Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy

被引:15
|
作者
Kampers, J. [1 ]
Gerhardt, E. [1 ]
Sibbertsen, P. [2 ]
Flock, T. [2 ]
Hertel, H. [1 ]
Klapdor, R. [1 ]
Jentschke, M. [1 ]
Hillemanns, P. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Hannover Med Sch, Dept Gynecol & Obstet, Carl Neuberg Str 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany
[2] Leibniz Univ Hannover, Fac Econ & Management, Hannover, Germany
[3] Comprehens Canc Ctr Niedersachsen CCC N, Hannover, Germany
关键词
Early cervical cancer; Radical hysterectomy; Minimally-invasive; Laparoscopy; Robot-assisted; Postoperative morbidity; PELVIC LYMPHADENECTOMY; SURVIVAL OUTCOMES; LEARNING-CURVE; CANCER; RECURRENCE; LAPAROTOMY; SURGERY; IB;
D O I
10.1007/s00404-021-06248-8
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:295 / 314
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy
    J. Kampers
    E. Gerhardt
    P. Sibbertsen
    T. Flock
    H. Hertel
    R. Klapdor
    M. Jentschke
    P. Hillemanns
    Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2022, 306 : 295 - 314
  • [2] Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Smith, Anna Jo Bodurtha
    Jones, Tiffany Nicole
    Miao, Diana
    Fader, Amanda Nickles
    JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2021, 28 (03) : 544 - U60
  • [3] Oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size ≤2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Nasioudis, Dimitrios
    Albright, Benjamin B.
    Ko, Emily M.
    Haggerty, Ashley F.
    Giuntoli, Robert L., II
    Kim, Sarah H.
    Morgan, Mark A.
    Latif, Nawar A.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2021, 31 (07) : 983 - 990
  • [4] Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in women with early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Tantitamit, Tanitra
    Huang, Kuan-Gen
    Lee, Chyi-Long
    TAIWANESE JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2020, 59 (04): : 481 - 488
  • [5] Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis
    Zhang, Mengting
    Dai, Wei
    Si, Yuexiu
    Shi, Yetan
    Li, Xiangyuan
    Jiang, Ke
    Shen, Jingyi
    Ying, Liying
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2022, 11
  • [6] Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Nitecki, Roni
    Ramirez, Pedro T.
    Frumovitz, Michael
    Krause, Kate J.
    Tergas, Ana I.
    Wright, Jason D.
    Rauh-Hain, J. Alejandro
    Melamed, Alexander
    JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2020, 6 (07) : 1019 - 1027
  • [7] Peritoneal carcinomatosis after minimally invasive surgery versus open radical hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Hoegl, Jorge
    Viveros-Carreno, David
    Palacios, Tatiana
    Gallego-Ardila, Andres
    Rauh-Hain, Jose Alejandro
    Estrada, Erick Estuardo
    Noll, Florencia
    Krause, Kate
    Baiocchi, Glauco
    Minig, Lucas
    Grillo-Ardila, Carlos Fernando
    Pareja, Rene
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2022, 32 (12) : 1497 - 1504
  • [8] Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer
    Marchand, Greg
    Masoud, Ahmed Taher
    Abdelsattar, Ahmed
    King, Alexa
    Ulibarri, Hollie
    Parise, Julia
    Arroyo, Amanda
    Coriell, Catherine
    Goetz, Sydnee
    Moir, Carmen
    Moberly, Atley
    Govindan, Malini
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2023, 13 (01)
  • [9] Survival After Minimally Invasive vs. Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
    Wang, Yizi
    Li, Bo
    Ren, Fang
    Song, Zixuan
    Ouyang, Ling
    Liu, Kuiran
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2020, 10
  • [10] Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups
    Kampers, Johanna
    Gerhardt, E.
    Sibbertsen, P.
    Flock, T.
    Klapdor, R.
    Hertel, H.
    Jentschke, M.
    Hillemanns, P.
    ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2021, 304 (03) : 577 - 587