Objective The aim of the study was to compare site and time to recurrence in patients affected by early stage cervical cancer (CC) treated with laparoscopy radical hysterectomy (LRH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).
Methods This retrospective study was conducted in a university teaching, tertiary referral center hospital. We included patients undergoing either LRH or open ARH to treat CC.
Results One hundred fifty patients were included, 82 submitted to LRH and 68 submitted to ARH. Baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were comparable, except for body mass index higher in ARH group. Patients undergoing LRH experienced less blood loss (100 vs 400 mL, P < 0.0001), less lymph nodes removed (20 vs 31, P = 0.001), and shorter recovery (4 vs 8 days, P = 0.0005) in comparison with the ARH group. No significant differences were found regarding recurrence rate (9 vs 13, P = 0.17) and time to recurrence (8 vs 17 months, P = 0.066) between LRH and ARH group.
Sites of recurrence were also comparable between the 2 groups: 2/9 versus 2/13 (P = 1) local recurrence, 4/9 versus 8/13 (P = 0.66) pelvic recurrence, 4/9 versus 7/13 (P = 1) distant recurrence in LRH and ARH groups, respectively. The most frequent sites of recurrence were pelvic and distant (44.4%) in LRH group and pelvic (61.5%) in ARH group.
Conclusions Our data demonstrate that early stage CC can be treated with LRH with similar recurrence rates and patterns in comparison with ARH, reassuring its continuing clinical use.
- Early stage cervical cancer
- Radical hysterectomy
Statistics from Altmetric.com
This study was not financed by any source of support.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.