysfunction is increased in patients submitted to laparoscopic RH compared to abdominal RH.What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Cervical cancer patients should be informed of the long-term and high incidence of urinary dysfunction after RH when they choose surgical treatment.

Comparison of survival outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and abdominal surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for the treatment of stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer without preoperative adjuvant therapy. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, case-matching study. The differences in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between the LRH and ARH were compared under the conditions of real-world study and case-control matching (1:1 matching). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the outcomes of LRH (n = 580) and ARH (n = 1653) in 5-year OS and DFS (OS: 80.6% vs. 86.1%, p = 0.421; DFS: 78.6% vs. 80.7%, p = 0.376). After 1:1 matching, there was no difference in 5-year OS and DFS between LRH (n = 554) and ARH (n = 554) (OS: 80.4% vs. 84.5%, p = 0.993; DFS: 79.0% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.695). Before and after matching, the surgical approach was not an independent risk factor for 5-year OS and DFS, and postoperative adjuvant therapy affected patient prognosis. Further subgroup analysis suggested that there was no difference in LRH (n = 313) and ARH (n = 1092) in 5-year OS or DFS in patients who underwent standard postoperative adjuvant therapy (OS: 83.0% vs. 87.7%, p = 0.992; DFS: 79.0% vs. 82.5%, p = 0.323). After 1:1 pairing, the 5-year OS and DFS in LRH (n = 295) and ARH (n = 295) showed no difference. Before and after matching, the surgical approach was not an independent risk factor affecting the 5-year OS and DFS. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in patients with stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer without preoperative adjuvant therapy. CLINICAL TRIALS: The ethical approval number is NFEC-2017-135, and the clinical research registration number is CHiCTR1800017778 (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Port, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/).

Laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy without uterine manipulator for cervical cancer stage IB: description of the technique, our experience and results after the era of LACC trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate surgical data and oncological outcome of laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy without uterine manipulator for cervical cancer stage IB, over the last 8 years. METHODS: This retrospective study includes 32 patients with cervical cancer Figo stage (2009) IB who underwent laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy without using any kind of uterine manipulator. Patients were eligible if they had squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adeno-squamous carcinoma, and no para-aortic lymph node involvement by imaging or after frozen section. The median value and range were assessed for operative outcomes and relapse rate and disease-free survival rate were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: In the study, 32 patients were included and among them 27 women were stage IB1 (18 cases with tumor size 2-4 cm) and 5 women stage IB2 (Figo stage 2009). The median age of patients was 50.5 years (range 31-68) and median body mass index (B.M.I) was 25.3 kg/m2 (range 19-33.5 kg/m2). The average operating time was 228 min (range 147-310 min) and median hospital stay was 2.7 days (range 2-7 days). Approximate blood loss was 188 ml (range 120-300 ml). After a median follow-up of 37 months, we had 2 recurrences out of 32 cases and no death. Especially for patients with Figo stage (2009) IB1, the recurrence rate was 3.7% (1/27). The 3-year PFS was 93.7% and the number at risk 23 (71.8%) and especially for the IB1 stage (2009) women, the 3-year PFS was 96.1% and the number at risk 21 (77.7%). The 3-year OS was 100% with no. at risk 71.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy without uterine manipulator is feasible and safe surgical procedure for cervical cancer with acceptable surgical and oncological outcomes in the hands of well-trained and experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Our retrospective study reveals better oncological outcome compared to other studies on the minimally invasive approach, where uterine manipulator was routinely used and no vaginal sealing of the tumor was made.

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with enclosed colpotomy without the use of uterine manipulator for early-stage cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: We report the application of transuterine suspension sutures (TUSSs) for manipulation and vaginal closure before colpotomy in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. METHODOLOGY: Eight patients with clinical stage IB1 cervical squamous cell cancer were treated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy between October 2019 and May 2020. The procedure was performed without a traditional uterine manipulator, and the vaginal cuff was closed with a stapler before colpotomy to prevent tumour spillage. RESULTS: All patients successfully underwent the surgery, with a median hospitalisation of 8 days (range 6-14). All drains and urethral catheters were removed after a median of 7 days (range 5-11) and 16 days (range 12-21), respectively. A median of 26 (range 20-32) pelvic lymph nodes were resected and no lymph-related complications were encountered post-operatively. With an enclosed colpotomy, no visible tumour tissues were exposed to the pelvic cavity, and all vaginal stumps healed well without complications. All pathological examinations of the vaginal margin were negative, and there were no residual lesions. At a median follow-up of 6 months, all patients were alive with no recurrence of disease. CONCLUSION: We found that laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with TUSS and vaginal closure before colpotomy is a useful and effective procedure to prevent tumour spillage for the treatment of cervical cancer.

