We sought to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of simple hysterectomy in patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer (tumors ≤2 cm with limited stromal invasion).
This study was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42023433840) following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist. MEDLINE (through Ovid), EmMBASEbase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until June 2023. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies with two arms of comparison (simple hysterectomy with lymph node assessment vs radical hysterectomy with lymph node assessment) in patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer were considered.
The search identified 1270 articles; eighteen studies were considered potentially eligible after removing duplicates, and four met the selection criteria. Three studies were randomized controlled trials, and the other was a retrospective cohort study. In total, 981 patients were included. There were 485 (49.4%) and 496 (50.6%) patients in the simple hysterectomy and radical hysterectomy groups, respectively. Simple hysterectomy with lymph node assessment was not associated with a higher risk of death at 5 years (RR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.31 to 3.10; I2=0%, two randomized controlled trials, 141 patients, for an absolute risk reduction of zero percentage points [95% CI –9.0 to 9.0]), pelvic recurrence at 3 years (97.5% and 97.8% for simple hysterectomy and radical hysterectomy, respectively, p=0.79), and overall recurrence at 3 years (95 %% and 100% for simple hysterectomy and radical hysterectomy, respectively, p=0.30).
Simple hysterectomy with lymph node evaluation for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer is not associated with a detrimental effect on oncologic outcomes and has a better morbidity profile.
To review rates of uterine preservation and gonadal function, surgical outcomes, and pregnancy outcomes in patients undergoing surgical uterine transposition.
A structured search and analysis of the published literature on uterine transposition was conducted. Information on study type, sample size, patient characteristics, clinical indications, details of the surgical technique, trans-operative and post-operative results, success rates in preserving reproductive organ function and fertility were extracted.
A total of 18 cases were reported to date. Patients’ median age was 29 (range 3–38) years. Rectal cancers accounted for 9 (50%) cases of published cases of uterine transposition, followed by 6 (33%) cervical squamous cell carcinomas, 1 (6%) vaginal squamous cell carcinoma, 1 (6%) sacral yolk sac tumor, and 1 (6%) pelvic liposarcoma. The median time for uterine transposition to the upper abdomen was 150 (range 80–360) min, and 90 (range 80–310) min for organ reimplantation in the pelvis. Cervical ischemia occurred in 5 (27.8%) cases, being the most commonly reported complication. The median follow-up time was 25 months, and three patients achieved spontaneous pregnancies resulting in successful gestations, out of five patients who were reported as having tried. One patient experienced recurrence and succumbed to the tumor during treatment.
Uterine transposition is a feasible and safe surgical approach that offers patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy an option to preserve gonadal and uterine function, with the potential for spontaneous pregnancy.
In the era of ‘less is more’, pelvic exenteration in gynecologic oncology is still indicated when there are no other curative-intent alternatives in persistent or recurrent gynecological malignancies confined to the pelvis or with otherwise unmanageable symptoms from fistula or radiation necrosis. Pelvic exenteration is one of the most destructive procedures performed on an elective basis, which inevitably carries a significant psychologic, sexual, physical, and emotional burden for the patient and caregivers. Such complex ultraradical surgery, which requires removal of the vagina, vulva, urinary tract, and/or gastrointestinal tract, subsequently needs creative and complex reconstructive procedures. The additional removal of sidewall or perineal structures, like pelvic floor muscles/vulva, or portions of the musculoskeletal pelvis, and the inclusion of intra-operative radiation further complicates reconstruction. This review paper will focus on the reconstruction aspects following pelvic exenteration, including options for urinary tract restoration, reconstruction of the vulva and vagina, as well as how to fill large empty spaces in the pelvis. While the predominant gastrointestinal outcome after exenteration in gynecologic oncology is an end colostomy, we also present some novel new options for gastrointestinal tract reconstruction at the end.
]]>