Literature DB >> 17009993

Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (Coelio-Schauta): A comparison with open Wertheim/Meigs hysterectomy.

R Sharma1, J Bailey, R Anderson, J Murdoch.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the safety, efficacy, and short-term benefits of the Coelio-Schauta procedure with open Wertheim/Meigs radical abdominal hysterectomy. We retrospectively analyzed records of our first 35 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) for early cervical cancer and 32 consecutive patients of open radical hysterectomy (ORH) performed between 1999 and 2005 in our institution. We analyzed patient age, bodyweight, previous abdominal surgery, operating time, blood loss, perioperative complications, postoperative bladder dysfunction, other postoperative complications, and histologic type. The FIGO stage, excision margins, node count and node status, follow-up, and recurrence rates were also taken into account. We excluded stage IA and stage II disease patients to reduce the impact of tumor size on the outcome of the surgery. This left 27 patients with stage IIB disease who had LARVH and 28 patients with stage IB disease who had ORH. These patients formed the study group. The cohorts were similar in age, bodyweight, previous abdominal surgery, histologic subtype, FIGO stage, resection margins, node count and node status, length of follow-up, and recurrence. There were statistically significant differences between LARVH and ORH for duration of surgery (mean 160 vs 132 min), intraoperative blood loss (479 vs 715 mL), hospital stay (mean 5 vs 9.3 days), postoperative complications (6 vs 20 patients), and duration of bladder catheterization (mean 4.4 vs 8.8 days). Four LARVH patients and no ORH patients had urinary tract injury that was repaired. None had long-term sequelae. Our data confirm that LARVH is a suitable alternative to ORH hysterectomy for small-volume stage IB1 cervical cancer with similar clinical efficacy and a superior postoperative recovery and postoperative morbidity profile. Urinary tract trauma is a clear risk in the early stages of the learning curve.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17009993     DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00661.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer        ISSN: 1048-891X            Impact factor:   3.437


  12 in total

1.  Asian society of gynecologic oncology workshop 2010.

Authors:  Dong Hoon Suh; Jae Weon Kim; Mohamad Farid Aziz; Uma K Devi; Hextan Y S Ngan; Joo-Hyun Nam; Seung Cheol Kim; Tomoyasu Kato; Hee Sug Ryu; Shingo Fujii; Yoon Soon Lee; Jong Hyeok Kim; Tae-Joong Kim; Young Tae Kim; Kung-Liahng Wang; Taek Sang Lee; Kimio Ushijima; Sang-Goo Shin; Yin Nin Chia; Sarikapan Wilailak; Sang Yoon Park; Hidetaka Katabuchi; Toshiharu Kamura; Soon-Beom Kang
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2010-09-28       Impact factor: 4.401

2.  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

Review 3.  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

4.  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

5.  Radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: laparoscopy versus laparotomy.

Authors:  Sarah E Taylor; William C McBee; Scott D Richard; Robert P Edwards
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2011 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

6.  Vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: rationale, technique, results.

Authors:  Elisabeth Gottschalk; Malgorzata Lanowska; Vito Chiantera; Simone Marnitz; Achim Schneider; Verena Brink-Spalink; Kati Hasenbein; Christhardt Koehler
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2011 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

7.  Impact of hospital care volume on clinical outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Banghyun Lee; Kidong Kim; Youngmi Park; Myong Cheol Lim; Robert E Bristow
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 1.817

Review 8.  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

9.  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

10.  Comparison of laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Sichen Zhang; Linlin Ma; Qing Wei Meng; Dan Zhou; Tuerhongayi Moyiding
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 1.889

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.