Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer Is Associated With Reduced Morbidity and Similar Survival Outcomes Compared With Laparotomy

被引:94
作者
Diver, Elisabeth [1 ]
Hinchcliff, Emily [2 ]
Gockley, Allison [2 ]
Melamed, Alexander [1 ]
Contrino, Leah [3 ,4 ]
Feldman, Sarah [3 ,4 ]
Growdon, Whitfield [1 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Med Sch, Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Gynecol Oncol, Boston, MA USA
[2] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Integrated Residency Program Obstet & Gynecol, Boston, MA USA
[3] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Gynecol Oncol, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[4] Harvard Med Sch, Dana Farber Canc Inst, Boston, MA USA
关键词
Cervical cancer; Laparoscopy; Radical hysterectomy; Robotic surgery; GYNECOLOGIC-ONCOLOGY; SURGERY; LAPAROSCOPY; EXPERIENCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jmig.2016.12.005
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Study Objective: To assess outcomes of women with cervical cancer undergoing upfront radical hysterectomy (RH) via a minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or a traditional laparotomy (XL) approach at 2 large US academic institutions to determine whether the mode of surgery affects patient outcomes. Design: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-1). Setting: Two academic medical institutions in the United States. Patients: Women undergoing upfront RH for cervical cancer between 2000 and 2013. Intervention: Minimally invasive techniques (laparoscopic and robotic) for RH compared with XL, Measurements and Main Results: A total of 383 women met the eligibility requirements. Of these, 101 underwent an MIS (i.e., traditional laparoscopy, laparoendoscopic single site, or robotic) approach, and 282 underwent an XL approach. Overall survival (median not reached; p =.29) was not different between the 2 groups. Recurrence was rare and equivalent in the 2 groups, affecting 5.0% of patients in the MIS group and 6.4% of those in the XL group (p = .86). Pelvic lymph nodes were dissected in 98% of patients in the MIS group and 97% of those in the XL group (p > .99) and were found to be positive in 10.9% and 8.5% of those patients, respectively (p =.55). The mean number of pelvic lymph nodes retrieved was higher in the MIS group (19.4 vs 16.0; p < .001). There was no between -group difference in the rate of postoperative chemotherapy (p = .32) or radiation therapy (p = .28). Surgical margins were positive in 5.0% of specimens in the MIS group and in 4.6% of specimens in the XL group (p = .54). Although there was no difference in the overall rate of complications (15.1% and 17.2%, respectively; p = .87), laparotomy was associated with a higher median estimated blood loss (EBL) (50 cm(3) vs 500 cm(3)) and a higher rate of perioperative blood transfusion (3.0% vs 26.2%; p < .001). Length of perioperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MIS group (1.9 days vs 4.9 clays; p <.001). Conclusion: MIS RH does not compromise patient outcomes, including overall survival, rate of recurrence, and the frequency of pelvic lymph node dissection or positivity. Morbidity was decreased in the MIS group, including decreased EBL, fewer blood transfusions, and shorter hospital stay. (C) 2016 AAGL. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:402 / 406
页数:5
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]   Long-term assessment of bladder and bowel dysfunction after radical hysterectomy [J].
Brooks, Rebecca A. ;
Wright, Jason D. ;
Powell, Matthew A. ;
Rader, Janet S. ;
Gao, Feng ;
Mutch, David G. ;
Wall, L. Lewis .
GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2009, 114 (01) :75-79
[2]   Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer as total mesometrial resection (L-TMMR): A multicentric experience [J].
Chiantera, V. ;
Vizzielli, G. ;
Lucidi, A. ;
Gallotta, V. ;
Petrillo, M. ;
Legge, F. ;
Fagotti, A. ;
Sehouli, J. ;
Scambia, G. ;
Muallem, M. Z. .
GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2015, 139 (01) :47-51
[3]   Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecologic Oncology An Updated Survey of Members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology [J].
Conrad, Lesley B. ;
Ramirez, Pedro T. ;
Burke, William ;
Naumann, R. Wendel ;
Ring, Kari L. ;
Munsell, Mark F. ;
Frumovitz, Michael .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2015, 25 (06) :1121-1127
[4]   Minilaparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy (mLPS-RH) vs Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Radical Hysterectomy (LESS-RH) in Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study [J].
Fagotti, Anna ;
Ghezzi, Fabio ;
Boruta, David M. ;
Scambia, Giovanni ;
Escobar, Pedro ;
Fader, Amanda N. ;
Malzoni, Mario ;
Fanfani, Francesco .
JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2014, 21 (06) :1005-1009
[5]   Robotically Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Compared With Open Radical Hysterectomy [J].
Geisler, John P. ;
Orr, Curtis J. ;
Khurshid, Naumann ;
Phibbs, Garth ;
Manahan, Kelly J. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2010, 20 (03) :438-442
[6]   Oncological outcome and long-term complications in robot-assisted radical surgery for early stage cervical cancer: an observational cohort study [J].
Hoogendam, J. P. ;
Verheijen, R. H. M. ;
Wegner, I. ;
Zweemer, R. P. .
BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2014, 121 (12) :1538-1545
[7]   Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer [J].
Landoni, F ;
Maneo, A ;
Colombo, A ;
Placa, F ;
Milani, R ;
Perego, P ;
Favini, G ;
Ferri, L ;
Mangioni, C .
LANCET, 1997, 350 (9077) :535-540
[8]   Robotic radical hysterectomy: Comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy [J].
Magrina, Javier F. ;
Kho, Rosanne M. ;
Weaver, Amy L. ;
Montero, Regina P. ;
Magtibay, Paul M. .
GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2008, 109 (01) :86-91
[9]  
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), 2016, Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
[10]   LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL HYSTERECTOMY WITH PARAAORTIC AND PELVIC NODE DISSECTION [J].
NEZHAT, CR ;
BURRELL, MO ;
NEZHAT, FR ;
BENIGNO, BB ;
WELANDER, CE .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1992, 166 (03) :864-865