PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Rosa Maria Laterza AU - Stefano Uccella AU - Jvan Casarin AU - Chiara Morosi AU - Maurizio Serati AU - Heinz Koelbl AU - Fabio Ghezzi TI - Recurrence of Early Stage Cervical Cancer After Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Surgery AID - 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000627 DP - 2016 Mar 01 TA - International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer PG - 547--552 VI - 26 IP - 3 4099 - http://ijgc.bmj.com/content/26/3/547.short 4100 - http://ijgc.bmj.com/content/26/3/547.full SO - Int J Gynecol Cancer2016 Mar 01; 26 AB - 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.