Cargando…

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer

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 bas...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Yan-zhou, Deng, Li, Xu, Hui-cheng, Zhang, Yao, Liang, Zhi-qing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4657298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26596955
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1818-4
_version_ 1782402373776310272
author Wang, Yan-zhou
Deng, Li
Xu, Hui-cheng
Zhang, Yao
Liang, Zhi-qing
author_facet Wang, Yan-zhou
Deng, Li
Xu, Hui-cheng
Zhang, Yao
Liang, Zhi-qing
author_sort Wang, Yan-zhou
collection PubMed
description 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1818-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4657298
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46572982015-11-25 Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer Wang, Yan-zhou Deng, Li Xu, Hui-cheng Zhang, Yao Liang, Zhi-qing BMC Cancer Research Article 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1818-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4657298/ /pubmed/26596955 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1818-4 Text en © Wang et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Wang, Yan-zhou
Deng, Li
Xu, Hui-cheng
Zhang, Yao
Liang, Zhi-qing
Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer
title Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer
title_full Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer
title_fullStr Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer
title_short Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer
title_sort laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4657298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26596955
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1818-4
work_keys_str_mv AT wangyanzhou laparoscopyversuslaparotomyforthemanagementofearlystagecervicalcancer
AT dengli laparoscopyversuslaparotomyforthemanagementofearlystagecervicalcancer
AT xuhuicheng laparoscopyversuslaparotomyforthemanagementofearlystagecervicalcancer
AT zhangyao laparoscopyversuslaparotomyforthemanagementofearlystagecervicalcancer
AT liangzhiqing laparoscopyversuslaparotomyforthemanagementofearlystagecervicalcancer