Comparison of urologic complications between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy: A nationwide study from the National Health Insurance.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the risks of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH). METHODS: Using the database of the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) and Health Insurance Review & Assessment (HIRA), we identified all Korean women who underwent radical hysterectomy between 2006 and 2018. Intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications were compared between the ARH and LRH groups. RESULTS: A total of 11,399 patients were identified to ARH and 8435 patients to LRH. Urologic complications occurred in 292 of 19,774 patients (1.48%) who underwent radical hysterectomy. LRH was associated with higher complication rates than ARH, although with a borderline significance (OR: 1.23; 90% CI: 1.02-1.51, p = 0.066). There was no difference in intraoperative urologic complications between the ARH and the LRH groups (OR: 1.1 95% CI: 0.86-1.43, p < 0.435). The incidence of postoperative urologic complications was significantly higher in the LRH group (OR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.18-3.47, p = 0.009). In terms of postoperative urologic complications, the risk of ureterovaginal fistula was not significant between the two groups (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 0.54-4.24, p = 0.403), whereas the risk of vesicovaginal fistula was significantly higher in the LRH group (OR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.09-4.58, p = 0.028). There were no significant differences in the overall and urinary tract-specific complications between ARH and LRH in groups under 40 years of age and during the second half (2013-2018), with 2012 as the boundary. CONCLUSION: Among specific urologic complications, the incidence of vesicovaginal fistula was significantly higher in the LRH group than in the ARH group.

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy has higher risk of perioperative urologic complication than abdominal radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis of 38 studies.

OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis was performed to assess risks of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH). METHODS: We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library for studies published up to December, 2018. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also performed. Two researchers independently performed data extraction. Inclusion criteria of studies were: (1) had information of perioperative complications, and (2) had at least ten patients per group. RESULTS: A total of 38 eligible clinical trials were collected. Intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications were reported by 34 studies and 35 studies, respectively. When all studies were pooled, odd ratios (OR) of LRH for the risk of intraoperative urologic complications compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) was 1.40 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.87]. The OR of LRH for postoperative complication risk compared to ARH was 1.35 [95% CI 1.01-1.80]. However, significant adverse effects of intraoperative urologic complications in LRH were not observed among articles published after 2012 (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.77-1.62) in cumulative meta-analysis or subgroup analysis. The incidence of bladder injury was statistically higher than that of ureter injury (p = 0.001). In subgroup analysis, obesity and laparoscopic type (laparoscopic assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy) were associated with intraoperative urologic complications. CONCLUSION: LRH is associated with significantly higher risk of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications than abdominal radical hysterectomy.

Laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤ 2 cm: a case-matched control study.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the survival outcomes of stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤ 2 cm who underwent laparoscopic or abdominal radical hysterectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumor size ≤ 2 cm who underwent laparoscopic or abdominal radical hysterectomy in China between 2004 and 2016. A real-world study (RWS) and 1:1 matching was used in the study. RESULTS: After 1:1 matching, laparoscopic (n = 926) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (n = 926) had similar 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates in stage IB1 cervical cancer with a tumor size ≤ 2 cm. Subsequently, in cervical squamous carcinoma with tumor size ≤ 2 cm, the laparoscopic and abdominal groups (724 cases, respectively) showed comparable 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates. Finally, in cervical adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma with tumor size ≤ 2 cm, the laparoscopic group (n = 174) had a similar 5-year overall survival rate but a lower disease-free survival rate compared to those of the abdominal group (disease-free survival: 89.9% vs. 98.0%, respectively, P = 0.006; hazard ratio (HR), 5.094; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.400-18.535; P = 0.013; n = 174). The RWS results were similar to the 1:1 matching results. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with squamous cell carcinoma in stage IB1 cervical cancer with tumor size ≤ 2 cm might be suitable for laparoscopic surgery, while patients with adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma with tumor size ≤ 2 cm are not candidates for laparoscopic surgery.

Robotic Radical Hysterectomy Is Not Superior to Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Perioperative Urologic Complications: A Meta-Analysis of 23 Studies.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the risks of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications after robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). DATA SOURCES: We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies published up to March 2019. Related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also checked. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Two researchers independently performed data extraction. We selected comparative studies that reported perioperative urologic complications. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Twenty-three eligible clinical trials were included in this analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratio for the risk of any urologic complication after RRH compared with LRH was .91 (95% confidence interval [CI], .64-1.28; p = .585). The odds ratios for intraoperative and postoperative complications after RRH versus LRH were .86 (95% CI, .48-1.55; p = .637) and .94 (95% CI, .64-1.38; p = .767), respectively. In a secondary analysis study quality, study location, and the publication year were not associated with intraoperative or postoperative urologic complications. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that RRH is not superior to LRH in terms of perioperative urologic complications.

