Literature DB >> 20236108

Laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy--a randomised phase II trial: perioperative outcomes and surgicopathological measurements.

R Naik1, K S Jackson, A Lopes, P Cross, J A Henry.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate perioperative surgical outcomes and resection size for laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) compared with radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH).
DESIGN: A prospective randomised phase II trial. POPULATION: Early stage IB cervical cancer requiring radical surgical treatment.
SETTING: Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Gateshead, UK.
METHODS: Fifteen women were randomised to LARVH and to RAH. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes included requirement in days for bladder catheterisation after surgery, operating time, blood loss, hospital stay, opiate pain relief, complication rate, time to normal activities and resection size of major ligaments and vaginal cuff. Results Statistically significant differences were found between LARVH and RAH, respectively: median duration of bladder catheterisation, 4 days versus 21 days (P = 0.003); median operating time, 180 minutes versus 138 minutes (P = 0.05); median blood loss, 400 ml versus 1000 ml (P = 0.05), median hospital stay, 5 days versus 7 days (P = 0.04) and median opiate requirement in the first 36 hours postoperatively, 30 mg versus 53 mg (P = 0.004). The mean resected lengths for LARVH versus RAH, respectively, were: mean resected vaginal cuff, 1.26 cm versus 2.16 cm (P = 0.014); mean resected cardinal ligament length, 1.30 cm versus 2.79 cm (P = 0.013) and mean resected uterosacral ligament length, 1.47 cm versus 4.68 cm (P = 0.034).
CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the short-term surgical benefits of LARVH. In addition, LARVH has been shown to be a less radical procedure than RAH, supporting the need for strict patient selection and to restrict the procedure to small tumours.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20236108     DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02479.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJOG        ISSN: 1470-0328            Impact factor:   6.531


  20 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  [Postoperative pain management after minimally invasive hysterectomy: thoracic epidural analgesia versus intravenous patient-controlled analgesia].

Authors:  M Hensel; J Frenzel; M Späker; E Keil; N Reinhold
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2013-09-22       Impact factor: 1.041

3.  Reconsider minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer.

Authors:  Yi Zhang; Shuguang Chen
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-07

4.  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

5.  Total microlaparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer.

Authors:  Francesco Fanfani; Valerio Gallotta; Anna Fagotti; Cristiano Rossitto; Elisa Piovano; Giovanni Scambia
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2013 Jan-Mar       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.  Laparoscopic, robotic and open method of radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review.

Authors:  Puliyath Geetha; M Krishnan Nair
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.407

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.  Prognostic and Safety Roles in Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tiefeng Cao; Yanling Feng; Qidan Huang; Ting Wan; Jihong Liu
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 1.878

Review 10.  Non-compliance with randomised allocation and missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Temitope E Adewuyi; Graeme MacLennan; Jonathan A Cook
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2015-09-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.