Cargando…

Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups

PURPOSE: Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy presents the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Recently, studies have shown a superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, however, the reasons remain to be speculated. This meta-analysis evaluates the ou...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kampers, Johanna, Gerhardt, E., Sibbertsen, P., Flock, T., Klapdor, R., Hertel, H., Jentschke, M., Hillemanns, P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8325671/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34021804
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06082-y
_version_ 1783731600142368768
author Kampers, Johanna
Gerhardt, E.
Sibbertsen, P.
Flock, T.
Klapdor, R.
Hertel, H.
Jentschke, M.
Hillemanns, P.
author_facet Kampers, Johanna
Gerhardt, E.
Sibbertsen, P.
Flock, T.
Klapdor, R.
Hertel, H.
Jentschke, M.
Hillemanns, P.
author_sort Kampers, Johanna
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy presents the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Recently, studies have shown a superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, however, the reasons remain to be speculated. This meta-analysis evaluates the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to open hysterectomy. Risk groups including the use of uterine manipulators or colpotomy were created. METHODS: Ovid-Medline and Embase databases were systematically searched in June 2020. No limitation in date of publication or country was made. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the surgical approach and the endpoints OS and DFS. RESULTS: 30 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Patients were analyzed concerning the surgical approach [open surgery (AH), laparoscopic surgery (LH), robotic surgery (RH)]. Additionally, three subgroups were created from the LH group: the LH high-risk group (manipulator), intermediate-risk group (no manipulator, intracorporal colpotomy) and LH low-risk group (no manipulator, vaginal colpotomy). Regarding OS, the meta-analysis showed inferiority of LH in total over AH (0.97 [0.96; 0.98]). The OS was significantly higher in LH low risk (0.96 [0.94; 0.98) compared to LH intermediate risk (0.93 [0.91; 0.94]). OS rates were comparable in AH and LH Low-risk group. DFS was higher in the AH group compared to the LH group in general (0.92 [95%-CI 0.88; 0.95] vs. 0.87 [0.82; 0.91]), whereas the application of protective measures (no uterine manipulator in combination with vaginal colpotomy) was associated with increased DFS in laparoscopy (0.91 [0.91; 0.95]). CONCLUSION: DFS and OS in laparoscopy appear to be depending on surgical technique. Protective operating techniques in laparoscopy result in improved minimal invasive survival. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00404-021-06082-y.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8325671
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83256712021-08-02 Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups Kampers, Johanna Gerhardt, E. Sibbertsen, P. Flock, T. Klapdor, R. Hertel, H. Jentschke, M. Hillemanns, P. Arch Gynecol Obstet Review PURPOSE: Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy presents the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Recently, studies have shown a superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, however, the reasons remain to be speculated. This meta-analysis evaluates the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to open hysterectomy. Risk groups including the use of uterine manipulators or colpotomy were created. METHODS: Ovid-Medline and Embase databases were systematically searched in June 2020. No limitation in date of publication or country was made. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the surgical approach and the endpoints OS and DFS. RESULTS: 30 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Patients were analyzed concerning the surgical approach [open surgery (AH), laparoscopic surgery (LH), robotic surgery (RH)]. Additionally, three subgroups were created from the LH group: the LH high-risk group (manipulator), intermediate-risk group (no manipulator, intracorporal colpotomy) and LH low-risk group (no manipulator, vaginal colpotomy). Regarding OS, the meta-analysis showed inferiority of LH in total over AH (0.97 [0.96; 0.98]). The OS was significantly higher in LH low risk (0.96 [0.94; 0.98) compared to LH intermediate risk (0.93 [0.91; 0.94]). OS rates were comparable in AH and LH Low-risk group. DFS was higher in the AH group compared to the LH group in general (0.92 [95%-CI 0.88; 0.95] vs. 0.87 [0.82; 0.91]), whereas the application of protective measures (no uterine manipulator in combination with vaginal colpotomy) was associated with increased DFS in laparoscopy (0.91 [0.91; 0.95]). CONCLUSION: DFS and OS in laparoscopy appear to be depending on surgical technique. Protective operating techniques in laparoscopy result in improved minimal invasive survival. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00404-021-06082-y. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-05-22 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8325671/ /pubmed/34021804 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06082-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review
Kampers, Johanna
Gerhardt, E.
Sibbertsen, P.
Flock, T.
Klapdor, R.
Hertel, H.
Jentschke, M.
Hillemanns, P.
Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups
title Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups
title_full Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups
title_fullStr Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups
title_full_unstemmed Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups
title_short Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups
title_sort protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8325671/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34021804
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06082-y
work_keys_str_mv AT kampersjohanna protectiveoperativetechniquesinradicalhysterectomyinearlycervicalcarcinomaandtheirinfluenceondiseasefreeandoverallsurvivalasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofriskgroups
AT gerhardte protectiveoperativetechniquesinradicalhysterectomyinearlycervicalcarcinomaandtheirinfluenceondiseasefreeandoverallsurvivalasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofriskgroups
AT sibbertsenp protectiveoperativetechniquesinradicalhysterectomyinearlycervicalcarcinomaandtheirinfluenceondiseasefreeandoverallsurvivalasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofriskgroups
AT flockt protectiveoperativetechniquesinradicalhysterectomyinearlycervicalcarcinomaandtheirinfluenceondiseasefreeandoverallsurvivalasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofriskgroups
AT klapdorr protectiveoperativetechniquesinradicalhysterectomyinearlycervicalcarcinomaandtheirinfluenceondiseasefreeandoverallsurvivalasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofriskgroups
AT hertelh protectiveoperativetechniquesinradicalhysterectomyinearlycervicalcarcinomaandtheirinfluenceondiseasefreeandoverallsurvivalasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofriskgroups
AT jentschkem protectiveoperativetechniquesinradicalhysterectomyinearlycervicalcarcinomaandtheirinfluenceondiseasefreeandoverallsurvivalasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofriskgroups
AT hillemannsp protectiveoperativetechniquesinradicalhysterectomyinearlycervicalcarcinomaandtheirinfluenceondiseasefreeandoverallsurvivalasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofriskgroups