Johanna Kampers1, E Gerhardt2, P Sibbertsen3, T Flock3, R Klapdor2, H Hertel2, M Jentschke2, P Hillemanns2. 1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hannover Medical School, Karl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. kampers.johanna@mh-hannover.de. 2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hannover Medical School, Karl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. 3. Faculty of Economics and Management, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy presents the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Recently, studies have shown a superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, however, the reasons remain to be speculated. This meta-analysis evaluates the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to open hysterectomy. Risk groups including the use of uterine manipulators or colpotomy were created. METHODS: Ovid-Medline and Embase databases were systematically searched in June 2020. No limitation in date of publication or country was made. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the surgical approach and the endpoints OS and DFS. RESULTS: 30 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Patients were analyzed concerning the surgical approach [open surgery (AH), laparoscopic surgery (LH), robotic surgery (RH)]. Additionally, three subgroups were created from the LH group: the LH high-risk group (manipulator), intermediate-risk group (no manipulator, intracorporal colpotomy) and LH low-risk group (no manipulator, vaginal colpotomy). Regarding OS, the meta-analysis showed inferiority of LH in total over AH (0.97 [0.96; 0.98]). The OS was significantly higher in LH low risk (0.96 [0.94; 0.98) compared to LH intermediate risk (0.93 [0.91; 0.94]). OS rates were comparable in AH and LH Low-risk group. DFS was higher in the AH group compared to the LH group in general (0.92 [95%-CI 0.88; 0.95] vs. 0.87 [0.82; 0.91]), whereas the application of protective measures (no uterine manipulator in combination with vaginal colpotomy) was associated with increased DFS in laparoscopy (0.91 [0.91; 0.95]). CONCLUSION: DFS and OS in laparoscopy appear to be depending on surgical technique. Protective operating techniques in laparoscopy result in improved minimal invasive survival.
PURPOSE: Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy presents the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Recently, studies have shown a superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, however, the reasons remain to be speculated. This meta-analysis evaluates the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to open hysterectomy. Risk groups including the use of uterine manipulators or colpotomy were created. METHODS: Ovid-Medline and Embase databases were systematically searched in June 2020. No limitation in date of publication or country was made. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the surgical approach and the endpoints OS and DFS. RESULTS: 30 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Patients were analyzed concerning the surgical approach [open surgery (AH), laparoscopic surgery (LH), robotic surgery (RH)]. Additionally, three subgroups were created from the LH group: the LH high-risk group (manipulator), intermediate-risk group (no manipulator, intracorporal colpotomy) and LH low-risk group (no manipulator, vaginal colpotomy). Regarding OS, the meta-analysis showed inferiority of LH in total over AH (0.97 [0.96; 0.98]). The OS was significantly higher in LH low risk (0.96 [0.94; 0.98) compared to LH intermediate risk (0.93 [0.91; 0.94]). OS rates were comparable in AH and LH Low-risk group. DFS was higher in the AH group compared to the LH group in general (0.92 [95%-CI 0.88; 0.95] vs. 0.87 [0.82; 0.91]), whereas the application of protective measures (no uterine manipulator in combination with vaginal colpotomy) was associated with increased DFS in laparoscopy (0.91 [0.91; 0.95]). CONCLUSION:DFS and OS in laparoscopy appear to be depending on surgical technique. Protective operating techniques in laparoscopy result in improved minimal invasive survival.
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
Authors: Giorgio Bogani; Fabio Ghezzi; Luis Chiva; Baldo Gisone; Ciro Pinelli; Andrea Dell'Acqua; Jvan Casarin; Antonino Ditto; Francesco Raspagliesi Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-05-23 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Alexander Melamed; Daniel J Margul; Ling Chen; Nancy L Keating; Marcela G Del Carmen; Junhua Yang; Brandon-Luke L Seagle; Amy Alexander; Emma L Barber; Laurel W Rice; Jason D Wright; Masha Kocherginsky; Shohreh Shahabi; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Pedro T Ramirez; Michael Frumovitz; Rene Pareja; Aldo Lopez; Marcelo Vieira; Reitan Ribeiro; Alessandro Buda; Xiaojian Yan; Yao Shuzhong; Naven Chetty; David Isla; Mariano Tamura; Tao Zhu; Kristy P Robledo; Val Gebski; Rebecca Asher; Vanessa Behan; James L Nicklin; Robert L Coleman; Andreas Obermair Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J Kampers; E Gerhardt; P Sibbertsen; T Flock; H Hertel; R Klapdor; M Jentschke; P Hillemanns Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 2.493