Early experience of laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (Coelio-Schauta) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) vs. abdominal radical hysterectomy (RH) for early-stage cervical cancer. This is a retrospective study of all LARVH and RH procedures between January 2003 and June 2006 in our tertiary referral centre. Demographic, intraoperative and postoperative parameters in both groups were compared. Fourteen women (stage IA2-IB) underwent LARVH, and 12 women (stage IA2 to IB) had RH. All had clear excision margins. None of the laparoscopic procedures were converted into laparotomy. There have not been any recurrences in either group during the follow-up period. We conclude that LARVH and RH are equally efficacious surgical methods. The LARVH group had shorter hospital stay, reduced blood loss, shorter bladder recovery time, less postoperative complications but higher intraoperative injury rate in comparison to RH. This may reflect the learning curve of this new procedure.

Effect of minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy on wound infection and postoperative and intraoperative complications in the management of cervical cancer: A meta‐analysis

“…A total of 1765 relevant studies were screened, of which 41 studies between 2002 and 2021, met the inclusion criteria and were involved in the meta‐analysis. 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 Data obtained from these studies were shown in Table 2 . The selected studies included 10 231 subjects with cervical cancer at the baseline of the studies; 4307 of them were using minimally invasive surgery, and 5924 were using laparotomy.…”

“…The current meta‐analysis involved 10 231 subjects with cervical cancer at the baseline of the studies; 4307 of them were using minimally invasive surgery, and 5924 were using laparotomy. 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 The minimally invasive surgery had significantly lower wound infection, and postoperative complications in subjects with cervical cancer compared with laparotomy. However, minimally invasive surgery compared with laparotomy in subjects with cervical cancer had no significant difference in intraoperative complications.…”

Laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy-a randomised phase II trial: perioperative outcomes and surgicopathological measurements

“…Our case–control study compared 14 women undergoing LARVH with 12 women undergoing RAH and suggested greater postoperative urinary tract dysfunction following RAH than after LARVH, with shorter hospital stay after LARVH (4.4 days [LARVH] versus 7.9 days [RAH]) 2 . Intraoperative injuries were higher in the LARVH group early in the learning curve but this is not reflected in our larger series (manuscript in preparation).…”

Robot assisted surgery in gynaecologic oncology – starting a program and initial learning curve from a UK tertiary referral centre: the Guildford perspective

“…In the GOG LAP 2 study, comparing laparoscopy vs laparotomy in the surgical staging of corpus cancer, women with BMI > 35 were initially excluded from the study and BMI was subsequently identified as a major risk factor for conversion to laparotomy with a conversion rate of 34.7% for institutions recruiting more than 300 women with a mean BMI of 31.9 . In the pre‐robotic era at our centre, women with cervix and endometrial cancers were offered laparoscopic surgery provided they had adequate vaginal access . However, by default, morbidly obese women were offered open surgery.…”