Survival outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for early-staged cervical cancer: A retrospective study from a single surgeon in a single center

Li, Jinjin; Ouyang, Xiping; Gong, Xue; Li, Pujun; Xiao, Lin; Chang, Xiaoxia; Tang, Junying

doi:10.1016/j.asjsur.2021.05.037

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They tightened the vagina with cable ties to prevent tumor expulsion. [ 19 ] As already mentioned, Kohler et al reports that the 3-year OS and DFS following combined laparoscopic-vaginal RH are 98.5% and 96.8%, respectively. In a previous study, we showed no significant difference in oncologic outcome between LARVH and TARH in cervical cancer 1A2-1B2 women.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of survival outcome of open, total laparoscopic, and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy for stage IB2 cervical cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study

Yoon,

Kwon,

Rho

et al. 2024

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare survival outcomes of 3 different radical hysterectomy (RH) types, namely total abdominal radical hysterectomy (TARH), total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH), and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH), in patients with FIGO stage IB2 cervical cancer. We retrospectively identified a cohort of patients who underwent RH for cervical cancer between 2010 and 2017. Patients with stage IB2 cervical cancer were included and were classified into TARH, TLRH, and LARVH treatment groups. Survival outcomes were estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to estimate the independent association of RH technique with outcome. 194 patients were included in this study: 79 patients in the TARH group, 55 in the TLRH group, and 60 in the LARVH group. No significant differences were found in clinicopathological characteristics between the 3 RH groups. On comparing survival outcomes with TARH, both TLRH and LARVH showed no significant difference in terms of 5-year overall survival (TARH vs TLRH, P = .121 and TARH vs LARVH, P = .436). Conversely, compared to the TARH group, 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly worse in the TLRH group (P = .034) but not in the LARVH group (P = .288). Multivariate analysis showed that TLRH surgical approach (hazard ratio, 3.232; 95% confidence interval, 1.238–8.438; P = .017) was an independent prognostic factor for PFS in patients with IB2 cervical cancer. Our study suggests that in patients with FIGO stage IB2 cervical cancer, among the minimally invasive RH approaches, TLRH and LARVH, only TLRH approach was associated with worse PFS when compared with the TARH approach.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of survival outcome of open, total laparoscopic, and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy for stage IB2 cervical cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study

Yoon,

Kwon,

Rho

et al. 2024

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kwon et al [26], vice versa, reported the largest comparative study, with the arm of LARVH composed of 252 patients, which presented a 5 years DFS and OS of 86.6% and 88% during a mean of 82 months FUP. Li et al [16] is the latest article published, with 137 patients and 53 months of FUP, showing a 5 years DFS of 96.4% and 5 years OS of 96.8%. Marchiole et al [17] focused on difference between LARVH and Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Radical Trachelectomy.…”

Section: Oncological Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Except for Li [16], Park [17] and Kwon [26], all the other studies avoided the use of uterine manipulators. Moreover, Kanno [14], and Fugesi [24] explixity declared that they systematically removed surgical specimens into a collection bag.…”

Section: Surgical Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

Laparo-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy as a safe option for minimal invasive surgery in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ronsini

Köhler

Franciscis

et al. 2022

Gynecologic Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Application of Da Vinci robotic surgery system in cervical cancer: A single institution experience of 557 cases

Gong

et al. 2022

Asian Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Survival outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for early-staged cervical cancer: A retrospective study from a single surgeon in a single center

Cited by 5 publications

References 15 publications

Comparison of survival outcome of open, total laparoscopic, and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy for stage IB2 cervical cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study

Comparison of survival outcome of open, total laparoscopic, and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy for stage IB2 cervical cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study

Laparo-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy as a safe option for minimal invasive surgery in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Application of Da Vinci robotic surgery system in cervical cancer: A single institution experience of 557 cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About