Literature DB >> 30424895

Trends and comparative effectiveness of inpatient radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer in the United States (2012-2015).

Shitanshu Uppal1, J Rebecca Liu2, R Kevin Reynolds2, Laurel W Rice3, Ryan J Spencer3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Report the up-to-date trends in surgical approach for cervical cancer and compare outcomes between open and minimally invasive routes.
METHODS: Radical Hysterectomy (RH) cases from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) dataset between 2012 and 2015 were grouped into abdominal (ARH) and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS). The MIS group was subdivided as "Laparoscopic", "Robotic", and "Converted". Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to analyze differences in complication rates. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Dataset 2015 was used for validation.
RESULTS: A total of 7180 cases from NIS were identified. Overall, there was 44% decline in RH cases from 2012 (n = 2220) to 2015 (n = 1255). A proportionate increase in robotic cases from 31.5% in 2012 to 41.4% in 2015 was noted. By intention to treat analysis, the rate of at least one complication for abdominal cases was 24.8% compared to 10% for MIS (p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, abdominal cases had higher odd of any one complication (aOR 2.9,95% CI 2.12-4.00), medical complication (aOR 3.25,95% CI 2.15-4.19), infectious complication (aOR 3.76,95% CI 2.1-6.1) but not for surgical complications (aOR 1.7,95% CI 0.5-5.6). AH resulted in longer hospital stay compared to MIS (4.3 vs 1.9 days, p < 0.001). Median cost of AH was $12,624, laparoscopic $12,873, robotic $14,029 and converted cases $17,036. NSQIP analysis supplemented the outcomes to 30-days and showed similar findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative complications are significantly lower for MIS procedures. These data should be used for contemporary cost-effective analysis and comprehensive counseling regarding risks and benefits of the surgical approach for cervical cancer.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical cancer; Comparative effectiveness; Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy; National inpatient sample; Radical hysterectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30424895     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.09.027

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


  16 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.  Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: Volume-outcome relationship in the early experience period.

Authors:  Koji Matsuo; Shinya Matsuzaki; Rachel S Mandelbaum; Erica J Chang; Maximilian Klar; Kazuhide Matsushima; Brendan H Grubbs; Lynda D Roman; Jason D Wright
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Association between hospital surgical volume and perioperative outcomes of fertility-sparing trachelectomy for cervical cancer: A national study in the United States.

Authors:  Koji Matsuo; Shinya Matsuzaki; Rachel S Mandelbaum; Kazuhide Matsushima; Maximilian Klar; Brendan H Grubbs; Lynda D Roman; Jason D Wright
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2020-01-22       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  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

5.  Comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for low-risk cervical cancer: a multicentre retrospective study.

Authors:  Zhiqiang Li; Chunlin Chen; Ping Liu; Anwei Lu; Hongwei Zhao; Xuemei Zhan; Hui Duan; Pengfei Li; Weidong Zhao; Jilong Yao; Donglin Li; Haixia Jiang; Mubiao Liu; Xiaonong Bin; Jinghe Lang
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-08-18       Impact factor: 2.344

6.  Open Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: The CIRCOL Group Study.

Authors:  Glauco Baiocchi; Reitan Ribeiro; Ricardo Dos Reis; Deraldo Fernando Falcao; Andre Lopes; Ronaldo Lucio Rangel Costa; Gabriel Lowndes Souza Pinto; Marcelo Vieira; Lillian Yuri Kumagai; Carlos Chaves Faloppa; Henrique Mantoan; Levon Badiglian-Filho; Audrey Tieko Tsunoda; Tariane Friedrich Foiato; Carlos Eduardo Mattos Cunha Andrade; Leonardo Oliveira Palmeira; Bruna Tirapelli Gonçalves; Paulo Henrique Zanvettor
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-09-20       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 7.  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

8.  Association of Radical Hysterectomy Surgical Volume and Survival for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Koji Matsuo; Muneaki Shimada; Satoshi Yamaguchi; Maki Matoda; Toru Nakanishi; Fumitaka Kikkawa; Masahide Ohmichi; Aikou Okamoto; Toru Sugiyama; Mikio Mikami
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 7.623

9.  Hospital variation in responses to safety warnings about power morcellation in hysterectomy.

Authors:  Xiao Xu; Vrunda B Desai; Jason D Wright; Haiqun Lin; Peter E Schwartz; Cary P Gross
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-12-24       Impact factor: 10.693

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.