{"title":"Robotic radical hysterectomy after conization for patients with small volume early-stage cervical cancer","authors":"Pluvio J. Coronado , Myriam Gracia","doi":"10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2023.102434","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Laparoscopy and robotics are recommended for managing gynecological cancer, as they are associated with lower morbidity and comparable outcomes to open surgery. However, in the case of early cervical cancer, new evidence suggests worse oncological outcomes with these approaches compared to open surgery, though the limited number of robotic cases makes it challenging to draw definitive conclusions for this particular approach. The prior </span>conization<span><span> has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of tumor spillage and contamination during minimally invasive (MIS) radical hysterectomy (RH). Retrospective studies have indicated that undergoing conization before RH is linked to a reduced risk of recurrences, especially in cervical tumors measuring less than 2 cm. Nevertheless, these studies lack the statistical power needed to definitively establish conization as a recommended step before RH. Furthermore, these studies do not have enough cases utilizing the robotic approach and specific conclusions cannot be drawn from this technique. The question of whether a subset of cases would benefit from preoperative conization and whether conization should be performed to recommend MIS over open surgery remains unanswered. Prospective </span>clinical trials involving women diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer <2 cm, randomized between undergoing conization before robotic RH or without prior conization are mandatory to assess the role of conization before robotic RH in cervical cancer.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":50732,"journal":{"name":"Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"92 ","pages":"Article 102434"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521693423001414","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Laparoscopy and robotics are recommended for managing gynecological cancer, as they are associated with lower morbidity and comparable outcomes to open surgery. However, in the case of early cervical cancer, new evidence suggests worse oncological outcomes with these approaches compared to open surgery, though the limited number of robotic cases makes it challenging to draw definitive conclusions for this particular approach. The prior conization has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of tumor spillage and contamination during minimally invasive (MIS) radical hysterectomy (RH). Retrospective studies have indicated that undergoing conization before RH is linked to a reduced risk of recurrences, especially in cervical tumors measuring less than 2 cm. Nevertheless, these studies lack the statistical power needed to definitively establish conization as a recommended step before RH. Furthermore, these studies do not have enough cases utilizing the robotic approach and specific conclusions cannot be drawn from this technique. The question of whether a subset of cases would benefit from preoperative conization and whether conization should be performed to recommend MIS over open surgery remains unanswered. Prospective clinical trials involving women diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer <2 cm, randomized between undergoing conization before robotic RH or without prior conization are mandatory to assess the role of conization before robotic RH in cervical cancer.
期刊介绍:
In practical paperback format, each 200 page topic-based issue of Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology will provide a comprehensive review of current clinical practice and thinking within the specialties of obstetrics and gynaecology.
All chapters take the form of practical, evidence-based reviews that seek to address key clinical issues of diagnosis, treatment and patient management.
Each issue follows a problem-orientated approach that focuses on the key questions to be addressed, clearly defining what is known and not known. Management will be described in practical terms so that it can be applied to the individual patient.