Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer: Laparoscopy Versus Laparotomy

Taylor, S.E.; McBee, William C.; Richard, Scott D.; Edwards, Robert P.

doi:10.4293/108680811x13022985132218

Cited by 36 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results with other authors are compared in Table 1. 18,[22][23][24] The only surgery-related complications were 4 bladder lesions (11.8 %), which is, according to the literature, within the expected limits (3.3 %-28 %).12,25 All of them occurred in the first year after the introduction of the new procedure. In the following year we had no bladder A shorter period of time in post operative care and no wound infection were expected considering our previous experiences in laparoscopic procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…It is necessary for any new method to evaluate its feasibility and applicability, peri-operative and post-operative complications, survival and risk of recurrence. Many surgical centres have already evaluated their results for the same reason.10-14, [16][17][18][19][20][21] Although a learning curve is expected with new procedures, our mean procedure time was 174 minutes and mean blood loss was 250 mL. There were no injuries to the gastrointestinal organs or ureters.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Laparoscopy is so popular mainly because of a decrease in operative blood loss, shorter procedure time, better outcome, shorter postoperative hospital stay, faster recovery time and lower occurrence of wound infection. 18 The LRH is a relatively new surgical technique used in our department. The standard procedure till 2013 was radical hysterectomy sec.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Laparoskopska radikalna histerektomija z limfadenektomijo: naše izkušnje

Meglič¹

2016

SlovMedJour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe second most common cancer in women up to 65 years of age is cervical cancer. Same cancer is the leading cause of death from gynaecological deseases worldwide.The standard procedure for cervical cancer treatment with FIGO stage including IB2 is radical hysterectomy sec. Wertheim-Meigs-Novak with or without adnexa with radical pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy. In the last two decades has with the development of laparoscopy also developed laparoscopic radical hysterectomy .Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes dissection was performed for the first time by Nezhat with coworkers in 1989.Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic and/or paraaortic lymphnode dissection in treatement of cervical cancer including FIGO stage IB1 is performed at Dep Ob/Gyn UKC Ljubljana since 2013. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the morbidity and safety of the procedure. MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with cervical cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical histerectomy with pelvic and/or paraaortic lymphadenectomy from April 2013 to May 2016. Results34 patient were included, 32 patients with CC FIGO stage IB1, 1 patient with CC FIGO stage IB2, 1 patient with CC FIGO stage IIB.There were four (11,8%) bladder lesions, all of them were corrected during the surgery, but no ureteral lesion! There was one (2,9%) surgical revision right after the surgery due to assumption of bleeding (though there was no active bleeding found).Three patients (8,8%) had permanent urinary dysfunction – retention. One patient (2,9%) had dehiscence of vaginal vault after 4 months (after sexual intercourse)There was no ureterovaginal/vesicovaginl fistula after surgery! The mean operating time was 2 hours 55 min, mean admission time after surgery was 8,7 days, mean blood loss during operation was 291 ml. ConclusionsLaparoscopic radical hysterectomy is the method of choice in cervical tumors including FIGO stage IB1.Percentage of bladder lesions is part of learning curve.Our goal in future is to decrease the percentage of bladder lesions and to decrease the percentage of patients suffering from bladder dysfunction by using „nerve sparing“ technic.We expect, the same results for 5 year survival rate as with patients treated with classical radical hysterectomy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Laparoskopska radikalna histerektomija z limfadenektomijo: naše izkušnje

Meglič¹

2016

SlovMedJour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Postoperative complications, represented mostly wound infections were recorded only in the group that received radical abdominal hysterectomy. The hospital stay was less in laparoscopic interventions (mean=2.9 days) compared with the second procedure (mean=5.5 days) [5].…”

Section: Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Open Surgery In Uterine Cervicalmentioning

confidence: 92%

Minimally Invasive Surgery: A New Approach for Uterine Cervical Cancer

Gavrilescu¹,

Todosi²,

Ioanid³

et al. 2015

Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIn the early 1990s, the laparoscopic approach in uterine cervical cancer has started to become quite popular among oncologist surgeons in order to minimize postoperative morbidity. When a new surgical technique is taken into consideration or suggested, it is compared with the standard therapy hitherto. Important issues to be taken into account include the feasibility and applicability of the new technique, intraoperative and postoperative complications and in oncological cases, survival and risk of recurrence.Gold standard for uterine cervical cancer in the early stages was abdominal radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for more than 100 years. This technique, described for the first time Wertheim, Meigs subsequently underwent some changes. The first laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed and published in 1989 [1], but the first laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy in a patient with cervical cancer stage IA2 was performed by Nezha et al. in June 1989 and reported in 1992 [2]. Since then, it has been reported in the literature over 1000 cases [3]. Laparoscopic Surgery versus Open Surgery in Uterine Cervical CancerInitially used for diagnostic, laparoscopy has become a method of treatment in the field of gynecological surgery, but also in many other field. The results of laparoscopic surgery are now comparable with those obtained by laparotomy in benign and malignant pathologies. The most important advantages of the laparoscopic technique include more pleasing cosmetic appearance, or minimum parietal infectious complications, low incidence of adhesion formation, low cost associated with hospitalization and recovery period smaller resumption of daily activities in a shorter period [4]. In a study comparing the two surgical techniques, the results show an average of operating time with significant differences statistically 231.7 minutes for cases treated laparoscopically and 207 minutes to classical surgery, which can be explained by the fact that laparoscopic hysterectomies implemented quite recently requires a learning curve. The surgeons will become more familiar with laparoscopic procedure; the operative time is expected to become shorter. Intraoperative blood loss was lower in the laparoscopy (161.1 ml) compared with the traditional method (394.4 ml), with blood transfusions in 3 patients. Postoperative complications, represented mostly wound infections were recorded only in the group that received radical abdominal hysterectomy. The hospital stay was less in laparoscopic interventions (mean=2.9 days) compared with the second procedure (mean=5. A randomized, multicenter study including 116 patients demonstrated that laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy can be performed in a similar operating time classic surgery with intraoperative blood loss less and a relatively shorter period of hospitalization (p<0.01). Postoperative pain, another important parameter discussed, is lower for the first 3 days of laparoscopy versus open surgery (p<0.5) [7]....

show abstract

“…Результаты, полученные P. Morice с соавт., показали, что у больных РШМ могут встречаться изолированные метастазы в парааорталь-ных лимфатических узлах при отсутствии метастазов в группах наружных, общих и обтураторных тазовых коллекторов [39]. Поэтому важным преимуществом лапароскопии является возможность дать точную оценку распространенности болезни при минималь-ных рисках развития послеоперационного спаечного процесса в сравнении с лапаротомией [40,41]. Все ска-занное показывает незаконченность дискуссии по проблеме диагностической тазовой лимфаденэкто-мии и актуальность изучения ее роли у больных РШМ.…”

Section: обзорные статьиunclassified