Total laparoscopic vs. conventional open abdominal nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: clinical, surgical, oncological and functional outcomes in 301 patients with cervical cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Total laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (TL-NSRH) has been considered a promising approach, however, surgical, clinical, oncological and functional outcomes have not been systematically addressed. We present a large retrospective multi-center experience comparing TL-NSRH vs. open abdominal NSRH (OA-NSRH) for early and locally-advanced cervical cancer, with particular emphasis on post-surgical pelvic function.Methods
All consecutive patients who underwent class C1-NSRH plus bilateral pelvic + para-aortic lymphadenectomy for stage IA2-IIB cervical cancer at 4 Italian gynecologic oncologic centers (Negrar, Varese, Bologna, Avellino) were enrolled. Patients were divided into TL-NSRH and OA-NSRH groups and were investigated with preoperative questionnaires on urinary, rectal and sexual function. Postoperatively, patients filled a questionnaire assessing quality of life, taking into account sexual function and psychological status. Oncological outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan-Meyer method.Results
301 consecutive patients were included in this study: 170 in the TL-NSRH group and 131 in the OA-NSRH group. Patients in the OA-NSRH group were more likely to experience urinary incontinence and (after 12-months follow-up) urinary retention. No patient in the TL-NSRH group vs. 5 (5.5%) in the OA-NSRH group had complete urinary retention (at the >24-month follow-up [p=0.02]). A total of 20 (11.8%) in the TL-NSRH and 11 (8.4%) patients in the OA-NSRH had recurrence of disease (p=0.44) and 14 (8.2%) and 9 (6.9%) died of disease during follow-up, respectively (p=0.83).Conclusion
Our study shows that TL-NSRH is feasible, safe and effective and conjugates adequate radicality and improvement in post-operative functional outcomes. Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic procedures deserve further investigation.
SUBMITTER: Ceccaroni M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7767655 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:This study is to compare the survival outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) to those of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). Patients with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB2 to IIB LACC who underwent radical hysterectomy between 2001 and 2015 were identified. The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared according to the surgical approach and were adjusted based on clinicopathologic characteristics. A total of 396 patients were included in the study, with 179 (45.2%) and 217 (54.8%) patients in the ARH and LRH groups, respectively. The LRH group showed a significantly lower amount of estimated blood loss, lower blood transfusion rate and shorter length of hospital stay. Overall, there were no significant differences in the 5-year DFS and 5-year OS between the LRH and ARH groups with the Kaplan-Meier method. However, multivariate analyses identified LRH as an independent prognostic factor for a poor DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.5; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02). The analysis of stage IB2 disease and the squamous subtype (61.9% and 87.9% of all participants, respectively) reached the same conclusion. When stratifying by FIGO stage, the patients with IB2 (n = 348) in the ARH group had a significantly better DFS (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05-0.42, p < 0.01) and OS (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.67, p = 0.11) than those in the LRH group in the Cox regression model. However, no differences were found in patient with stage IIA1, IIA2, or IIB in Cox regression model. When stratifying by histological types, for the patients with squamous carcinomas (n = 375), in Cox model, ARH had a significantly superior DFS compared with those who underwent LRH (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.82, p = 0.01), but the OS was not statistically significant (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27-1.20, p = 0.14). However, no differences were found in patient with adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinomas in the Cox model. Therefore, ARH was associated with a higher DFS than LRH in patients with LACC, especially in patients with stage IB2 disease or the squamous subtype.
| S-EPMC6890871 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is one of the most widely used procedures for localized prostate cancer (PCa). In the present study, the clinical and oncological outcomes of RARP with bilateral or unilateral nerve sparing (NS) for D'Amico high-risk PCa cases were assessed. Among the 767 cases who received RARP at Fujita Health University Hospital between August 2009 and December 2016, 230 high-risk PCa cases who were observed for >6 months comprised the retrospective study cohort. Bilateral NS was performed with the bilateral neurovascular bundle in eight, unilateral in 125 and none in 97 cases. Perioperative parameters [surgery time, console time, estimated blood loss, pathological stage, positive lymph node metastases [pN (+)], and surgical margin positivity] did not exhibit significant differences between the NS and non-NS cohorts. During a median follow-up time of 25 months, the 1- and 3-year biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival rates in the NS/non-NS cohorts were 84.4/86.0 and 72.7/75.0%, respectively. There were no significant differences identified between the two groups at each time period. According to multivariate analysis, the resection margin was an important factor for time to BCR, regardless of the NS technique used. The numbers of pads used daily at 3 and 6 months after RARP between the NS/non-NS cohorts were 1.1/1.5 and 0.6/1.0, respectively (P=0.045 and P=0.009), suggesting that the NS technique resulted in significantly improved outcomes regarding urinary continence recovery. In selected high-risk PCa cases, the NS technique resulted in equivalent oncological outcomes and improved urinary continence compared with the non-NS RARP group.
