Cargando…
Does Vaginal Cuff Creation and Avoidance of a Uterine Manipulator Improve the Prognosis of Total Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Early Cervical Cancer? A Retrospective Multicenter Study
SIMPLE SUMMARY: We aimed to investigate the relationship between the collapse of the vaginal cuff and the prognosis of TLRH. In this retrospective multicenter analysis, 94 early cervical cancer patients who underwent O-RH or TLRH in six hospitals in Japan between September 2016 and July 2020 were in...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9497318/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36139549 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14184389 |
Sumario: | SIMPLE SUMMARY: We aimed to investigate the relationship between the collapse of the vaginal cuff and the prognosis of TLRH. In this retrospective multicenter analysis, 94 early cervical cancer patients who underwent O-RH or TLRH in six hospitals in Japan between September 2016 and July 2020 were included; 36 patients underwent TLRH. PFS and OS were not significantly different between O-RH and TLRH groups. Tumor spillage was prevented by creating a vaginal cuff to avoid using a uterine manipulator. Therefore, TLRH might be considered efficient. ABSTRACT: Our goal was to compare the treatment outcomes of open-abdominal radical hysterectomy (O-RH) and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLRH) with vaginal cuff creation and without using a uterine manipulator in stage IB1-B2 (tumor size < 4 cm) cervical cancer cases. In this retrospective multicenter analysis, 94 cervical cancer stage IB1-B2 patients who underwent O-RH or TLRH in six hospitals in Japan between September 2016 and July 2020 were included; 36 patients underwent TLRH. Propensity score matching was performed because the tumor diameter was large, and positive cases of lymph node metastases were included in the O-RH group due to selection bias. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and recurrence sites of TLRH and O-RH. PFS and OS (overall survival) were not significant in both the TLRH (n = 27) and O-RH (n = 27) groups; none required conversion to laparotomy. The maximum tumor size was <2 and ≥2 cm in 12 (44.4%) and 15 (55.6%) patients, respectively, in both groups. Reportedly, the TLRH group had lesser bleeding than the O-RH group (p < 0.001). Median follow-up was 33.5 (2–65) and 41.5 (6–75) months in the TLRH and O-RH groups, respectively. PFS and OS were not significantly different between the two groups (TLRH: 92.6%, O-RH: 92.6%; log-rank p = 0.985 and 97.2%, 100%; p = 0.317, respectively). The prognosis of early cervical cancer was not significantly different between TLRH and O-RH. Tumor spillage was prevented by creating a vaginal cuff and avoiding the use of a uterine manipulator. Therefore, TLRH might be considered efficient. |
---|