Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study

Nam, JH; Park, J.-Y.; Kim, D.-Y.; Kim, J.-H.; Kim, Y.-M.

doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr360

Cited by 235 publications

(198 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

168

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Meta-analysis of these local and overall recurrence rate data didn't show significant differences after NSRH and RH procedures. Several evidence like the reviewer mentioned above did suggest that these two surgical techniques might have similar long term outcomes [33,[38][39][40][41]. So we included studies using laparotomy-based or laparoscopy-based approaches in this study and analyzed the outcomes of NSRH and RH without differentiating their specific approaches.…”

Section: Main Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy and Radical Hysterectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Xue¹,

Zhu²,

Teng³

2016

Cell Physiol Biochem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: Radical hysterectomy (RH) for the treatment of cervical cancer frequently caused pelvic organ dysfunctions. This study aimed to compare the results of pelvic organ function and recurrence rate after Nerve sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) and RH treatment through systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science and China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database were searched from inception to 25 February 2015. Studies of cervical cancer which reported radical hysterectomy or nerve sparing radical hysterectomy were included. The quality of included studies was evaluated using the guidelines of Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software (Cochrane Collaboration). Results: A total of 20 studies were finally included. Meta-analysis demonstrated that NSRH was associated with less bladder and anorectal dysfunction than RH. The time to bladder and anorectal function recovery after NSRH was shorter than RH. Patients undergoing NSRH also scored higher than patients undergoing RH at Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). On the other hand, the local recurrence and overall recurrence rate were similar between NSRH and RH. Conclusion: NSRH may be an effective technique for lowering pelvic organ dysfunction and improving the function recovery without increasing the recurrence rate of cervical cancer.

show abstract

Section: Main Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy and Radical Hysterectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Xue¹,

Zhu²,

Teng³

2016

Cell Physiol Biochem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies have also reported the ureter injury rate (1.9%Y2.3%). 6,15 Despite previous surgical experience and a learning curve effect for LRH, such high rates of ureter injury may be because our study included patients with a large tumor diameter of 3 cm or greater, whereas most other studies included FIGO stage IA1 to IB1 patients. However, all of the patients experiencing ureter injury completely recovered within 3 months after surgery via ureteric stent insertion or transureteroscopy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Surgical and Pathological Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy With Pelvic Lymphadenectomy and/or Para-aortic Lymph Node Sampling for Bulky Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Zhu¹,

Chen²,

Zhu³

et al. 2017

Int J Gynecol Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 2 summarizes the findings of various studies comparing the laparoscopic approach versus the conventional open access [25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. Other studies have concluded that the laparoscopic, or laparoscopic-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy results in less overall morbidity, less blood loss, fewer transfusions, a shorter hospitalization (by 3 days), a longer surgical time, and equal recurrence rates as compared to the classical open management [32,33,34,35,36].…”

Section: Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgical Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical Treatment of Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Brucker

Ulrich

2016

Oncol Res Treat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surgical treatment of cervical cancer has been a cornerstone in the management of this malignancy for more than 100 years. Today, for early-stage and low-risk cervical cancer, surgery is still considered the gold standard. If the preoperative assessment of the tumor reveals a situation prompting postoperative adjuvant radiochemotherapy, the latter should be planned as the primary treatment option, being preceded by staging laparoscopy including pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection. As an alternative to the open approach, the definitive surgical treatment should be either performed laparoscopically, or be laparoscopic-assisted, or laparoscopically robotic-assisted.

show abstract

Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study

Cited by 235 publications

References 23 publications

Comparison of Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy and Radical Hysterectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison of Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy and Radical Hysterectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Surgical and Pathological Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy With Pelvic Lymphadenectomy and/or Para-aortic Lymph Node Sampling for Bulky Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Surgical Treatment of Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About