Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2015 Nov 24:15:928.
doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1818-4.

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer

Yan-zhou Wang  1 , Li Deng  1 , Hui-cheng Xu  1 , Yao Zhang  2 , Zhi-qing Liang  3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer

Yan-zhou Wang et al. BMC Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: The possible advantages of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) versus open radical hysterectomy (RH) have not been well reviewed systematically. The aim of this study was to systematically review the comparative effectiveness between LRH and RH in the treatment of cervical cancer based on the evaluation of the Perioperative outcomes, oncological clearance, complications and long-term outcomes.

Methods: The systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and BIOSIS databases. All original studies that compared LRH with RH were included for critical appraisal. Data were pooled and analyzed.

Results: A total of twelve original studies that compared LRH (n = 754) with RH (n = 785) in patients with cervical cancer fulfilled quality criteria were selected for review and meta-analysis. LRH compared with RH was associated with a significant reduction of intraoperative blood loss (weighted mean difference = -268.4 mL (95 % CI -361.6, -175.1; p < 0.01), a reduced risk of postoperative complications (OR = 0.46; 95 % CI 0.34-0.63) and shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference = -3.22 days; 95 % CI-4.21, -2.23 days; p < 0.01). These benefits were at the cost of longer operative time (weighted mean difference = 26.9 min (95 % CI 8.08-45.82). The rate of intraoperative complications was similar in the two groups. Lymph nodes yield and positive resection margins were similar between the two groups. There were no significant differences in 5-year overall survival (HR 0.91, 95 % CI 0.48-1.71; p = 0.76) and 5-year disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95 % CI 0.56-1.68; p = 0.91).

Conclusions: LRH shows better short term outcomes compared with RH in patients with cervical cancer. The oncologic outcome and 5-year survival were similar between the two groups.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of article screening and selection process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plots: perioperative outcomes between LRH and RH in the treatment of cervical cancer. a Operative time. b Blood loss. c Blood transfusion rate. d Duration of hospital stay. e Time for Foley catheterization
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
oncological clearance, complications and long-term outcomes between LRH and RH in the treatment of cervical cancer. a Number of dissected lymph nodes. b Positive resection margins. c Intraoperative complications. d Postoperative complications. e Overall survival, f 5-years disease-free survival
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Funnel plot of studies evaluating the postoperative complications between LRH and RH groups
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ferlay JSI, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013.
    1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69–90. doi: 10.3322/caac.20107. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bansal N, Herzog TJ, Shaw RE, Burke WM, Deutsch I, Wright JD. Primary therapy for early-stage cervical cancer: radical hysterectomy vs radiation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(5):485.e481–489. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.06.015. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nezhat CR, Burrell MO, Nezhat FR, Benigno BB, Welander CE. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with paraaortic and pelvic node dissection. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166(3):864–5. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(92)91351-A. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee CL, Huang KG, Wang CJ, Lee PS, Hwang LL. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using pulsed bipolar system: comparison with conventional bipolar electrosurgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(3):620–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.01.029. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types