Perioperative Morbidity of Different Operative Approaches in Early Cervical Carcinoma: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Minimally Invasive Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy

Overview

Journal Arch Gynecol Obstet

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2021 Oct 9

PMID 34625835

Citations 8

Authors

J Kampers

E Gerhardt

P Sibbertsen

T Flock

H Hertel

R Klapdor

M Jentschke

P Hillemanns

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Studies have shown superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, but peri- and postoperative complication rates were shown vice versa. This meta-analysis evaluates the peri- and postoperative morbidities and complications of robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared to open surgery.

Methods: Embase and Ovid-Medline databases were systematically searched in June 2020 for studies comparing robotic, laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy. There was no limitation in publication year. Inclusion criteria were set analogue to the LACC trial. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the operative technique, the study design and the date of publication for the endpoints intra- and postoperative morbidity, estimated blood loss, hospital stay and operation time.

Results: 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between robotic radical hysterectomy (RH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) concerning intra- and perioperative complications. Operation time was longer in both RH (mean difference 44.79 min [95% CI 38.16; 51.42]), and LH (mean difference 20.96 min; [95% CI - 1.30; 43.22]) than in open hysterectomy (AH) but did not lead to a rise of intra- and postoperative complications. Intraoperative morbidity was lower in LH than in AH (RR 0.90 [0.80; 1.02]) as well as in RH compared to AH (0.54 [0.33; 0.88]). Intraoperative morbidity showed no difference between LH and RH (RR 1.29 [0.23; 7.29]). Postoperative morbidity was not different in any approach. Estimated blood loss was lower in both LH (mean difference - 114.34 [- 122.97; - 105.71]) and RH (mean difference - 287.14 [- 392.99; - 181.28]) compared to AH, respectively. Duration of hospital stay was shorter for LH (mean difference - 3.06 [- 3.28; - 2.83]) and RH (mean difference - 3.77 [- 5.10; - 2.44]) compared to AH.

Conclusion: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy appears to be associated with reduced intraoperative morbidity and blood loss and improved reconvalescence after surgery. Besides oncological and surgical factors these results should be considered when counseling patients for radical hysterectomy and underscore the need for new randomized trials.

Citing Articles

A meta-analysis comparing open and minimally invasive cervical tumor surgery wound infection and postoperative complications.

Song R, Ma M, Yang N, Chen C, Wang H, Li J BMC Surg. 2024; 24(1):413.

PMID: 39710635 PMC: 11665136. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-024-02713-8.

Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews.

Lai T, Roxburgh C, Boyd K, Bouttell J BMJ Open. 2024; 14(9):e076750.

PMID: 39284694 PMC: 11409398. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076750.

Feasibility and early oncologic outcomes of Total Intracorporeal Robotic Radical Hysterectomy with Vaginal Cerclage (TIRRHVC) for the treatment of clinical stage IB cervical cancer: A tumor containment technique.

Lim L, Slee A, Lim P Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2024; 54:101437.

PMID: 39021507 PMC: 467087. DOI: 10.1016/j.gore.2024.101437.

Comparison of surgical and oncological outcomes between different surgical approaches for overweight or obese cervical cancer patients.

Chen W, Wang R, Wu J, Wu Y, Xiao L J Robot Surg. 2024; 18(1):107.

PMID: 38436785 PMC: 10912340. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-01863-4.

Effect of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery on postoperative wound infection in patients with cervical cancer: A meta-analysis.

Huang J, Tan Z, Wu W, Wu X, Liu L, Li C Int Wound J. 2023; .

PMID: 37852784 PMC: 10828729. DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14437.

References

Cao T, Feng Y, Huang Q, Wan T, Liu J . Prognostic and Safety Roles in Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2015; 25(12):990-8. PMC: 4691653. DOI: 10.1089/lap.2015.0390. View

Corrado G, Fanfani F, Ghezzi F, Fagotti A, Uccella S, Mancini E . Mini-laparoscopic versus robotic radical hysterectomy plus systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer patients. A multi-institutional study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014; 41(1):136-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.10.048. View

Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, Bosse T, Gonzalez-Martin A, Ledermann J . ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Consensus Conference on Endometrial Cancer: Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-up. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015; 26(1):2-30. PMC: 4679344. DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000609. View

Zhang S, Ding T, Cui Z, Lv Y, Jiang R . Efficacy of robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with that of open and laparoscopic surgery: A separate meta-analysis of high-quality studies. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; 98(4):e14171. PMC: 6358398. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014171. View

Zhou J, Xiong B, Ma L, Cheng Y, Huang W, Zhao L . Robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot. 2015; 12(1):145-54. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1652. View

Roy M, Plante M, Renaud M . Laparoscopically assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2005; 19(3):377-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2004.12.001. View

Park J, Kim D, Suh D, Kim J, Kim Y, Kim Y . The Role of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Adenocarcinoma of the Uterine Cervix. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23(Suppl 5):825-833. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5489-4. View

Wang Y, Deng L, Xu H, Zhang Y, Liang Z . Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer. BMC Cancer. 2015; 15:928. PMC: 4657298. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-015-1818-4. View

Ramirez P, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R . Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379(20):1895-1904. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395. View

10.

Laterza R, Uccella S, Casarin J, Morosi C, Serati M, Koelbl H . Recurrence of Early Stage Cervical Cancer After Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Surgery. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016; 26(3):547-52. DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000627. View

11.

Park D, Yun J, Kim S, Lee S . Surgical and clinical safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016; 43(6):994-1002. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.07.017. View

12.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151(4):264-9, W64. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. View

13.

Xiao M, Gao H, Bai H, Zhang Z . Quality of life and sexuality in disease-free survivors of cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy alone: A comparison between total laparoscopy and laparotomy. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95(36):e4787. PMC: 5023906. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004787. View

14.

Gennari P, Gerken M, Meszaros J, Klinkhammer-Schalke M, Ortmann O, Eggemann H . Minimal-invasive or open approach for surgery of early cervical cancer: the treatment center matters. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021; 304(2):503-510. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-020-05947-y. View

15.

Diver E, Hinchcliff E, Gockley A, Melamed A, Contrino L, Feldman S . Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer Is Associated With Reduced Morbidity and Similar Survival Outcomes Compared With Laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 24(3):402-406. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.12.005. View

16.

Naik R, Jackson K, Lopes A, Cross P, Henry J . Laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy--a randomised phase II trial: perioperative outcomes and surgicopathological measurements. BJOG. 2010; 117(6):746-51. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02479.x. View

17.

Nam J, Park J, Kim D, Kim J, Kim Y, Kim Y . Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study. Ann Oncol. 2011; 23(4):903-11. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdr360. View

18.

Dos Reis R, Andrade C, Frumovitz M, Munsell M, Ramirez P . Radical Hysterectomy and Age: Outcomes Comparison Based on a Minimally Invasive vs an Open Approach. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018; 25(7):1224-1230. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.03.002. View

19.

Nam E, Kim S, Kim S, Kim J, Jung Y, Paek J . A case-control study of robotic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy using 3 robotic arms compared with abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011; 20(7):1284-9. DOI: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181ef0a14. View

20.

Paik E, Lim M, Kim M, Kim Y, Song E, Seong S . Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer patients without adjuvant treatment: Ancillary analysis of a Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group Study (KGOG 1028). Gynecol Oncol. 2019; 154(3):547-553. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.06.023. View