Dataset Information

Surgical, Urinary, and Survival Outcomes of Nerve-sparing Versus Traditional Radical Hysterectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study in China.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the surgical, urinary, and survival outcomes between nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) and traditional radical hysterectomy (TRH) for stage IB cervical cancer, in which all the primary procedures were performed by a single physician. METHODS:Patients with cervical cancer of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB were included if they received radical hysterectomy of class III or type C in 1 center between February 2001 and November 2015. The epidemiological, clinicopathologic, surgical, and urinary data were collected and compared between the NSRH and TRH groups. The follow-up period ended in December 2016. RESULTS:A total of 406 patients were identified, including 111 (27.3%) in the TRH group and 295 (72.7%) in the NSRH group. Most epidemiological and clinicopathologic characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. The NSRH and TRH groups had similar mean operating times and comparable short-term postoperative complications, but NSRH had less mean estimated blood loss and a shorter mean postoperative stay (all P <0.001). Within 12 months from surgeries, patients in the NSRH group had less residual urine and fewer urinary dysfunctions. For the 371 patients with definite survival outcomes, in the multivariate analysis, both overall survival (hazard ratio=1.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-5.02) and disease-free survival (hazard ratio=1.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.72-3.11, P=0.280) of the NSRH group were similar to those of the TRH group. CONCLUSION:NSRH for stage IB cervical cancer patients had better urinary outcomes than TRH without sacrificing the safety and survival benefits.

SUBMITTER: Li L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6766357 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Surgical, Urinary, and Survival Outcomes of Nerve-sparing Versus Traditional Radical Hysterectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study in China.

Li Lei L Ma Shuiqing S Tan Xianjie X Zhong Sen S Wu Ming M

American journal of clinical oncology 20191001 10

<h4>Purpose</h4>The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the surgical, urinary, and survival outcomes between nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) and traditional radical hysterectomy (TRH) for stage IB cervical cancer, in which all the primary procedures were performed by a single physician.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with cervical cancer of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB were included if they received radical hysterectomy of class III or t ...[more]

PMID: 31490195

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRadical hysterectomy is one of the standard treatments for stage Ia2 to IIa cervical cancer. Bladder dysfunction caused by disruption of the pelvic autonomic nerves is a common complication following standard radical hysterectomy and can affect quality of life significantly. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy is a modified radical hysterectomy, developed to permit resection of oncologically relevant tissues surrounding the cervical lesion, while preserving the pelvic autonomic nerves.ObjectivesTo evaluate the benefits and harms of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in women with stage Ia2 to IIa cervical cancer.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to May week 2, 2018), and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2018, week 21). We also checked registers of clinical trials, grey literature, reports of conferences, citation lists of included studies, and key textbooks for potentially relevant studies.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy compared to standard radical hysterectomy for women with early stage cervical cancer (stage Ia2 to IIa).Data collection and analysisWe applied standard Cochrane methodology for data collection and analysis. Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant RCTs, extracted data, evaluated risk of bias of the included studies, compared results and resolved disagreements by discussion or consultation with a third review author, and assessed the certainty of evidence.Main resultsWe identified 1332 records as a result of the search (excluding duplicates). Of the 26 studies that potentially met the review criteria, we included four studies involving 205 women; most of the trials had unclear risks of bias. We identified one ongoing trial.The analysis of overall survival was not feasible, as there were no deaths reported among women allocated to standard radical hysterectomy. However, there were two deaths in among women allocated to the nerve-sparing technique. None of the included studies reported rates of intermittent self-catheterisation over one month following surgery. We could not analyse the relative effect of the two surgical techniques on quality of life due to inconsistent data reported. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy reduced postoperative bladder dysfunctions in terms of a shorter time to postvoid residual volume of urine ≤ 50 mL (mean difference (MD) -13.21 days; 95% confidence interval (CI) -24.02 to -2.41; 111 women; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and lower volume of postvoid residual urine measured one month following operation (MD -9.59 days; 95% CI -16.28 to -2.90; 58 women; 2 study; low-certainty evidence). There were no clear differences in terms of perioperative complications (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.26; 180 women; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) and disease-free survival (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.00 to 106.95; 86 women; one study; very low-certainty evidence) between the comparison groups.Authors' conclusionsNerve-sparing radical hysterectomy may lessen the risk of postoperative bladder dysfunction compared to the standard technique, but the certainty of this evidence is low. The very low-certainty evidence for disease-free survival and lack of information for overall survival indicate that the oncological safety of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for women with early stage cervical cancer remains unclear. Further large, high-quality RCTs are required to determine, if clinically meaningful differences of survival exist between these two surgical treatments.

Dataset Information

Surgical, Urinary, and Survival Outcomes of Nerve-sparing Versus Traditional Radical Hysterectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study in China.

Publications

Surgical, Urinary, and Survival Outcomes of Nerve-sparing Versus Traditional Radical Hysterectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study in China.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets