ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Year : 2019  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 53-58

Surgical and oncological outcome of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in early cervical cancer in Singapore

Timothy Yong Kuei Lim¹, Krystal Koh Miao Lin², Wai Loong Wong¹, Ieera Madan Aggarwal¹, Philip Kwai Lam Yam^1
1 Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore
² Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Timothy Yong Kuei Lim
Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, Level 6, Women's Tower, KK Women's and Children's Hospital 100, Bukit Timah Road, Singapore 229899
Singapore

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

20

DOI: 10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_43_18

Introduction: The Wertheim's radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH) has been the traditional surgical approach for operable Stage IB cervical cancer in Singapore whereas total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) was introduced only in 2009. In this study, we aimed to compare the long-term surgical outcome between the two routes of surgery in our center.
Methods: This is a prospective study performed in a single large tertiary institution in Singapore. Inclusion criteria included surgically fit patients with early cervical cancer and no radiological evidence of regional or distant metastases.
Results: From November 2009 to December 2014, 51 TLRHs and 85 RAHs were performed. Median blood loss in the TLRH group was significantly lower than in the RAH group (300 vs. 500 mL; P = 0.002) as was median hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; P = 0.001). Operative time was significantly higher in the TLRH group (262 vs. 228 min; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in bladder recovery. Intraoperative complications were encountered in 2 (3.9%) TLRH patients and 1 (1.2%) RAH patient. Postoperative complications occurred in 3 (5.9%) TLRH patients and 8 (9.4%) RAH patients. With a median follow-up of 117 (range 1.6–314.6) weeks in the TLRH group and 143.3 (range 0.4–304.7) weeks in the RAH group, 9 (17.6%) TLRH patients and 7 (8.2%) RAH patients had recurrence. There was no significant difference in the overall 3-year survival between the TLRH group and the RAH group for tumor size ≤2 cm (100.0% vs. 97.0%; P = 0.37). However, there was a trend toward lower survival for the TLRH group for tumor size >2 cm (61.9% vs. 85.4%; P = 0.06).
Conclusion: The results of our study suggest that with appropriate patient selection, TLRH can be a safe and effective procedure for the management of early cervical cancer in Singapore, especially in women with small tumors ≤2 cm but should be used with caution in women with larger tumors.

Keywords: Cervical cancer, laparoscopic surgery, radical hysterectomy, surgical outcomes

Introduction

>[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15] A prospective pilot study was published in 2013, comparing TLRH with RAH by the Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, and the results established the safety and feasibility of TLRH in our study population.^[16] However, the recently published prospective randomized trial Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) showed that TLRH had a lower 3-year overall survival compared to RAH (93.8% vs. 99%), and this has impacted the practice of TLRH worldwide.^[17] In this study, we aimed to compare the long-term surgical and oncological outcomes between the two routes of surgery in our center.

Methods

This is a prospective study performed by the Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH), Singapore, between November 2009 and December 2014.

The inclusion criteria were – (a) early cervical cancer, defined as FIGO (2009)^[18] Stage IA–IIA cervical cancer and (b) clinical and radiological absence of lymph node and distant metastases. The exclusion criteria were (a) an age of more than 70 years; (b) a uterus that was more than 12 weeks in size; (c) pregnancy; and (d) previous midline laparotomies. Patients who were medically unfit and/or had preexisting medical conditions, for which pneumoperitoneum is contraindicated, were also excluded from the study.

Demographic factors, characteristics of the tumor, intraoperative and postoperative surgical outcomes, histological risk factors, recurrence, and overall survival were recorded prospectively.

The method of surgery is as described in the pilot study published in 2013.^[16] In summary, the TLRH was carried out through four-port laparoscopy, and the uterine manipulator was used in most cases in this study. For the colpotomy, the manipulator was removed, and intracorporeal colpotomy was carried out with the aid of the LiNA colpotomy tube (LiNA Medical, Devon, UK) to ensure adequate surgical margins. The vaginal cuff was sutured either laparoscopically or transvaginally.

Patients with high-risk features or had lymph node metastases received adjuvant treatment. All patients were followed up every 3 months in the first 2 years, followed by 6 monthly checkups for the subsequent 3 years, in accordance with the KKH Gynaecological Cancer Centre's protocol. Systemic examination, including pelvic examination and vaginal vault smear, was performed at each visit. If there was any suspicion of a recurrence, radiological imaging and tissue biopsy were performed.

