Literature DB >> 28300465

Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Yue Zhao1,2, Bo Hang2, Guang-Wu Xiong3, Xiao-Wei Zhang1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the value of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer by comparing intraoperative and postoperative outcomes with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Medline, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, through February 2, 2016 with keywords of "laparoscopic OR laparoscopy" AND "radical hysterectomy OR early cervical cancer OR stage IB, stage IB1, stage IB2, stage IIA, stage IIA1, stage IIA2, stage IIA cervical cancer" to identify all relevant studies that compared LRH with ARH in treating early cervical cancer. Two reviewers evaluated the quality of literature independently. Standardized tables were used to extract data (study or participant details and results) from the texts, tables, figures, or any other attachments of eligible publications. Weighted mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs) were pooled with the random effects model. Then we conducted meta-analysis using the RevMan5.3 software.
RESULTS: A total of 615 studies were initially identified. After screening, 23 studies, including 4205 patients were recruited. LRH was associated with lower estimated blood loss (mL) (MD = -178.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -214.89 to -141.94, P < .00001), longer operation time (minutes) (MD = 43.68, 95% CI = 29.42-57.95, P < .00001), fewer retrieved lymph nodes (MD = -3.44, 95% CI = -5.96 to -0.92, P = .007), shorter hospital stay (day) (MD = -3.17, 95% CI = -4.06 to -2.29, P < .00001), quicker return to normal bowel activity (day) (MD = -0.7, 95% CI = -0.96 to -0.45, P < .00001), and shorter duration of bladder catheterization (day) (MD = -1.69, 95% CI = -2.83 to -0.55, P < .004) than ARH. LRH also demonstrated lower odds of transfusion (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30-0.73, P = .0007), and ileus (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.12-0.91, P = .03) than ARH.
CONCLUSION: LRH outweighs ARH in treating early stage cervical cancer in most essential aspects, which should arouse sufficient attention.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ARH; LRH; cervical cancer; meta-analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28300465     DOI: 10.1089/lap.2017.0022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A        ISSN: 1092-6429            Impact factor:   1.878


  12 in total

1.  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 2.  Surgical Management of Early Cervical Cancer: When Is Laparoscopic Appropriate?

Authors:  Stefano Greggi; Gennaro Casella; Felice Scala; Francesca Falcone; Serena Visconti; Cono Scaffa
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 3.  The incidence of postoperative symptomatic lymphocele after pelvic lymphadenectomy between abdominal and laparoscopic approach: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jong Ha Hwang; Bo Wook Kim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-04-25       Impact factor: 3.453

4.  A Comparison of Laparoscopies and Laparotomies for Radical Hysterectomy in Stage IA1-IB1 Cervical Cancer Patients: A Single Team With 18 Years of Experience.

Authors:  Meng Qin; Li Siyi; Hui-Fang Huang; Yan Li; Yu Gu; Wei Wang; Ying Shan; Jie Yin; Yong-Xue Wang; Yan Cai; Jia-Yu Chen; Ying Jin; Ling-Ya Pan
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-08-28       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  Incidence of adverse events in minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Andreas Obermair; Rebecca Asher; Rene Pareja; Michael Frumovitz; Aldo Lopez; Renato Moretti-Marques; Gabriel Rendon; Reitan Ribeiro; Audrey Tsunoda; Vanessa Behan; Alessandro Buda; Marcus Q Bernadini; Hongqin Zhao; Marcelo Vieira; Joan Walker; Nick M Spirtos; Shuzhong Yao; Naven Chetty; Tao Zhu; David Isla; Mariano Tamura; James Nicklin; Kristy P Robledo; Val Gebski; Robert L Coleman; Gloria Salvo; Pedro T Ramirez
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Surgical and Oncological Outcome of Total Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy versus Radical Abdominal Hysterectomy in Early Cervical Cancer in Singapore.

Authors:  Timothy Yong Kuei Lim; Krystal Koh Miao Lin; Wai Loong Wong; Ieera Madan Aggarwal; Philip Kwai Lam Yam
Journal:  Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther       Date:  2019-04-29

7.  Minimally invasive surgery for radical hysterectomy in women with cervical cancer: Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Korean Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Surgery position statement.

Authors:  Miseon Kim; Tae Wook Kong; Sunghoon Kim; Seung Cheol Kim; Yong Beom Kim; Jae Weon Kim; Jeong Yeol Park; Dong Hoon Suh; Seung Hyuk Shim; Keun Ho Lee; Sung Jong Lee; Jae Kwan Lee; Myong Cheol Lim
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 4.401

8.  Evaluation of the efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for treating cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhen Zeng; Jia Liu; Tao Lv; Zonghao Feng; Lei Zhang; Qinping Liao
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 1.195

9.  Circular RNA expression profiles reveal that hsa_circ_0018289 is up-regulated in cervical cancer and promotes the tumorigenesis.

Authors:  Ya-Li Gao; Ming-Yun Zhang; Bo Xu; Li-Jie Han; Shou-Feng Lan; Ju Chen; Yu-Jin Dong; Li-Li Cao
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-09-23

10.  Association of preoperative cone biopsy with recurrences after radical hysterectomy.

Authors:  Rüdiger Klapdor; Hermann Hertel; Laura Delebinski; Peter Hillemanns
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 2.344

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.