Comparative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy and Nerve-Sparing Technique in Cervical Cancer Patients.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Shailesh Puntambekar, Maitreyee Parulekar, Sneha Venkateswaran, Saranya Naidu, Madhavi Patil, Kshitij Manerikar, Suyog Bharambe, Mihir Chitale, Mangesh Panse, Ravindra Sathe, Seema Puntambekar
{"title":"Comparative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy and Nerve-Sparing Technique in Cervical Cancer Patients.","authors":"Shailesh Puntambekar, Maitreyee Parulekar, Sneha Venkateswaran, Saranya Naidu, Madhavi Patil, Kshitij Manerikar, Suyog Bharambe, Mihir Chitale, Mangesh Panse, Ravindra Sathe, Seema Puntambekar","doi":"10.4293/JSLS.2024.00073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Aim was to analyze and compare the oncological outcomes, genitourinary quality of life (QOL), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) of patients treated by laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) for early cervical cancer.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective study in patients of carcinoma cervix FIGO (2009) grade 1A to 2A1 from January 1, 2016 until the publication of Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial in 2018, after which only 1A and 1B1 were included up to December 31, 2020.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Total of 285 patients operated over 5 years at the center were placed in 2 groups, LRH and LNSRH, based on surgical approach.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>Tumor characteristics, clinical profile, tumor clearance, histopathology, adjuvant treatment, period of follow-up and recurrence were compared. The QOL was analyzed in terms of bladder and sexual function.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LNSRH group had significantly faster recovery of bladder (lesser number of days required for PVR <50 mL, quicker catheter removal time, less requirement of self-catheterization, less incidence of urinary retention and incontinence) and sexual function as compared to LRH group. There was no significant difference in radicality of the procedure. None of them had vault recurrences. DFS at 5 years for LRH and LNSRH was 95.3% and 94.1%, respectively. OS at 2 years for LRH and LNSRH was 95.9% and 96.3%, respectively, whereas the OS at 5 years was 95.3% and 94.1%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LNSRH group had significantly better genitourinary QOL as compared to the LRH group without compromising on oncological clearance. The survival is comparable to the results of open surgery in LACC trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":17679,"journal":{"name":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","volume":"29 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12072972/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2024.00073","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Aim was to analyze and compare the oncological outcomes, genitourinary quality of life (QOL), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) of patients treated by laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) for early cervical cancer.

Design: Retrospective study in patients of carcinoma cervix FIGO (2009) grade 1A to 2A1 from January 1, 2016 until the publication of Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial in 2018, after which only 1A and 1B1 were included up to December 31, 2020.

Setting: Total of 285 patients operated over 5 years at the center were placed in 2 groups, LRH and LNSRH, based on surgical approach.

Measurements: Tumor characteristics, clinical profile, tumor clearance, histopathology, adjuvant treatment, period of follow-up and recurrence were compared. The QOL was analyzed in terms of bladder and sexual function.

Results: LNSRH group had significantly faster recovery of bladder (lesser number of days required for PVR <50 mL, quicker catheter removal time, less requirement of self-catheterization, less incidence of urinary retention and incontinence) and sexual function as compared to LRH group. There was no significant difference in radicality of the procedure. None of them had vault recurrences. DFS at 5 years for LRH and LNSRH was 95.3% and 94.1%, respectively. OS at 2 years for LRH and LNSRH was 95.9% and 96.3%, respectively, whereas the OS at 5 years was 95.3% and 94.1%, respectively.

Conclusion: LNSRH group had significantly better genitourinary QOL as compared to the LRH group without compromising on oncological clearance. The survival is comparable to the results of open surgery in LACC trial.

腹腔镜子宫根治术与保留神经技术治疗宫颈癌的疗效比较。
目的:分析比较腹腔镜下子宫根治术(LRH)与保留神经的腹腔镜子宫根治术(LNSRH)治疗早期宫颈癌患者的肿瘤预后、泌尿生殖系统生活质量(QOL)、无病生存期(DFS)和总生存期(OS)。设计:对2016年1月1日至2018年腹腔镜入路宫颈癌(LACC)试验发表前FIGO(2009)分级为1A至2A1的宫颈癌患者进行回顾性研究,此后至2020年12月31日仅纳入1A和1B1。环境:285例在中心手术5年以上的患者根据手术入路分为LRH组和LNSRH组。观察:比较肿瘤特征、临床表现、肿瘤清除率、组织病理学、辅助治疗、随访时间及复发率。从膀胱功能和性功能两方面分析生活质量。结果:LNSRH组膀胱恢复明显更快(PVR所需天数更短)。结论:LNSRH组在不影响肿瘤清除的情况下,与LRH组相比,泌尿生殖系统生活质量明显更好。在LACC试验中,生存率与开放手术的结果相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
69
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons publishes original scientific articles on basic science and technical topics in all the fields involved with laparoscopic, robotic, and minimally invasive surgery. CRSLS, MIS Case Reports from SLS is dedicated to the publication of Case Reports in the field of minimally invasive surgery. The journals seek to advance our understandings and practice of minimally invasive, image-guided surgery by providing a forum for all relevant disciplines and by promoting the exchange of information and ideas across specialties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信