OBJECTIVE: To compare transperitoneal, extraperitoneal and laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy in terms of feasibility and morbidity in patients affected by cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy. METHODS:Consecutive patients affected by stage IB-IIB cervical carcinoma scheduled for radical surgery entered the study. Patients were randomly assigned to transperitoneal (TPL), extraperitoneal (EPL) or laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy (LPL). All patients underwent classical radical hysterectomy. Perioperative data were recorded. Follow up examinations were performed at the 15th, 30th and 60th day after surgery. RESULTS:168 patients entered the study. The mean operative times were: 63+/-7.6, 54+/-6.7 and 75+/-8.4 min (TPL vs EPL P<0.001; EPL vs LPL P<0.001; TPL vs LPL P<0.001) for TPL, EPL and LPL respectively. The feasibility of the procedures, analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, was 96%, 93% and 95% for TPL, EPL and LPL group respectively (P=ns). The average hospitalizations were: 5.6+/-0.9, 3.2+/-0.4 and 3.1+/-0.3 days (TPL vs EPL P<0.001; TPL vs LPL P<0.001) for TPL, EPL and LPL respectively. CONCLUSIONS:EPL and LPL are as feasible and effective as TPL and can be adequately performed with a reasonable complication rate. LPL showed a statistically significant longer operative time. However, both EPL and LPL can minimize some postoperative complications reducing length of stay.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare transperitoneal, extraperitoneal and laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy in terms of feasibility and morbidity in patients affected by cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy. METHODS: Consecutive patients affected by stage IB-IIB cervical carcinoma scheduled for radical surgery entered the study. Patients were randomly assigned to transperitoneal (TPL), extraperitoneal (EPL) or laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy (LPL). All patients underwent classical radical hysterectomy. Perioperative data were recorded. Follow up examinations were performed at the 15th, 30th and 60th day after surgery. RESULTS: 168 patients entered the study. The mean operative times were: 63+/-7.6, 54+/-6.7 and 75+/-8.4 min (TPL vs EPL P<0.001; EPL vs LPL P<0.001; TPL vs LPL P<0.001) for TPL, EPL and LPL respectively. The feasibility of the procedures, analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, was 96%, 93% and 95% for TPL, EPL and LPL group respectively (P=ns). The average hospitalizations were: 5.6+/-0.9, 3.2+/-0.4 and 3.1+/-0.3 days (TPL vs EPL P<0.001; TPL vs LPL P<0.001) for TPL, EPL and LPL respectively. CONCLUSIONS: EPL and LPL are as feasible and effective as TPL and can be adequately performed with a reasonable complication rate. LPL showed a statistically significant longer operative time. However, both EPL and LPL can minimize some postoperative complications reducing length of stay.
Authors: Christoph Grimm; Stephan Polterauer; Samir Helmy; David Cibula; Michal Zikan; Alexander Reinthaller; Clemens Tempfer Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 4.430