早期宫颈癌经腹和腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术预后比较:一项回顾性队列研究。

IF 1.7 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy-GMIT Pub Date : 2025-07-19 eCollection Date: 2025-07-01 DOI:10.4103/gmit.GMIT-D-24-00033
I-Chun Huang, Pei-Chen Li, Dah-Ching Ding
{"title":"早期宫颈癌经腹和腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术预后比较:一项回顾性队列研究。","authors":"I-Chun Huang, Pei-Chen Li, Dah-Ching Ding","doi":"10.4103/gmit.GMIT-D-24-00033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>There is still ongoing debate regarding the surgical approach for early-stage cervical cancer. We aimed to compare the outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer and compare our results with those of previous studies.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This study included patients with early-stage cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics ≤ stage IIA) who received treatment from January 2002 to December 2022. Clinical, surgical, pathological, recurrence, and survival data were collected and analyzed using suitable statistical methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 71 patients, 54 underwent ARH and 17 underwent LRH. The median follow-up durations were 117.0 months for the ARH group and 64.4 months for the LRH group. The average age of patients was 53.7 years, with a mean body mass index of 24.2 kg/m<sup>2</sup>. Most patients had stage IB1 disease, and squamous cell carcinoma was the most common histological type. ARH was performed in 76.1% of patients, while 23.9% underwent LRH. LRH patients had significantly less blood loss (180 ml vs. 871.7 ml) and shorter hospital stays (6 days vs. 14 days). No significant differences in disease recurrence, cervical cancer-related mortality, or overall survival were observed between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Early-stage cervical cancer patients who received LRH had survival and recurrence outcomes comparable to those who underwent ARH.</p>","PeriodicalId":45272,"journal":{"name":"Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy-GMIT","volume":"14 3","pages":"246-253"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12334104/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Prognosis between Abdominal and Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomies in Early-stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"I-Chun Huang, Pei-Chen Li, Dah-Ching Ding\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/gmit.GMIT-D-24-00033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>There is still ongoing debate regarding the surgical approach for early-stage cervical cancer. We aimed to compare the outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer and compare our results with those of previous studies.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This study included patients with early-stage cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics ≤ stage IIA) who received treatment from January 2002 to December 2022. Clinical, surgical, pathological, recurrence, and survival data were collected and analyzed using suitable statistical methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 71 patients, 54 underwent ARH and 17 underwent LRH. The median follow-up durations were 117.0 months for the ARH group and 64.4 months for the LRH group. The average age of patients was 53.7 years, with a mean body mass index of 24.2 kg/m<sup>2</sup>. Most patients had stage IB1 disease, and squamous cell carcinoma was the most common histological type. ARH was performed in 76.1% of patients, while 23.9% underwent LRH. LRH patients had significantly less blood loss (180 ml vs. 871.7 ml) and shorter hospital stays (6 days vs. 14 days). No significant differences in disease recurrence, cervical cancer-related mortality, or overall survival were observed between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Early-stage cervical cancer patients who received LRH had survival and recurrence outcomes comparable to those who underwent ARH.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45272,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy-GMIT\",\"volume\":\"14 3\",\"pages\":\"246-253\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12334104/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy-GMIT\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/gmit.GMIT-D-24-00033\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy-GMIT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/gmit.GMIT-D-24-00033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:关于早期宫颈癌的手术入路仍有争议。我们的目的是比较腹部根治性子宫切除术(ARH)和腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术(LRH)对早期宫颈癌患者的治疗效果,并将我们的结果与以往的研究结果进行比较。材料与方法:本研究纳入2002年1月至2022年12月接受治疗的早期宫颈癌(国际妇产科联合会≤IIA期)患者。收集临床、手术、病理、复发和生存资料,采用合适的统计学方法进行分析。结果:71例患者中54例行ARH, 17例行LRH。ARH组的中位随访时间为117.0个月,LRH组为64.4个月。患者平均年龄53.7岁,平均体重指数24.2 kg/m2。大多数患者为IB1期,鳞状细胞癌是最常见的组织学类型。76.1%的患者行ARH, 23.9%的患者行LRH。LRH患者的失血量显著减少(180 ml对871.7 ml),住院时间也较短(6天对14天)。两组在疾病复发率、宫颈癌相关死亡率或总生存率方面均无显著差异。结论:接受LRH的早期宫颈癌患者的生存和复发结果与接受ARH的患者相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of Prognosis between Abdominal and Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomies in Early-stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Comparison of Prognosis between Abdominal and Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomies in Early-stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Comparison of Prognosis between Abdominal and Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomies in Early-stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Comparison of Prognosis between Abdominal and Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomies in Early-stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objectives: There is still ongoing debate regarding the surgical approach for early-stage cervical cancer. We aimed to compare the outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer and compare our results with those of previous studies.

Materials and methods: This study included patients with early-stage cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics ≤ stage IIA) who received treatment from January 2002 to December 2022. Clinical, surgical, pathological, recurrence, and survival data were collected and analyzed using suitable statistical methods.

Results: Of the 71 patients, 54 underwent ARH and 17 underwent LRH. The median follow-up durations were 117.0 months for the ARH group and 64.4 months for the LRH group. The average age of patients was 53.7 years, with a mean body mass index of 24.2 kg/m2. Most patients had stage IB1 disease, and squamous cell carcinoma was the most common histological type. ARH was performed in 76.1% of patients, while 23.9% underwent LRH. LRH patients had significantly less blood loss (180 ml vs. 871.7 ml) and shorter hospital stays (6 days vs. 14 days). No significant differences in disease recurrence, cervical cancer-related mortality, or overall survival were observed between the two groups.

Conclusion: Early-stage cervical cancer patients who received LRH had survival and recurrence outcomes comparable to those who underwent ARH.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
98
审稿时长
52 weeks
×
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