Vaginal-assisted gasless laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer: a retrospective pilot study

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer is debated. We developed this new vaginal-assisted gasless laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer, and we aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of this surgical procedure and observe the early oncologic outcomes. METHODS: From January 2019 to August 2020, patients with early cervical cancer who underwent vaginal-assisted gasless laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy were studied retrospectively. The clinical characteristics, pathologic outcomes, perioperative outcomes, and follow-up details of the patients were recorded. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients underwent vaginal-assisted gasless laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy were included, 14 (29.2%) with stage IB1, 13 (27.1%) with stage IB2, 7 (14.6%) with stage IB3, 10 (20.8%) with stage IIA1, and 4 (8.3%) stage with IA2. The mean age at diagnosis was 50.4 (range 28–72) years old. The mean operative time was 237.3 min (range 162–393), and the mean estimated blood loss was 246.5 ml (range 80–800). No intraoperative complications occurred, and there were no patients who were readmitted. Histological types were distributed as follows: squamous cell carcinoma 72.9%, adenocarcinoma 10.4%, and adenosquamous cell carcinoma 16.7%. There were 2 patients (4.2%) with positive nodes, 20 patients (41.7%) with positive lymphovascular space invasion, and 2 patients (4.2%) with positive parametria. Twenty-eight patients (58.3%) received adjuvant therapy after the operation. With a mean follow-up of 17.7 months (range 6–26), there were no recurrent cases, and 11 patients (22.9%) suffered lower limb lymphoedema. CONCLUSIONS: The vaginal-assisted gasless laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy might be a feasible technique for early cervical cancer, with promising short-term oncological outcomes and safety. A prospective study with more patients and longer follow-up periods should be performed to further evaluate the safety and oncological outcomes.