Comparison between robot-assisted radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A multicentre retrospective study

Long-term oncological outcomes and recurrence patterns in early-stage cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy: The Norwegian Radium Hospital experience

“…Our overall findings are in line with those of the LACC trial [15], indicating that MIRH is associated with higher rates of recurrence and death than ARH. Several other studies have reported the same results [9][10][11][12][13][14], including a recent meta-analysis of 15 studies [22]. In contrast, a Danish study [23], a Swedish study [24] and a study by Brandt et al [17] found no significant difference in oncological outcomes between the ARH and MIRH groups.…”

“…The lower recurrence rate in these three studies may be the results of the shorter follow-up times and high frequencies of postoperative radiotherapy. Notably, the Danish [23] and Swedish studies [24] did not cover training periods for robotic surgery, which were included in our study and in many other studies [9][10][11][12][13][14]22]. It is also noteworthy that the LACC trial reported that there were no differences in quality of life [25] and the incidence of adverse events [26] between the ARH and MIRH groups supporting that the MIRH approach should not be used in patients where this approach confers an increased risk of recurrence.…”

“…Since the first laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was reported in 1992 [4] and the first robot-assisted radical hysterectomy was reported in 2006 [5], several retrospective studies have reported that both robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) are associated with reduced operative morbidity, shorter hospital length of stay and similar oncological outcomes compared to ARH in patients with early-stage CC [6][7][8]. However, more recent retrospective studies have shown inferior oncological outcomes with the MIRH approach [9][10][11][12][13][14]. The results from the first prospective, randomized clinical trial of stage IA1-IB1 CC were published in 2018.…”

“…There is still conflicting evidence regarding whether the MIRH approach in patients with tumors ≤2 cm is associated with worse oncological outcomes than ARH [9][10][11][12][13][14]17]. Moreover, conization before radical hysterectomy has been reported to be associated with a lower risk of recurrence with either surgical approach [10,18].…”

Hazard Ratio Analysis of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for IA1 With LVSI-IIA2 Cervical Cancer: Identifying the Possible Contraindications of Laparoscopic Surgery for Cervical Cancer

“…Clinical data were collected from patient files and the medical record management system in the hospitals by trained gynecological oncology staff using standardized data collection and quality control procedures. The details of the data sources and methods were the same as previously reported ( 22 , 23 ). For patients undergoing surgical treatment, the collected data, including the demographic details, preoperative examination results, surgical information, pathological results, preoperative, and postoperative adjuvant treatment details, complications, hospitalization time, and expenses, and follow-up, contained almost all the information during the treatment of cervical cancer.…”