From January 1982 to December 1991 271 patients underwent radical hysterectomy according to the Okabayashi modification for cervical carcinoma stage IB and IIA. Intraoperative complications occurred in 3.3%. The urinary fistula rate was only 2.2%. The 5‐year Disease‐free Interval (DFI) was 90%. In a univariate analysis tumor size 3 cm (n = 99), positive pelvic nodes (n = 53), adenocarcinoma (n = 58) and parametrial involvement (n = 36) were all associated with a significantly decreased DFI. Recurrence occurred in 27 patients (10%) of whom 22 died of disease. In adenocarcinoma, DFI was poor when positive pelvic nodes were present. In squamous cell carcinoma however, DFI was not influenced by pelvic node status. In patients with squamous cell carcinoma the locoregional recurrence rate was 3.4% when pelvic nodes were negative, whereas in those with positive nodes it was 5.8%. These data show that the Okabayashi modification of Wertheim’s radical hysterectomy is a safe procedure resulting in very good locoregional tumor control, especially in patients with squamous cell cancer of the cervix.

No abstract

If from the imperfect evidence of foreign law produced before it, or its misapprehension of the effect of that evidence, a mistake is made by an English court, it is much to be lamented, but the tribunal is free from blame.1 The mistake to be lamented presently is the High Court decision in Yukos Capital Sarl v OJSC Rosneft Oil Co2 that a Dutch judgment3 gave rise to an issue estoppel in English proceedings, precluding a party from disputing as a fact the partiality and dependence of the Russian judiciary.4 The decision was a mistake because on a proper construction of Dutch law the significance of the Dutch judgment was—if anything—evidential, not preclusive.5 The outcome is lamentable, because a party was unduly shut out from litigation by the application of English preclusion law to a foreign judgment that was not preclusive in the jurisdiction where it was originally given.6