Literature DB >> 30806046

Additional benefit of minimally invasive surgery to improve functional outcomes after radical hysterectomy.

Jeong Yeol Park1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30806046      PMCID: PMC6393644          DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e64

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 2005-0380            Impact factor:   4.401


× No keyword cloud information.
The pelvic floor dysfunction including voiding difficulty and colorectal dysfunction is well-known, inevitable complications of radical hysterectomy (RH). This is due to surgical injury to autonomic nerves which innervate the bladder and rectum, and is associated with decreased quality of life after surgery. The survival outcomes after RH for early cervical cancer is very excellent. So, the treatment outcomes of RH should be evaluated not only in oncologic outcomes but also in quality of life of patients. Nowadays, quality of life outcome is regarded as important as survival outcome especially in highly curable disease like early cervical cancer. To improve the functional outcomes after RH, nerve-sparing (NS) procedure has been developed [1] and evaluated in several studies [23]. However, only few study outcomes are available and the results of NS RH is inconsistent across the studies [23]. NS RH has been performed via open surgery because of the difficulty of the procedure. But, some advanced laparoscopic oncologic surgeons have performed minimally invasive (MIS) NS RH [4]. The outcomes of MIS NS RH compared with open NS RH has always been puzzling. Bogani et al. [5] reported the outcomes of MIS NS RH compared with open NS RH in this issue. The immediate surgical outcomes of MIS NS RH were better compared with open NS RH like many previous studies comparing MIS and open surgery in gynecologic cancers [678]. MIS has better surgical outcomes with respect to estimated blood loss, transfusion requirement, and postoperative hospital stay compared with open surgery in gynecologic cancer treatment [678]. Operating time is inconsistent across the studies. Usually, operating time was longer for MIS. But, with the accumulation of experiences over hundreds of MIS cases, the operating time became similar with or even shorter than open surgery [67]. Importantly, this study showed one additional benefit of MIS RH upholding open RH which has never been reported in the literature [5]. This is an improved functional outcomes originated from the innate merits of MIS including better visualization and magnified views which enables more meticulous surgical procedure to nervous system. Decreased blood loss and clearer operative field of it also made the surgical procedure better. Because this study was a small, retrospective, matched comparison, this result should be confirmed by future randomized controlled trial [5]. To achieve the best outcomes using MIS, moreover, the surgeon should be skillful at the advanced laparoscopic surgical procedures.
  8 in total

1.  Anatomic identification and functional outcomes of the nerve sparing Okabayashi radical hysterectomy.

Authors:  Shingo Fujii; Kenji Takakura; Noriomi Matsumura; Toshihiro Higuchi; Shigeo Yura; Masaki Mandai; Tsukasa Baba; Shinya Yoshioka
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 5.482

2.  Comparison of laparoscopy and laparotomy in surgical staging of early-stage ovarian and fallopian tubal cancer.

Authors:  Jeong-Yeol Park; Dae-Yeon Kim; Dae-Shik Suh; Jong-Hyeok Kim; Yong-Man Kim; Young-Tak Kim; Joo-Hyun Nam
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2008-04-25       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study.

Authors:  J-H Nam; J-Y Park; D-Y Kim; J-H Kim; Y-M Kim; Y-T Kim
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 4.  Oncological outcomes of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Derman Basaran; Ladislav Dusek; Ondrej Majek; David Cibula
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-01-23       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Laparoscopic Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy vs Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Efficacy and Bladder Dysfunction.

Authors:  Jiayue Wu; Taiyang Ye; Jianwei Lv; Zhihong He; Jie Zhu
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 4.137

6.  Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2.

Authors:  Joan L Walker; Marion R Piedmonte; Nick M Spirtos; Scott M Eisenkop; John B Schlaerth; Robert S Mannel; Gregory Spiegel; Richard Barakat; Michael L Pearl; Sudarshan K Sharma
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-10-05       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  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

8.  Minimally invasive surgery improves short-term outcomes of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer: a propensity-matched analysis with open abdominal surgery.

Authors:  Giorgio Bogani; Diego Rossetti; Antonino Ditto; Fabio Martinelli; Valentina Chiappa; Chiara Leone; Umberto Leone Roberti Maggiore; Domenica Lorusso; Francesco Raspagliesi
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 4.401

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.