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
. 2024 Dec 23;24(1):413.
doi: 10.1186/s12893-024-02713-8.

A meta-analysis comparing open and minimally invasive cervical tumor surgery wound infection and postoperative complications

Ran Song  1 , Mingming Ma  1 , Nana Yang  1 , Chunfang Chen  1 , Huan Wang  1 , Juan Li  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

A meta-analysis comparing open and minimally invasive cervical tumor surgery wound infection and postoperative complications

Ran Song et al. BMC Surg. .

Abstract

To evaluate the impact of open surgical care (OSC) compared to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) on the occurrence of wound infection (WI) and overall postoperative aggregate complications (POACs) in female cervical cancer (CC) patients, we conducted this meta-analysis study. A thorough examination of the literature up to March 2024 was conducted, and 1849 related studies were examined. The 44 studies that were selected included 11,631 females who had CC. The odds ratio (ORs) and the estimation using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to calculate the impact of open surgical management and MIS on WI and POACs in females with CC, using dichotomous methodologies and a random or fixed model. When comparing MIS to open surgical care, there was a substantial decrease in WI (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.13-0.29, p < 0.001) and POACs (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38-0.62, p < 0.001) in females with CC. On the other hand, among female patients with CC, MIS did not differ significantly from open surgical care in pelvic infection and abscess (PI&A) incidence (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.31-1.16, p = 0.13). When compared to OSC, women with CC who underwent MIS experienced considerably fewer WI and POACs; however, there was no discernible difference in PI&A rates. However, given several of the designated examinations for the meta-analysis had relatively small sample sizes, caution must be used while handling its values.

Keywords: Cervical cancer; Laparotomy; Minimally invasive surgery; Postoperative issues; Wound infection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Shows the study procedure flowchart
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The forest plot analysis shows how wound infection in cervical cancer patients is affected by minimally invasive surgery as opposed to OSC
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The forest plot analysis shows how POACs in cervical cancer patients were affected by minimally invasive surgery as opposed to OSC
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The forest plot of the minimally invasive surgery’s impact on PI&A in cervical cancer patients in comparison to OSC
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. - PubMed
    1. Ries E. THE OPERATIVE TREATMENT OF CANCER OF THE CERVIX UTERI. JAMA. 1906;XLVII(23):1869–72.
    1. Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Neugut AI, Burke WM, Lu Y-S, Lewin SN, Hershman DL. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127(1):11–7. - PubMed
    1. Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, Buda A, Yan X, Shuzhong Y, Chetty N. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1895–904. - PubMed
    1. Wood DE. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines for lung cancer screening. Torac Surg Clin. 2015;25(2):185–97. - PubMed

MeSH terms