The Mann–Whitney U test and Chi-square test were used for statistical analysis. The Kaplan–Meier and log-rank test were used for survival analysis. Categorical variables were reported as proportion, while continuous variables were reported as median and range values. All analyses were performed in relation to treatment modality, using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 22 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). All statistical tests were two-sided with exact significance reported. P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

From November 2009 to December 2014, a total of 51 TLRHs and 85 RAHs were performed. There was no statistical difference between the age, parity, BMI, ethnicity, FIGO stage, or histology between the two groups. Although there was a trend toward a larger median tumor size in the open surgery group (2 cm vs. 3 cm), it did not reach statistical significance [Table 1].

Table 1: Patient characteristics Click here to view

The surgical outcomes for both groups are shown in [Table 2]. The median operative time for the TLRH group (262 min) was longer than that of the RAH group (262 vs. 228 min; P < 0.0001). Compared to the RAH group, the TLRH group had significantly lower blood loss (300 vs. 500 mL; P = 0.002) and shorter hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; P = 0.001).

Table 2: Surgical outcomes Click here to view

Intraoperative complications were encountered in 2 (3.9%) patients in the TLRH group and 1 (1.2%) patient in the RAH group. In the TLRH group, the complications included one intraoperative bowel injury and one case of hemorrhage from the parametrial vessels requiring conversion to laparotomy. In the RAH group, one intraoperative ureteric injury was observed. No intraoperative bladder complications were observed in the two groups.

Postoperative complications occurred in 3 (5.9%) TLRH patients, namely, one patient with a long-term voiding disorder requiring intermittent catheterization and two with vault dehiscence which were repaired. There were no wound infections in TLRH group. There were 8 (9.4%) postoperative complications in the RAH group, including one having a long-term voiding disorder, one with vault dehiscence, one with a ureterovaginal fistula, and five having wound infections.

There were no statistically significant differences in the histological risk factors, or adjuvant treatment received between the two groups, as shown in [Table 3]. In comparing the surgical outcomes for the TLRH group in 2009–2011 to that of the TLRH group in 2011–2014, there was a significantly lower rate of close or positive vaginal margin involvement in 2011–2014 at 1 case (3.0%) compared to 2009–2011, in which there were 5 (27.8%) cases (P = 0.02). There were no significant differences for positive lymph node metastases, positive parametrial involvement, and adjuvant treatment between the two time frames.

Table 3: Histological risk factors and the adjuvant therapy Click here to view

With a median follow-up of 29.2 (range 0.4–78.7) months in the TLRH group, 9 (17.6%) patients were found to have recurrences. The sites of recurrence included vaginal vault, peritoneum, lung, retroperitoneum, adnexa, liver, and iliac bone. In the RAH group, the median follow-up was 35.8 (range 0.1–76.2) months, with recurrence in 7 (8.2%) patients in the vaginal vault, upper abdomen, iliac fossa, kidney, lung, and bone.

Eight patients (15.7%) from the TLRH group were deceased, of which seven had identified recurrence. In the RAH group, seven patients (8.2%) were deceased, of which four patients had recurrence.

Kaplan–Meier analysis [Figure 1] showed the mean survival for the TLRH and RAH groups were 267 and 280 weeks, respectively. The overall 3-year survival for the TLRH group is 86.4% and that for the RAH group is 95.0%. However, the log-rank analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the overall survival between the two groups (P = 0.175). This is likely due to the limited sample size and the short follow-up time of <3 years, which limits determination of 5-year survival.

Figure 1: Kaplan–Meier analysis for overall survival Click here to view

From another perspective, for tumor sizes ≤2 cm, overall survival is 100% and 97% (P = 0.37) for the TLRH and RAH groups, respectively [Figure 2]. For tumor sizes >2 cm, the overall survival is 61.9% in the TLRH group and 85.4% in the RAH group (P = 0.06) [Figure 3]. This is consistent with recommendations for the use of TLRH for smaller tumors and open abdominal surgery for larger tumors, hence the importance of proper patient selection for TLRH to be chosen as a surgical method over RAH.

