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
  • [41] Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review
    Goldstein, Christina L.
    Macwan, Kevin
    Sundararajan, Kala
    Rampersaud, Y. Raja
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2016, 24 (03) : 416 - 427
  • [42] Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Li, Rui-Zhe
    Sun, Li-Fei
    Li, Rui
    Wang, Hong-Jing
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2023, 130 (02) : 176 - 183
  • [43] Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgery for Spinal Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Hinojosa-Gonzalez, David Eugenio
    Roblesgil-Medrano, Andres
    Villarreal-Espinosa, Juan Bernardo
    Tellez-Garcia, Eduardo
    Bueno-Gutierrez, Luis Carlos
    Rodriguez-Barreda, Jose Ramon
    Flores-Villalba, Eduardo
    Martinez, Hector R.
    Benvenutti-Regato, Mario
    Figueroa-Sanchez, Jose Antonio
    ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2022, 16 (04) : 583 - 597
  • [44] Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy vs. Robotic assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer
    Marchand, Greg
    Masoud, Ahmed Taher
    Abdelsattar, Ahmed
    King, Alexa
    Brazil, Giovanna
    Ulibarri, Hollie
    Parise, Julia
    Arroyo, Amanda
    Coriell, Catherine
    Goetz, Sydnee
    Moir, Carmen
    Baruelo, Geneva
    Govindan, Malini
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2023, 289 : 190 - 202
  • [45] Minimally Invasive Versus Open Adrenalectomy in Patients with Adrenocortical Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis
    Hu, Xu
    Yang, Wei-Xiao
    Shao, Yan-Xiang
    Dou, Wei-Chao
    Xiong, San-Chao
    Li, Xiang
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 27 (10) : 3858 - 3869
  • [46] Minimally Invasive versus Open Thymectomy for Thymic Malignancies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Friedant, Adam J.
    Handorf, Elizabeth A.
    Su, Stacey
    Scott, Walter J.
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY, 2016, 11 (01) : 30 - 38
  • [47] Comparison of the complications between minimally invasive surgery and open surgical treatments for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Li, Yilin
    Kong, Qingduo
    Wei, Hongyi
    Wang, Yongjun
    PLOS ONE, 2021, 16 (07):
  • [48] Comparison of Perioperative and Postoperative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Open TLIF in Obese Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Chen, Xin
    Lin, Guang-Xun
    Rui, Gang
    Chen, Chien-Min
    Kotheeranurak, Vit
    Wu, Hua-Jian
    Zhang, Huang-Lin
    JOURNAL OF PAIN RESEARCH, 2022, 15 : 41 - 52
  • [49] The MEMORY Study: MulticentEr study of Minimally invasive surgery versus Open Radical hYsterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes
    Leitao, Mario M.
    Zhou, Qin C.
    Brandt, Benny
    Iasonos, Alexia
    Sioulas, Vasileios
    Mager, Katherine Lavigne
    Shahin, Mark
    Bruce, Shaina
    Black, Destin R.
    Kay, Carrie G.
    Gandhi, Meeli
    Qayyum, Maira
    Scalici, Jennifer
    Jones, Nathaniel L.
    Paladugu, Rajesh
    Brown, Jubilee
    Naumann, R. Wendel
    Levine, Monica D.
    Mendivil, Alberto
    Lim, Peter C.
    Kang, Elizabeth
    Cantrell, Leigh A.
    Sullivan, Mackenzie W.
    Martino, Martin A.
    Kratz, Melissa K.
    Kolev, Valentin
    Tomita, Shannon
    Leath III, Charles A.
    Boitano, Teresa K. L.
    Doo, David W.
    Feltmate, Colleen
    Sugrue, Ronan
    Olawaiye, Alexander B.
    Goldfeld, Ester
    Ferguson, Sarah E.
    Suhner, Jessa
    Abu-Rustum, Nadeem R.
    GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2022, 166 (03) : 417 - 424
  • [50] Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy versus the anterior transcorporeal approach for cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Rajjoub, Rami
    Nguyen, Ryan
    Ghaith, Abdul Karim
    El-Hajj, Victor Gabriel
    De Biase, Gaetano
    Onyedimma, Chiduziem
    Yolcu, Yagiz U.
    Jarrah, Ryan
    Elmi-Terander, Adrian
    Akinduro, Oluwaseun O.
    Abode-Iyamah, Kingsley
    Bydon, Mohamad
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2024, 41 (04) : 508 - 518