Literature DB >> 15581978

Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy vs. radical abdominal hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a match controlled study.

K S Jackson1, N Das, R Naik, A D Lopes, K A Godfrey, M H Hatem, J M Monaghan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The technical feasibility of laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy has been well described, but its advantages over the open technique remain largely unproven. We reviewed and compared our experiences with both approaches.
METHODS: All patients undergoing laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) between 1996 and 2003 were identified and matched for age, FIGO stage, histological subtype and nodal metastases using a control group of women who underwent radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH) during the same time period.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven women were listed for LARVH, resulting in five conversions. Fifty cases were matched successfully using the criteria above. The majority of cases were FIGO stage 1B1. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) were present when the following were compared for LARVH vs. RAH: duration of surgery (median 180 vs. 120 min), blood loss (median 350 vs. 875 ml), hospital stay (median 5 days vs. 8 days) and duration of continuous bladder catheterisation (median 3 days vs. 7 days). There were no statistically significant differences with regard to nodal yield, completeness of surgical margins or perioperative complication rate. Four major complications (8%, three cystotomies and one enterotomy) occurred in the LARVH group and three in the RAH group (6%, one pulmonary embolism, one ureteric injury and one major haemorrhage). Three women in LARVH group had seen a specialist regarding postoperative bladder dysfunction, versus 12 in the RAH group (P = 0.04). No patients in the LARVH group reported constipation requiring regular laxatives, versus six in the RAH group (P = 0.03). Median follow-up was 52 months for LARVH and 49 months for RAH. There was no significant difference between recurrence rates or overall survival (94% for LARVH vs. 96% for RAH).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the inherent limitations of LARVH and its associated learning curve, the procedure conveys many advantages over the open technique in terms of blood loss, transfusion requirement and hospital stay. In addition, the incidence of postoperative bladder and bowel dysfunction appears low-suggesting improved quality of life-without compromising survival.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15581978     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.07.055

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  17 in total

1.  Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy has higher risk of perioperative urologic complication than abdominal radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis of 38 studies.

Authors:  Jong Ha Hwang; Bo Wook Kim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-01-17       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Current and Future Status of Laparoscopy in Gynecologic Oncology.

Authors:  S Rimbach; K Neis; E Solomayer; U Ulrich; D Wallwiener
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.915

3.  Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy for radical hysterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes.

Authors:  Benny Brandt; Vasileios Sioulas; Derman Basaran; Theresa Kuhn; Katherine LaVigne; Ginger J Gardner; Yukio Sonoda; Dennis S Chi; Kara C Long Roche; Jennifer J Mueller; Elizabeth L Jewell; Vance A Broach; Oliver Zivanovic; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Mario M Leitao
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 4.  Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: the Right Surgical Approach.

Authors:  Benny Brandt; Gabriel Levin; Mario M Leitao
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2022-02-15

Review 5.  Radical Hysterectomy After the LACC Trial: Back to Radical Vaginal Surgery.

Authors:  Denis Querleu; Delphine Hudry; Fabrice Narducci; Agnieszka Rychlik
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2022-02-23

6.  Robotic-assisted paraesophageal hernia repair--a case-control study.

Authors:  Tobias Gehrig; A Mehrabi; L Fischer; H Kenngott; U Hinz; C N Gutt; Beat P Müller-Stich
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2012-07-31       Impact factor: 3.445

7.  Comparative evaluation of surgical stress of laparoscopically assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy and laparotomy for early-stage cervical cancer.

Authors:  Cai-Ying Hou; Xiu-Li Li; Feng Jiang; Rong Jie Gong; Xin Yu Guo; Yuan-Qing Yao
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2011-05-13       Impact factor: 2.967

8.  Robotic radical hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer.

Authors:  Farr R Nezhat; M Shoma Datta; Connie Liu; Linus Chuang; Konstantin Zakashansky
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2008 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

Review 9.  Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of early cervical cancer.

Authors:  Ali Kucukmetin; Ioannis Biliatis; Raj Naik; Andrew Bryant
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-10-01

10.  Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Ji-Chan Nie; An-Qi Yan; Xi-Shi Liu
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 3.437

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.