Surgical, Urinary, and Survival Outcomes of Nerve-sparing Versus Traditional Radical Hysterectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study in China

The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the surgical, urinary, and survival outcomes between nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) and traditional radical hysterectomy (TRH) for stage IB cervical cancer, in which all the primary procedures were performed by a single physician. METHODS: Patients with cervical cancer of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB were included if they received radical hysterectomy of class III or type C in 1 center between February 2001 and November 2015. The epidemiological, clinicopathologic, surgical, and urinary data were collected and compared between the NSRH and TRH groups. The follow-up period ended in December 2016. RESULTS: A total of 406 patients were identified, including 111 (27.3%) in the TRH group and 295 (72.7%) in the NSRH group. Most epidemiological and clinicopathologic characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. The NSRH and TRH groups had similar mean operating times and comparable short-term postoperative complications, but NSRH had less mean estimated blood loss and a shorter mean postoperative stay (all P <0.001). Within 12 months from surgeries, patients in the NSRH group had less residual urine and fewer urinary dysfunctions. For the 371 patients with definite survival outcomes, in the multivariate analysis, both overall survival (hazard ratio=1.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-5.02) and disease-free survival (hazard ratio=1.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.72-3.11, P=0.280) of the NSRH group were similar to those of the TRH group. CONCLUSION: NSRH for stage IB cervical cancer patients had better urinary outcomes than TRH without sacrificing the safety and survival benefits.