We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Long-Term Oncological Outcomes After Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Stage IA2 to IIA2 Cervical Cancer: A Matched Cohort Study.
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2016 September
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for treatment of stage IA2 to IIA2 cervical cancer.
METHODS: We matched stage IA2 to IIA2 cervical cancer patients with known risk factors for recurrence who underwent ARH or LRH.
RESULTS: After matching, a total of 203 patient pairs (LRH-ARH) were included. The LRH and ARH group had similar 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates (91.3% vs 90.4%, P = 0.83) and overall survival (OS) rates (93.2% vs 92.1%, P = 0.94). Patients with different tumor size (≤2, 2-4, >4 cm) had similar 5-year OS and RFS. Even in patients with pelvic lymph node metastasis, the 5-year RFS (69.20% vs 69.20%, P = 0.87) and OS (77.4% vs 76.3%, P = 0.83) did not differ statistically between the 2 groups. The LRH and ARH group had similar mean time to recurrence (16.29 vs 22.15 months, P = 0.68) and pattern of recurrence (P = 0.63). Compared with ARH, LRH resulted in significantly shorter operating time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. The intraoperative complications rate was similar between the 2 groups (P = 0.72). The rate of postoperative complications was significantly lower in the LRH group than in the ARH group (P = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with fewer operating time, blood loss, postoperative complication, and earlier recovery. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy is an oncologically safe alternative to ARH.
METHODS: We matched stage IA2 to IIA2 cervical cancer patients with known risk factors for recurrence who underwent ARH or LRH.
RESULTS: After matching, a total of 203 patient pairs (LRH-ARH) were included. The LRH and ARH group had similar 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates (91.3% vs 90.4%, P = 0.83) and overall survival (OS) rates (93.2% vs 92.1%, P = 0.94). Patients with different tumor size (≤2, 2-4, >4 cm) had similar 5-year OS and RFS. Even in patients with pelvic lymph node metastasis, the 5-year RFS (69.20% vs 69.20%, P = 0.87) and OS (77.4% vs 76.3%, P = 0.83) did not differ statistically between the 2 groups. The LRH and ARH group had similar mean time to recurrence (16.29 vs 22.15 months, P = 0.68) and pattern of recurrence (P = 0.63). Compared with ARH, LRH resulted in significantly shorter operating time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. The intraoperative complications rate was similar between the 2 groups (P = 0.72). The rate of postoperative complications was significantly lower in the LRH group than in the ARH group (P = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with fewer operating time, blood loss, postoperative complication, and earlier recovery. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy is an oncologically safe alternative to ARH.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app