Figure 2: Kaplan–Meier analysis of survival for cervical tumor ≤2 cm Click here to view

Figure 3: Kaplan–Meier analysis of survival for cervical tumor >2 cm Click here to view

Discussion

Radical hysterectomy is the conventional treatment for patients with early cervical cancer and can be associated with serious intraoperative and postoperative morbidity. A substantial number of studies comparing MIS radical hysterectomy to traditional abdominal radial hysterectomy appear to have superior surgical outcomes compared to the abdominal route.^{[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]}

Diver et al. studied a total of 383 women with cervical cancer undergoing either MIS techniques (laparoscopic and robotic) for radical hysterectomy compared to the traditional laparotomy approach and found that MIS approach 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 estimated blood loss (50 vs. 500 mL; P < 0.001), fewer blood transfusions (3.0% vs. 26.2%; P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (1.9 vs. 4.9 days; P <−0.001).^[19] In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 4205 patients comparing intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy, it was shown that TLRH was associated with lower estimated blood loss, shorter hospital stay, quicker return to normal bowel activity, and shorter duration of bladder catheterization than RAH. TLRH also demonstrated lower odds of transfusion and ileus than RAH.^[20] However, TLRH was associated with longer operation time and fewer retrieved lymph nodes compared with RAH. Another systematic review and meta-analysis of 4013 women who had undergone radical hysterectomy through robotic, laparoscopic, or abdominal route of surgery found that robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) was associated with less estimated blood loss and shorter hospital stay than RAH.^[21] RRH was also associated with lower odds of febrile morbidity, blood transfusion, and wound-related complications compared to RAH. However, RRH was comparable to TLRH in all intra- and post-operative outcomes.^[21] Similarly, the results of our study show improved surgical outcomes in the TLRH group compared to the RAH group, namely, significantly lower blood loss and hospital stay though the median operative time was longer.

Intraoperative complications for TLRH range from 0% to 15% and postoperative complications for TLRH range from 4% to 40%^{[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]} whereas the intraoperative complication rates for RAH range from 4.4% to 8.7% and postoperative rates range from 4.4% to 20%.^[22],[23] The major complications mainly affect the urinary tract such as bladder or ureteric injuries, voiding dysfunction, urinary tract fistulas, or urinary tract infections although there are reports of rectal or vascular injuries as well. In our series, intraoperative complications were encountered in 2 (3.9%) patients in the TLRH group and 1 (1.2%) patient in the RAH group, whereas postoperative complications occurred in 3 (5.9%) TLRH patients and 8 (9.4%) in the RAH group. The complication rate in our series is fairly comparable to published data.

Regarding oncological outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between LVSI, positive lymph node metastases, parametrial involvement, vaginal margin involvement, and adjuvant treatment between the two groups in our study. Nam et al. reported a higher proportion of patients who do not require adjuvant therapy in the TLRH group compared to the RAH group (56.9% vs. 78.7%).^[24] Similarly, in our series, 43.1% of TLRH patients needed adjuvant treatment compared to 55.3% of RAH patients. The higher close/positive vaginal margin involvement seen in the TLRH group in our study can potentially be addressed by performing vaginal cuff incision and closure through the vaginal route, that is, a laparoscopic-vaginal radical hysterectomy, as described by Nam et al.^[24]

The occurrence of cancer relapse in RAH was reported to range from 12% to 25%^[22],[23] whereas for TLRH, relapse rates from 0% to 13% have been reported in various TLRH studies with a median follow-up of 7–92 months.^{[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]}

However, in the recently published LACC trial, it was reported that the 3-year disease-free survival was lower in the MIS radical hysterectomy group compared to RAH group (91.2% vs. 97.1%; hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death from cervical cancer, 3.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63–8.58), and the 3-year overall survival for MIS radical hysterectomy was lower compared to RAH (93.8% vs. 99%; hazard ratio for death from any cause, 6.00; 95% CI, 1.77–20.30) group.^[17] In this study, there was a trend toward a higher relapse rate of 17.6% in the TLRH group compared to 8.2% in the RAH group with a median follow-up of 29.2 (range 0.4–78.7) months for TLRH and 35.8 (range 0.1–76.2) months for RAH, respectively. The overall 3-year survival for the TLRH group also appears to be lower than the RAH group (86.4% vs. 95.0%; P = 0.175). Kim et al. also showed similar findings in a recent study comparing survival outcomes between MIS radical hysterectomy and RAH for Stage IB1–Stage IIA2 cervical cancers.^[25] Multivariate analysis showed that MIS approach is an independent poor prognostic factor for progression-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.883; 95% CI, 1.711–4.859; P < 0.001) and associated with more recurrences (adjusted HR 2.276; 95% CI 1.039–4.986; P = 0.04).^[25] Several possible reasons cited for the lower survival include the routine use of the uterine manipulator which could increase the risk of tumor spillage, as well as intracorporeal colpotomy which risks intraperitoneal spread through circulating CO₂.^[17]

