Laparoscopic procedure compared with open radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer: a retrospective study

Guo, Jianfeng; Ling, Yang; Cai, Jing; Xu, Leqin; Min, Jie; Shen, Yi; Xiong, Zhoufang; Wu, Dong; Bunyamanop, Vichitra; Wang, Zehua

doi:10.2147/ott.s156064

Cited by 38 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After reviewing the full text of the remaining 77 articles, we included 36 articles in the final analysis (41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46). Forty studies were excluded from the final review ; they had no available survival outcome data (N = 19).…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Survival Outcomes after Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Cervical Cancer

Hwang

Kim

2021

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Study design Matched 10 (5,11,13,15,16,19,28,30,41,43) 1.49 (1.19-1.88) 0.001 27.5 Fixed effect Retrospective 26 (6-10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20-27, 29, 31-34, 42, 44-46) 1. (12,13,19,23,24,(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46) 1. Small (at least one arm < 90) 18 (5-11, 14-18, 20-22, 25, 26, 41) 0.90 (0.67-1.20)…”

Section: Fixed Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Survival Outcomes after Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Cervical Cancer

Hwang

Kim

2021

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Typically, total abdominal hysterectomy surgery has been managed through laparotomy and laparoscopy. 17,19 Based on our research, a newer more appealing procedure, SILS has been proposed as a safer alternative. 5,20 SILS uses a single incision site and is associated with less scarring and shortened post-operative hospitalization.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5,20 SILS uses a single incision site and is associated with less scarring and shortened post-operative hospitalization. 15,19,21 More studies are necessary to evaluate the short and long-term advantages for management of cervical cancer using SILS. 4,6,17…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer, a case report and review of literature

Rezai¹,

Zeng²,

Hughes³

et al. 2018

OGIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Cervical carcinoma (CIN) is typically detected through pathological tissue changes at the squamous-columnar epithelial transition zone. As the disease advances, it may extend into the uterine cavity, vaginal canal and pelvis. Cancer screen is routinely done via Papanicolaou smear test. In a majority of cases where pre-cancerous lesions (CIN Stages I, II, and III) are detected by cytology, associated signs and symptoms are absent. Usually, once symptoms present, the disease has spread extensively. 2−4 Risk factors for cervical cancer include tobacco use, immunocompromised status, family history of cervical cancer, sexual contact without barrier protection, low social economic status and multiple full-term pregnancies. Additionally, a known causative agent for cervical cancer is human papillomavirus (HPV). In order to avoid contributory effects from such risk factors and causative agents, clinicians recommend regular cervical cytologic screening, completing the HPV immunization series, routine condom use, and smoking cessation. 3−6 Treatment and diagnosing modalities used in current practice for cervical carcinoma include cone biopsy, loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP), laser and cold knife conization and simple hysterectomy. If the cervical malignancy r is found to be in an advanced stage, it may be necessary to perform a radical hysterectomy via laparotomy or laparoscopy with concomitant localized radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy for widespread disease. 1,5,7 Traditionally, cervical cancer was managed by the previously mentioned techniques; with advancements the Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery (SILS) has a high efficacy rate with a minimally invasive approach. 1,8,9 Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery (SILS) is one of latest innovations in minimally invasive surgery and has several potential

show abstract

“…Second, the reported tumor characteristics varied between studies, preventing independent comparisons of tumor size, histology, FIGO stage, and adjuvant treatment between the two groups. For example, some studies didn't state whether FIGO stage IA1 without LVSI is included (35,36,38,39,45). Most studies were not intended to analyze the impact of different type of radical hysterectomy on overall survival.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival After Minimally Invasive vs. Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Wang

Ren

et al. 2020

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for cervical cancer patients remains controversial. We evaluated the survival outcomes of cervical cancer patients who underwent different surgical approaches. Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to February 2020, using the MESH terms "minimally invasive surgical procedures" and "Uterine Cervical Neoplasms." Included were all original comparative studies and trials both published and unpublished in English that were related to minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for cervical cancer patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage < IIB. Begg's and Egger's regressions were used to evaluate publication bias. Results: This meta-analysis included 28 studies enrolling 18,961 patients with cervical cancer. The overall analyses indicated that cervical cancer patients with FIGO 2009 stage < IIB who underwent minimally invasive surgery had a lower rate of OS (HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.06-1.92, P = 0.019) and DFS (HR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.21-1.85, P < 0.001) than those who underwent open surgery. Moreover, minimally invasive surgery could lower OS (HR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.50-3.52, P < 0.001) and DFS (HR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.36-2.76, P < 0.001) of cervical cancer patients with FIGO 2009 stage ≤ IB1 compared to open surgery. However, there were no significant differences in OS (HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.65-1.76, P = 0.801) and DFS (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.65-2.19, P = 0.559) in patients with tumors < 2 cm between the two groups. Conclusions: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with poor survival outcomes compared to open surgery. Patients with FIGO 2009 stage ≤ IB1 cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery have lower OS and DFS rates than those who underwent open surgery. Therefore, open surgery should be performed for cervical cancer patients. However, patients with tumors < 2 cm might take the most advantage of minimally invasive surgery without increasing poor prognosis. There are some limitations in the meta-analysis, which needs further high-quality multicenter studies to confirm and update our findings.

show abstract

Laparoscopic procedure compared with open radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer: a retrospective study

Cited by 38 publications

References 25 publications

Comparison of Survival Outcomes after Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Cervical Cancer

Comparison of Survival Outcomes after Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Cervical Cancer

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer, a case report and review of literature

Survival After Minimally Invasive vs. Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About