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with transvaginal closure of vaginal cuff - a multicenter analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic/robotic radical hysterectomy has been historically considered oncologically equivalent to open radical hysterectomy for patients with early cervical cancer. However, a recent prospective randomized trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer, LACC) has demonstrated significant inferiority of the minimally invasive approach. The aim of this study is to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of combined laparoscopic-vaginal radical hysterectomy. METHODS: Between August 1994 and December 2018, patients with invasive cervical cancer were treated using minimally-invasive surgery at the Universities of Jena, Charité Berlin (Campus CCM and CBF) and Cologne and Asklepios Clinic Hamburg. 389 patients with inclusion criteria identical to the LACC trial were identified. In contrast to the laparoscopic/robotic technique used in the LACC trial, all patients in our cohort underwent a combined transvaginal-laparoscopic approach without the use of any uterine manipulator. RESULTS: A total of 1952 consecutive patients with cervical cancer were included in the analysis. Initial International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage was IA1 lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI+), IA2 and IB1/IIA1 in 32 (8%), 43 (11%), and 314 (81%) patients, respectively, and histology was squamous cell in 263 (68%), adenocarcinoma in 117 (30%), and adenosquamous in 9 (2%) patients. Lymphovascular invasion was confirmed in 106 (27%) patients. The median number of lymph nodes was 24 (range 2-86). Lymph nodes were tumor-free in 379 (97%) patients. Following radical hysterectomy, 71 (18%) patients underwent adjuvant chemoradiation or radiation. After a median follow-up of 99 (range 1-288) months, the 3-, 4.5-, and 10-year disease-free survival rates were 96.8%, 95.8%, and 93.1 %, and the 3-, 4.5-, and 10-year overall survival rates were 98.5%, 97.8%, and 95.8%, respectively. Recurrence location was loco-regional in 50% of cases with recurrence (n=10). Interestingly, 9/20 recurrences occurred more than 39 months after surgery. CONCLUSION: The combined laparoscopic-vaginal technique for radical hysterectomy with avoidance of spillage and manipulation of tumor cells provides excellent oncologic outcome for patients with early cervical cancer. Our retrospective data suggest that laparoscopic-vaginal surgery may be oncologically safe and should be validated in further randomized trials.

Laparoscopic Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy vs Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Efficacy and Bladder Dysfunction.

It is widely accepted that nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy is associated with less postoperative morbidity compared with radical hysterectomy, whereas clinical safety is similar in the 2 procedures. However, there is insufficient evidence to compare these procedures performed via a laparoscopic approach. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to compare the clinical efficacy and the rate of bladder dysfunction, including urodynamic assessment, in laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). Thirty articles including a total of 2743 participants were analyzed. Operating times were shorter (MD, 29.88 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.92-47.83 minutes) and hospital stays were longer (MD, -1.56 days; 95% CI, -2.27 to -0.84 days) in the LRH group compared with the LNSRH group. In addition, blood loss and the number of resected lymph nodes were not significantly different between the 2 groups. However, resected parametrium length (MD, -0.02 cm; 95% CI, -0.05 to -0.00 cm) and vaginal cuff width (MD, -0.06 cm; 95% CI, -0.09 to -0.04) were smaller in the LNSRH group. Furthermore, LNSRH tended to result in more satisfactory micturition (odds ratio, 2.90; 95% CI, 2.01-4.19), shorter catheterization time (MD, -7.20 days; 95% CI, -8.10 to -6.29 days), and shorter recovery to normal postvoid residual urine time (MD, -7.71 days; 95% CI, -8.92 to -6.50 days). Other bladder dysfunction symptoms, including urinary retention, nocturia, dysuria, urinary incontinence, and frequency/urgency were more frequent in the LRH group. Furthermore, LNSRH achieved better results in urodynamic assessments (all p < .05). In conclusion, LNSRH was associated with lower rates of impaired bladder function and a shorter extent of resection compared with LRH. Clinical applications involving LNSRH should be explored with caution.

Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy with Enclosed Colpotomy and without the Use of Uterine Manipulator for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.

It was reported recently that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with worse prognosis than the open abdominal counterpart for the management of early-stage cervical cancer. Uterine manipulator and intracorporeal open colpotomy may be the 2 main suspects responsible for the inferiority. We hypothesize that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with enclosed colpotomy and without the use of a uterine manipulator will improve survival. Thus, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with abdominal uterine manipulation and enclosed colpotomy was performed in women with early-stage cervical cancer. The round ligament, the ovary ligament, and the fallopian tube were sutured together for the abdominal manipulation of the uterus. Meanwhile, the upper vagina was ligated before colpotomy to avoid tumor spillage. There were no intraoperative and postoperative complications. The abdominal uterine manipulation and enclosed colpotomy technique, which are both safe and feasible in this study, provide a relatively tumor-free approach for minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. Further investigation of oncologic outcomes in larger prospective studies are needed to confirm our hypothesis.