The LACC trial was not powered to evaluate whether tumor size could have affected the oncologic outcome.^[17] This led us to our analysis whether tumor size could be an important factor in determining the difference in survival between the two surgical methods. For tumor sizes ≤2 cm, the 3-year overall survival in the TLRH group was similar compared to the RAH group (100.0% vs. 97.0%; P = 0.37). On the other hand, for tumor sizes >2 cm, the 3-year overall survival was 61.9% in the TLRH group and 85.4% in the RAH group (P = 0.06). In a comparative study between laparoscopic-vaginal radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer between 1997 and 2002, Nam et al. found that in the laparoscopic group, patients with large tumor volume (≥4.2 cm³) or tumor diameter >2 cm had significantly higher recurrence rate of 42.9% (3/7) than those with small volume (1/40) (P = 0.0021).^[21] The 3-year progression-free survivals were 97.1% in laparoscopic group (<4.2 cm³) and 98.9% in abdominal group. Based on these findings, it was recommended that laparoscopic surgery should be limited to patients with small-volume disease (tumor diameter ≤2 cm or tumor volume <4.2 cm³). In the study by Kim et al., it was also shown that MIS radical hysterectomy was not a poor prognostic factor for those with cervical tumor size ≤2 cm on preoperative MRI as well (adjusted HR 1.146; 95% CI 0.278–4.724; P = 0.85).^[25]

In contrast, a follow-up cohort study over 14 years looking at long-term survival outcomes between laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy, Nam et al. found that survival outcomes did not differ between the two groups. The laparoscopic and open groups had 5-year recurrence-free survival rates of 92.8% and 94.4%, respectively (P = 0.499); 5-year overall survival rates of 95.2% and 96.4%, respectively (P = 0.451); and 5-year disease-specific survival rates of 95.2% and 96.4%, respectively (P = 0.387).^[26]

Conclusion

The results of our study suggest that with appropriate patient selection, TLRH can be a safe and effective procedure for the management of early cervical cancer in Singapore, especially in women with small tumors ≤2 cm, with benefits including less blood loss, shorter recovery time, less pain, lower rates of wound infection, and improved cosmesis. Although the 3-year overall survival of the TLRH group is comparable to the RAH group for patients with tumor size ≤2 cm, it should be used with caution with larger tumors.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 