| S-EPMC6757315 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) was introduced with the aim to reduce pelvic dysfunctions related to conventional radical hysterectomy (RH). Here, we sought to assess the effectiveness and safety of NSRH in a relatively large number of the patients of cervical cancer (CC) patients undergoing either primary surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by surgery. METHODS:Outcomes of consecutive patients undergoing NSRH and of a historical cohort of patients undergoing conventional RH were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS:This study included 325 (49.8%) and 327 (50.2%) undergoing NSRH and RH, respectively. Via a multivariable model, nodal status was the only factor predicting for DFS (hazard ratio [HR]=2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.17-3.73; p=0.01). A trend towards high risk of recurrence was observed for patients affected by locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) undergoing NACT followed by surgery (HR=2.57; 95% CI=0.95-6.96; p=0.06). Type of surgical procedures (NSRH vs. RH) did not influence risk of recurrence (p=0.47). Similarly, we observed that the execution of NSRH rather than RH had not a detrimental effect on OS (HR=1.19; 95% CI=0.16-9.01; p=0.87). Via multivariable model, no factor directly correlated with OS. No difference in early complication rates was observed between the study groups. Conversely, a significant higher number of late complications was reported in RH versus NSRH groups (p=0.02). CONCLUSION:Our data suggested that NSRH upholds effectiveness of conventional RH, without increasing recurrence and complication rates but improving pelvic dysfunction rates.
| S-EPMC5920225 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the incidence of urologic complications requiring a urologic procedure during the perioperative period and compare the differences between abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).MethodsWe identified all Korean women who underwent radical hysterectomy (RH) between January 2006 and December 2019 using the National Health Insurance Service database. Complications requiring surgical intervention-based urologic procedures between ARH and LRH were investigated.ResultsA total of 12,068 patients were classified into the ARH group and 8,837 patients were classified into the LRH group. Urologic complications requiring urologic procedures occurred in 1,546 of 20,905 patients (7.40%) who underwent RH. The most common urologic procedure was double-J insertion (R326, 5.18%), followed by bladder repair (R3550, 0.90%). There was no significant difference in urologic complications requiring urologic procedures between the ARH and LRH groups (odds ratio [OR]=1.027; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.925-1.141; p=0.612). The incidence of bladder repair (R3550) was significantly higher in patients who underwent LRH (OR=1.620; 95% CI=1.220-2.171; p<0.001). Urologic complications requiring urologic procedures were statistically higher in the LRH group during the first half (OR=1.446; 95% CI=1.240-1.685; p<0.001), but more in the ARH group during the second half (OR=0.696; 95% CI=0.602-0.804; p<0.001) of the study period.ConclusionThere was no difference of urologic complications between ARH and LRH with regard to urologic procedures. The incidence of urologic procedures decreases with time in patients who underwent LRH.
| S-EPMC8550924 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Precision cancer surgery is a system that integrates the accurate evaluation of tumor extension and aggressiveness, precise surgical maneuvers, prognosis evaluation, and prevention of the deterioration of quality of life (QoL). In this regard, nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy has a pivotal role in the personalized treatment of cervical cancer. Various types of radical hysterectomy can be combined with the nerve-sparing procedure. The extent of parametrium and vagina/paracolpium excision and the nerve-sparing procedure are tailored to the tumor status. Advanced magnetic resonance imaging technology will improve the assessment of the local tumor extension. Validated risk factors for perineural invasion might guide selecting treatment for cervical cancer. Type IV Kobayashi (modified Okabayashi) radical hysterectomy combined with the systematic nerve-sparing procedure aims to both maximize the therapeutic effect and minimize the QoL impairment. Regarding the technical aspect, the preservation of vesical nerve fibers is essential. Selective transection of uterine nerve fibers conserves the vesical nerve fibers as an essential piece of the pelvic nervous system comprising the hypogastric nerve, pelvic splanchnic nerves, and inferior hypogastric plexus. This method is anatomically and surgically valid for adequate removal of the parametrial and vagina/paracolpium tissues while preserving the total pelvic nervous system. Local recurrence after nerve-sparing surgery might occur due to perineural invasion or inadequate separation of pelvic nerves cutting through the wrong tissue plane between the pelvic nerves and parametrium/paracolpium. Postoperative management for long-term maintenance of bladder function is as critical as preserving the pelvic nerves.
| S-EPMC7189083 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study Objective: To compare the surgical and oncologic outcomes between open abdomen radical hysterectomy (ARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer. Methods: Retrospective observational study with propensity score matching was used to ensure balanced groups for ARH and LRH. One-hundred-and-ninety-eight women with cervical cancer, 99 treated using ARH and 99 using LRH, between January 2012 and December 2014. Outcomes included disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), intra-operative factors, post-operator recovery, urinary retention, and adverse events. Moreover, the inverse probability of the treatment weighting (IPTW) method was also used. Main Results: Compared with ARH, LRH was associated with a lower volume of blood loss (P < 0.001) and transfusion rate (P < 0.001), with a broader resection of the parametrium (P < 0.001). Post-operatively, the time to first flatus was shorter for LRH than ARH (P < 0.001) but the rate of urinary retention was higher for LRH (22.2%) than ARH (8.1%; P = 0.009). DFS and OS were similar between groups. By IPTW, laparoscopy was also not associated with poorer survival in terms of DFS (HR 1.52, CI 0.799-2.891, P = 0.202) or OS (HR 0.942, HR 0.425-2.09, P = 0.883). Conclusion: Compared with ARH, LRH provided better intra-operative and post-operative outcomes, with no significant difference in oncologic outcomes and survival. Urinary retention remains a clinical issue to improve with LRH. The technology of LRH has been improved in China to address the inconsistent results of oncologic outcomes in previous studies. Whether these improvements could be effective needs to be investigated in the future.
