Literature DB >> 29727351

Comparison of Different Surgical Approaches for Stage IB1 Cervical Cancer Patients: A Multi-institution Study and a Review of the Literature.

Giacomo Corrado1, Enrico Vizza2, Francesco Legge3, Luigi Pedone Anchora1, Isabella Sperduti4, Anna Fagotti1, Emanuela Mancini2, Valerio Gallotta1, Ashanti Zampa2, Benito Chiofalo2, Giovanni Scambia1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the surgical and oncological outcome of 3 different surgical approaches (laparotomy, laparoscopy, and robotic surgery) in the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB1.
METHODS: All patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of early-stage cervical cancer, FIGO stage IB1, who underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH), laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, or robotic radical hysterectomy with or without pelvic and aortic lymphadenectomy were included in the study. A review of the literature was conducted.
RESULTS: Three hundred forty-one patients, between January 2001 and December 2016, were included in this study: 101 patients were submitted to ARH, 152 to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, and 88 to robotic radical hysterectomy. In 97% and 11.5% of cases, bilateral pelvic and aortic lymph node dissections were performed, respectively. The 3 groups were similar in regard to clinical characteristics. Compared with ARH, the minimally invasive surgery group was safer in terms of estimated blood loss, transfusion rates, and hospital stay. Above all, robotic surgery was equivalent to laparoscopy in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications, hospital stay, conversions, and reintervention. On the other hand, robotic surgery had better outcomes compared with laparoscopy in terms of transfusion rates and was equivalent to abdominal surgery and laparoscopy in regard to oncological outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed that minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopy or robotics) was as adequate and effective as abdominal surgery in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes in the surgical treatment of EEC FIGO stage IB1.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29727351     DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001254

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


  26 in total

1.  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

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.  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 4.  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

5.  How to Select Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Patients Still Suitable for Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy: a Propensity-Matched Study.

Authors:  Luigi Pedone Anchora; Luigi Calrlo Turco; Nicolò Bizzarri; Vito Andrea Capozzi; Andrea Lombisani; Vito Chiantera; Francesca De Felice; Valerio Gallotta; Francesco Cosentino; Anna Fagotti; Gabriella Ferrandina; Giovanni Scambia
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-01-02       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Retrospective Comparison of Laparoscopic versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer in a Single Tertiary Care Institution from Lithuania between 2009 and 2019.

Authors:  Danuta Vasilevska; Dominika Vasilevska; Andrzej Semczuk; Vilius Rudaitis
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-04-17       Impact factor: 2.430

7.  A practical method of using the anatomical space of the vesicouterine ligament for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Jing Wang; Lulu Sun; Ting Ni; Yong Huang; Lihua Wang; Jiangjing Yuan; Qiong Fan; Yuhong Li; Yudong Wang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 1.671

8.  Effect of the surgical approach on survival outcomes in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A real-world multicenter study of a large Chinese cohort from 2006 to 2017.

Authors:  Chenyan Guo; Xiaoyan Tang; Yan Meng; Ying Zhang; Xuyin Zhang; Jingjing Guo; Xiaohong Lei; Junjun Qiu; Keqin Hua
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2020-07-06       Impact factor: 4.452

9.  Should the Number of Metastatic Pelvic Lymph Nodes be Integrated into the 2018 Figo Staging Classification of Early Stage Cervical Cancer?

Authors:  Luigi Pedone Anchora; Vittoria Carbone; Valerio Gallotta; Francesco Fanfani; Francesco Cosentino; Luigi Carlo Turco; Camilla Fedele; Nicolò Bizzarri; Giovanni Scambia; Gabriella Ferrandina
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 6.639

10.  Survival Outcomes in Patients With 2018 FIGO Stage IA2-IIA2 Cervical Cancer Treated With Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy: A Propensity Score-Weighting Analysis.

Authors:  Wancheng Zhao; Yunyun Xiao; Wei Zhao; Qing Yang; Fangfang Bi
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.