References

1.	Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and Cervical Cancer. WHO Fact Sheet. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-papillomavirus-(hpv)-and-cervical-cancer. [Last updated on 2019 Jan 24].
2.	Singapore Cancer Registry Annual Registry Report 2015. National Registry of Diseases Office, Singapore; Available from: https://www.nrdo.gov.sg/publications/cancer. [Last released 2017 Jun 19].
3.	Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Ballon SC. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (type III) with aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with stage I cervical cancer: Surgical morbidity and intermediate follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:340-8.
4.	Pomel C, Atallah D, Le Bouedec G, Rouzier R, Morice P, Castaigne D, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer: 8-year experience of a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol 2003;91:534-9.
5.	Abu-Rustum NR, Gemignani ML, Moore K, Sonoda Y, Venkatraman E, Brown C, et al. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy using the argon-beam coagulator: Pilot data and comparison to laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 2003;91:402-9.
6.	Nezhat F, Mahdavi A, Nagarsheth NP. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy using harmonic shears. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2006;13:20-5.
7.	Frumovitz M, dos Reis R, Sun CC, Milam MR, Bevers MW, Brown J, et al. Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:96-102.
8.	Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Ciravolo G, Volpi E, Uccella S, Rampinelli F, et al. Surgicopathologic outcome of laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2007;106:502-6.
9.	Malzoni M, Tinelli R, Cosentino F, Perone C, Vicario V. Feasibility, morbidity, and safety of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: Our experience. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007;14:584-90.
10.	Li G, Yan X, Shang H, Wang G, Chen L, Han Y, et al. Acomparison of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy and laparotomy in the treatment of Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2007;105:176-80.
11.	Pellegrino A, Vizza E, Fruscio R, Villa A, Corrado G, Villa M, et al. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with Ib1 stage cervical cancer: Analysis of surgical and oncological outcome. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009;35:98-103.
12.	Lee CL, Wu KY, Huang KG, Lee PS, Yen CF. Long-term survival outcomes of laparoscopically assisted radical hysterectomy in treating early-stage cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203:165.e1-7.
13.	Naik R, Jackson KS, Lopes A, Cross P, Henry JA. Laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy – A randomised phase II trial: Perioperative outcomes and surgicopathological measurements. BJOG 2010;117:746-51.
14.	Park NY, Chong GO, Hong DG, Cho YL, Park IS, Lee YS, et al. Oncologic results and surgical morbidity of laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in the treatment of FIGO stage IB cervical cancer: Long-term follow-up. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011;21:355-62.
15.	Yan X, Li G, Shang H, Wang G, Han Y, Lin T, et al. Twelve-year experience with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2011;120:362-7.
16.	Lim YK, Chia YN, Yam KL. Total laparoscopic Wertheim's radical hysterectomy versus Wertheim''s radical abdominal hysterectomy in the management of stage I cervical cancer in Singapore: A pilot study. Singapore Med J 2013;54:683-8.
17.	Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;379:1895-904.
18.	Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;105:103-4.
19.	Diver E, Hinchcliff E, Gockley A, Melamed A, Contrino L, Feldman S, et al. Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer is associated with reduced morbidity and similar survival outcomes compared with laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017;24:402-6.
20.	Zhao Y, Hang B, Xiong GW, Zhang XW. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2017;27:1132-44.
21.	Shazly SA, Murad MH, Dowdy SC, Gostout BS, Famuyide AO. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2015;138:457-71.
22.	Ralph G, Winter R, Michelitsch L, Tamussino K. Radicality of parametrial resection and dysfunction of the lower urinary tract after radical hysterectomy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1991;12:27-30.
23.	Zanoio L, Albiero A, Divirgilio G. Radical hysterectomy. Operative complications. Minerva Ginecol 1993;45:591-6.
24.	Nam JH, Kim JH, Kim DY, Kim MK, Yoo HJ, Kim YM, et al. Comparative study of laparoscopico-vaginal radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2004;92:277-83.
25.	Kim SI, Cho JH, Seol A, Kim YI, Lee M, Kim HS, et al. Comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and conventional open surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2019. pii: S0090-8258 (19) 30041-1.
26.	Nam JH, Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: Long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study. Ann Oncol 2012;23:903-11.

Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 

Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]

