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
  • [21] Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Zhao, Yue
    Hang, Bo
    Xiong, Guang-Wu
    Zhang, Xiao-Wei
    JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2017, 27 (11): : 1132 - 1144
  • [22] Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy—systematic review and meta-analysis
    Michał Pędziwiatr
    Piotr Małczak
    Magdalena Pisarska
    Piotr Major
    Michał Wysocki
    Tomasz Stefura
    Andrzej Budzyński
    Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, 2017, 402 : 841 - 851
  • [23] Cost-Utility Analysis of Open Radical Hysterectomy Compared to Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer
    Michaan, Nadav
    Leshno, Moshe
    Fire, Gil
    Safra, Tamar
    Rosenberg, Michal
    Peleg-Hasson, Shira
    Grisaru, Dan
    Laskov, Ido
    CANCERS, 2023, 15 (17)
  • [24] A meta-analysis comparing open and minimally invasive cervical tumor surgery wound infection and postoperative complications
    Song, Ran
    Ma, Mingming
    Yang, Nana
    Chen, Chunfang
    Wang, Huan
    Li, Juan
    BMC SURGERY, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [25] Radical Hysterectomy With Preoperative Conization in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis
    Zhu, Xinbin
    Ye, Lele
    Fu, Yunfeng
    You, Bingbing
    Lu, Weiguo
    JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2024, 31 (03) : 193 - 199
  • [26] Minimally Invasive Versus Open Laminectomy for Lumbar Stenosis A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Phan, Kevin
    Mobbs, Ralph J.
    SPINE, 2016, 41 (02) : E91 - E100
  • [27] Oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    van Hilst, Jony
    Korrel, Maarten
    de Rooij, Thijs
    Lof, Sanne
    Busch, Olivier R.
    Koerkamp, Bas Groot
    Kooby, David A.
    van Dieren, Susan
    Abu Hilal, Mo
    Besselink, Marc G.
    EJSO, 2019, 45 (05): : 719 - 727
  • [28] A meta-analysis of treatment for early-stage cervical cancer: open versus minimally invasive radical trachelectomy
    Lv, Zi
    Wang, Yu-ying
    Wang, Yu-wen
    He, Jun-jie
    Lan, Wen-wei
    Peng, Jia-ying
    Lin, Zi-han
    Zhu, Ruo-fei
    Zhou, Jie
    Chen, Zi-qi
    Jiang, Ying-hui
    Yuan, Yi
    Xiong, Jian
    BMC PREGNANCY AND CHILDBIRTH, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [29] Minimally invasive versus open total pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Chen, Lang
    Xia, Ning
    Wang, Zihe
    Xiong, Junjie
    Tian, Bole
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2023, 109 (07) : 2058 - 2069
  • [30] Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer Incorporating 2018 FIGO Staging
    Levine, Monica D.
    Brown, Jubilee
    Crane, Erin K.
    Tait, David L.
    Naumann, R. Wendel
    JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2021, 28 (04) : 824 - 828