Literature DB >> 21556949

Class III nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy versus standard class III radical hysterectomy: an observational study.

Antonino Ditto1, Fabio Martinelli, Flavia Mattana, Claudio Reato, Eugenio Solima, Marialuisa Carcangiu, Edward Haeusler, Luigi Mariani, Francesco Raspagliesi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this observational study was to evaluate disease-free survival, overall survival, local recurrence rate, and morbidities in patients submitted to class III nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) compared with standard radical hysterectomy (RH) in cervical cancer (CC). This was a comparative study in the context of multimodal therapies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated patients with CC admitted to the National Cancer Institute of Milan between January 4, 2001, and September 29, 2009, treated with NSRH. We compared patients operated with RH between March 20, 1980, and December 28, 1995. A total of 496 patients were enrolled. The median follow-up was 93 months (42 and 159 months for the NSRH and RH groups, respectively).
RESULTS: The overall number of relapses was 30 out of 185 and 60 out of 311 for NSRH and RH, respectively. Five-year disease-free survival estimate was 78.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 72.0-85.7) in NSRH and 79.8% (95% CI 75.3-84.3) in RH (P=0.519). Five-year overall survival estimate was 90.8% (95% CI 85.9-95.6) in NSRH and 84.1% (95% CI 8.0-88.3) in RH (P=0.192). Rates of postoperative serious complications were 9.7% and 19.6% for NSRH and RH, respectively (P=0.004). Positive pelvic lymph node and vagina status were significant (P<0.01) independent predictors by multivariable analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: The oncologic results were comparable between NSRH and conventional class III RH in the context of two multimodal treatments. Bladder function and postoperative complications rate are improved by nerve-sparing technique. The nerve-sparing technique should be considered in all CC patients addressed to surgery because it improves functional outcome and preserves radicality without compromising overall survival.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21556949     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-011-1767-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  9 in total

Review 1.  Lower urinary tract dysfunction after nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy.

Authors:  Fouad Aoun; Roland van Velthoven
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-11-29       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Conventional versus nerve-sparing radical surgery for cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hee Seung Kim; Keewon Kim; Seung Bum Ryoo; Joung Hwa Seo; Sang Youn Kim; Ji Won Park; Min A Kim; Kyoung Sup Hong; Chang Wook Jeong; Yong Sang Song
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 4.401

3.  Practice guidelines for management of cervical cancer in Korea: a Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology Consensus Statement.

Authors:  Myong Cheol Lim; Maria Lee; Seung Hyuk Shim; Eun Ji Nam; Jung Yun Lee; Hyun Jung Kim; Yoo Young Lee; Kwang Beom Lee; Jeong Yeol Park; Yun Hwan Kim; Kyung Do Ki; Yong Jung Song; Hyun Hoon Chung; Sunghoon Kim; Jeong Won Lee; Jae Weon Kim; Duk Soo Bae; Jong Min Lee
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 4.401

4.  Oncologic effectiveness of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer.

Authors:  Antonino Ditto; Giorgio Bogani; Umberto Leone Roberti Maggiore; Fabio Martinelli; Valentina Chiappa; Carlos Lopez; Stefania Perotto; Domenica Lorusso; Francesco Raspagliesi
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 4.401

5.  Total laparoscopic vs. conventional open abdominal nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: clinical, surgical, oncological and functional outcomes in 301 patients with cervical cancer.

Authors:  Marcello Ceccaroni; Giovanni Roviglione; Mario Malzoni; Francesco Cosentino; Emanuela Spagnolo; Roberto Clarizia; Paolo Casadio; Renato Seracchioli; Fabio Ghezzi; Daniele Mautone; Francesco Bruni; Stefano Uccella
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 4.401

Review 6.  Clinical efficacy and safety of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ying Long; De-Sheng Yao; Xin-Wei Pan; Ting-Yu Ou
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-18       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Emotional and sexual concerns in women undergoing pelvic surgery and associated treatment for gynecologic cancer.

Authors:  Cara Stabile; Abigail Gunn; Yukio Sonoda; Jeanne Carter
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2015-04

8.  Factors predicting parametrial invasion in patients with early-stage cervical carcinomas.

Authors:  Heng-Cheng Hsu; Yi-Jou Tai; Yu-Li Chen; Ying-Cheng Chiang; Chi-An Chen; Wen-Fang Cheng
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Outcome and Subsequent Pregnancy after Fertility-Sparing Surgery of Early-Stage Cervical Cancers.

Authors:  Chia-Yi Lee; Yu-Li Chen; Ying-Cheng Chiang; Ching-Yu Cheng; Yen-Ling Lai; Yi-Jou Tai; Heng-Cheng Hsu; Hsiao-Lin Hwa; Wen-Fang Cheng
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 3.390

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.