This article has been cited by 1 Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer Greg Marchand, Ahmed Taher Masoud, Ahmed Abdelsattar, Alexa King, Hollie Ulibarri, Julia Parise, Amanda Arroyo, Catherine Coriell, Sydnee Goetz, Carmen Moir, Atley Moberly, Malini Govindan Scientific Reports. 2023; 13(1) [Pubmed] | [DOI] 2 Overview of laparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer in Japan: Updates after the laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer trial Eiji Kobayashi, Mamoru Kakuda, Yutaka Ueda, Tadashi Kimura Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2022; [Pubmed] | [DOI] 3 Peritoneal carcinomatosis after minimally invasive surgery versus open radical hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis Jorge Hoegl, David Viveros-Carreño, Tatiana Palacios, Andres Gallego - Ardila, Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain, Erick Estuardo Estrada, Florencia Noll, Kate Krause, Glauco Baiocchi, Lucas Minig, Carlos Fernando Grillo - Ardila, Rene Pareja International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2022; : ijgc-2022- [Pubmed] | [DOI] 4 Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis Mengting Zhang, Wei Dai, Yuexiu Si, Yetan Shi, Xiangyuan Li, Ke Jiang, Jingyi Shen, Liying Ying Frontiers in Oncology. 2022; 11 [Pubmed] | [DOI] 5 The impaction laparoscopic versus laparotomy for lymphovascular space invasion of early cervical cancer: A multicenter retrospective study Wei Huang, Yina Wang, Fanchun Yang, Ning Luo, Guihai Ai, Yuliang Wu, Zhongping Cheng Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy. 2022; 11(1): 17 [Pubmed] | [DOI] 6 Oncologic Outcomes of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Using the No-Look No-Touch Technique for Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Propensity Score-Adjusted Analysis Atsushi Fusegi, Hiroyuki Kanao, Naoki Ishizuka, Hidetaka Nomura, Yuji Tanaka, Makiko Omi, Yoichi Aoki, Tomoko Kurita, Mayu Yunokawa, Kohei Omatsu, Koji Matsuo, Naoyuki Miyasaka Cancers. 2021; 13(23): 6097 [Pubmed] | [DOI] 7 Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Anna Jo Bodurtha Smith,Tiffany Nicole Jones,Diana Miao,Amanda Nickles Fader Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2021; 28(3): 544 [Pubmed] | [DOI] 8 Minimally invasive surgery and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: A meta-analysis Yuanyi Yu,Ting Deng,Shequn Gu International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2021; [Pubmed] | [DOI] 9 Comparison of oncological outcomes and major complications between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer with a tumour size less than 2 cm Zhiqiang Li,Chunlin Chen,Ping Liu,Hui Duan,Mubiao Liu,Yan Xu,Pengfei Li,Wenling Zhang,Haixia Jiang,Xiaonong Bin,Jinghe Lang European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2021; [Pubmed] | [DOI] 10 Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter analysis Juliana Rodriguez,Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain,James Saenz,David Ortiz Isla,Gabriel Jaime Rendon Pereira,Diego Odetto,Fabio Martinelli,Vladimir Villoslada,Ignacio Zapardiel,Lina Maria Trujillo,Milagros Perez,Marcela Hernandez,Jose Martin Saadi,Francesco Raspagliesi,Henry Valdivia,Jaime Siegrist,Shuangshuang Fu,Mindy Hernandez Nava,Lina Echeverry,Florencia Noll,Antonino Ditto,Aldo Lopez,Alicia Hernandez,Rene Pareja International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2021; 31(4): 504 [Pubmed] | [DOI] 11 A novel technique to minimize contamination for cervical cancer surgery patients Martin A. Martino,Kristin Bixel,Andrea M. Johnson,Taylor Wejkszner,Aaron Jacobs,Jose Lazaro,Elizaveta Makarova,M. Bijoy Thomas,Jeffrey Fowler Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2020; [Pubmed] | [DOI] 12 Comparison of Survival Outcomes after Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Cervical Cancer Jong Ha Hwang,Bo Wook Kim Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2020; [Pubmed] | [DOI] 13 Surgical Management of Early Cervical Cancer: When Is Laparoscopic Appropriate? Stefano Greggi,Gennaro Casella,Felice Scala,Francesca Falcone,Serena Visconti,Cono Scaffa Current Oncology Reports. 2020; 22(1) [Pubmed] | [DOI] 14 Learning curve could affect oncologic outcome of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer Seongmin Kim,Kyung Jin Min,Sanghoon Lee,Jin Hwa Hong,Jae Yun Song,Jae Kwan Lee,Nak Woo Lee Asian Journal of Surgery. 2020; [Pubmed] | [DOI] 15 Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Roni Nitecki,Pedro T. Ramirez,Michael Frumovitz,Kate J. Krause,Ana I. Tergas,Jason D. Wright,J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain,Alexander Melamed JAMA Oncology. 2020; [Pubmed] | [DOI] 16 Changing treatment landscape for early cervical cancer Alexander Melamed,Pedro T. Ramirez Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2020; 32(1): 22 [Pubmed] | [DOI] 17 100% 5-Year survival rate in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer is an achievable task PengTeng Chua,Chyi-Long Lee,Kuan-Gen Huang Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy. 2020; 9(2): 53 [Pubmed] | [DOI] 18 Laparoscopic regional radical hysterectomy showed promising clinical outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer Weihong Yang,Rong Chen,Caixia Li,Li Li,Ning Luo,Zhongping Cheng Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy. 2020; 9(4): 220 [Pubmed] | [DOI] 19 Survival After Minimally Invasive vs. Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis Yizi Wang,Bo Li,Fang Ren,Zixuan Song,Ling Ouyang,Kuiran Liu Frontiers in Oncology. 2020; 10 [Pubmed] | [DOI] 20 Comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter study in China Ting wen yi Hu,Yue Huang,Na Li,Dan Nie,Zhengyu Li International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2020; 30(8): 1143 [Pubmed] | [DOI]