| S-EPMC6833183 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6370917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Waterjet dissection of the inferior hypogastric plexus (IHP) resulted in a more rapid return of normal urodynamics than blunt dissection (control group) in patients who received laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) in a randomized controlled study. However, the definite reasons for these results were unknown. This subgroup analysis compared the neural areas and impairment in the IHP uterine branches harvested during NSRH as an alternative to the IHP vesical branches between the waterjet and control groups. This study included samples from 30 eligible patients in each group of the trial NCT03020238. At least one specimen from each side of the IHP uterine branches was resected. The tissues were scanned, images were captured, and the neural component areas were calculated using the image segmentation method. Immunohistochemical staining was used to evaluate neural impairment. The control and waterjet groups had similar areas of whole tissues sent for evaluation. However, the control group had significantly fewer areas (median 272158 versus 200439 μm2, p = 0.044) and a lower percentage (median 4.9% versus 3.0%, p = 0.011) of neural tissues. No significant changes in immunohistochemical staining were found between the two groups. For patients with residual urine ≤100 and >100 ml at 14 days after NSRH (42 and 18 patients, respectively), there were significantly different percentages of neural tissues in the resected samples (p < 0.001). Hence, Due to the accurate identification of IHP during NSRH, the waterjet dissection technique achieved better urodynamic results.
| S-EPMC6744562 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAlthough nerve-sparing radical surgery (NSRS) is an emerging technique for reducing surgery-related dysfunctions, its efficacy is controversial in patients with cervical cancer. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes, and urinary, anorectal, and sexual dysfunctions between conventional radical surgery (CRS) and NSRS.MethodsAfter searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, two randomized controlled trials, seven prospective and eleven retrospective cohort studies were included with 2,253 patients from January 2000 to February 2014. We performed crude analyses and then conducted subgroup analyses according to study design, quality of study, surgical approach, radicality, and adjustment for potential confounding factors.ResultsCrude analyses showed decreases in blood loss, hospital stay, frequency of intraoperative complications, length of the resected vagina, duration of postoperative catheterization (DPC), urinary frequency, and abnormal sensation in NSRS, whereas there were no significant differences in other clinical parameters and dysfunctions between CRS and NSRS. In subgroup analyses, operative time was longer (standardized difference in means, 0.948; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.642 to 1.253), while intraoperative complications were less common (odds ratio, 0.147; 95% CI, 0.035 to 0.621) in NSRS. Furthermore, subgroup analyses showed that DPC was shorter, urinary incontinence or frequency, and constipation were less frequent in NSRS without adverse effects on survival and sexual functions.ConclusionNSRS may not affect prognosis and sexual dysfunctions in patients with cervical cancer, whereas it may decrease intraoperative complications, and urinary and anorectal dysfunctions despite long operative time and short length of the resected vagina when compared with CRS.
| S-EPMC4397225 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntrafascial prostatectomy was a modified technique from the conventional nerve-sparing surgery in order to improve patients' post-surgical continence and erectile function; however, ongoing controversy exists regarding the oncological safety of this technique. In this study we aimed to provide a critical and pooled analysis based on published literatures regarding the oncological outcomes after intrafascial nerve-sparing prostatectomy.MethodsDatabase searches were performed for published articles till June 2018 on PubMed. Three reviewers screened fulfilled papers and extracted data independently. Main outcome was the positive surgical margins (PSMs) rates stratified by pathological stages. We performed both one-arm and comparative meta-analysis to evaluate the oncological safety of intrafascial technique. Moreover, we built meta-regression models to assess the confounding factors.ResultsWe retrieved a total of 117 records after electronic search, of which 21 studies were finally included in this review. There were 15 controlled studies and 6 surgical series. Our one-arm meta-analysis demonstrated that the total PSM rates after intrafascial techniques ranging from 2.2 to 35%, with a pooled rate of 14.5% on average (480 of 3151 patients, 95% confidence interval[CI]: 11.2-17.5%). Meta-regression model showed that patients' age, pT2 cancer percentage and Selection Score of Oncological Safety (SSOS) were significantly associated with total PSM rate; moreover, each 1 point of SSOS could decrease the total PSM rate by 1.3% on average. Comparative meta-analysis demonstrated that there was no significant difference between intra- and inter-fascial group regarding PSM rates.ConclusionsWith stringent case selection and when performed by experienced surgeons, intrafascial prostatectomy could offer an acceptable or, at least, equivalent PSM rate compared with the conventional interfascial approach. Preoperative SSOS more than 7 points could be considered as an indication of intrafascial radical prostatectomy.
| S-EPMC6537360 | biostudies-literature