Literature DB >> 17197013

A comparison of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy and laparotomy in the treatment of Ib-IIa cervical cancer.

Guangyi Li1, Xiaojian Yan, Huilin Shang, Gang Wang, Lushi Chen, Yubin Han.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the feasibility, morbidity, and survival outcome of the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy (LRH+LPL) with abdominal radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy (ARH+APL) for FIGO stage Ib-IIa cervical carcinoma.
METHODS: The consecutive cases with FIGO Ib-IIa cervical cancer from August 1998 to December 2005 were documented, including 90 patients underwent LRH+LPL, and 35 patients underwent ARH+APL as control group. The clinic data of perioperative periods and survival were compared between groups.
RESULTS: In laparoscopy group the operating time increased significantly (262.99+/-67.6 min vs. 217.2+/-71.56 min, P=0.001), and the recovery time of bowel decreased significantly (1.96+/-0.62 days vs. 2.40+/-1.06 days, P=0.025). No significant difference was found between groups when the blood loss during operation (369.78+/-249.94 ml vs. 455.14+/-338.05 ml, P=0.125), numbers of the pelvic lymph nodes resected (21.28+/-8.39 vs. 18.77+/-9.47, P=0.151), recovery time of bladder function and postoperative hospital stays were compared. All laparoscopic procedures were completed successfully except 2 cases converted to laparotomy. The median follow-up was 26 months (range 5 to 84 months). Ten and five cases lost to follow-up in laparoscopy and laparotomy group, respectively. Excluding the lost cases, the recurrence rate (13.75% vs. 12%, P>0.05) and the mortality rate (10% vs. 8%, P>0.05) between groups was similar.
CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrated that cervical cancer could be treated successfully with LRH+LPL with similar efficacy and recurrence rates to ARH+APL. LRH+LPL is a safe and effective alternative to conventional abdominal surgery for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer, and should be used if the surgeon is sufficiently trained. Its clinical value should be confirmed by multicenter randomized clinic trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17197013     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.11.011

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


  40 in total

1.  Laparoscopic surgery is a current tide of widely accepted standard procedure for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Dong Hoon Suh; Jae Weon Kim
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 4.401

2.  Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Roni Nitecki; Pedro T Ramirez; Michael Frumovitz; Kate J Krause; Ana I Tergas; Jason D Wright; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Alexander Melamed
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 31.777

3.  Urologic complications of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy.

Authors:  Jong Ha Hwang; Myong Cheol Lim; Jae Young Joung; Sang-Soo Seo; Sokbom Kang; Ho Kyung Seo; Jinsoo Chung; Sang-Yoon Park
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  The end of robot-assisted laparoscopy? A critical appraisal of scientific evidence on the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Jeroen Heemskerk; Nicole D Bouvy; Cor G M I Baeten
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Early Cervical Cancer: Current Dilemmas of Staging and Surgery.

Authors:  Tiffany Zigras; Genevieve Lennox; Karla Willows; Allan Covens
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 5.075

6.  Comparison of outcomes between laparotomy and robotic technique for cervical cancer.

Authors:  Ahmet Göçmen; Fatih Şanlıkan; Mustafa Gazi Uçar
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2010-06-27

7.  Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: When Adoption of a Novel Treatment Precedes Prospective, Randomized Evidence.

Authors:  Alexander Melamed; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Pedro T Ramirez
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-09-27       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  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

9.  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

10.  A comparison of robot-assisted and traditional radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer.

Authors:  M Patrick Lowe; Anna V Hoekstra; Arati Jairam-Thodla; Diljeet K Singh; Barbara M Buttin; John R Lurain; Julian C Schink
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2009-02-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.