[en] [en] OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications in open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer.
METHODS: Data were collected from the SUCCOR database of 1272 patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), 2009) who underwent radical hysterectomy in Europe between January 2013 and December 2014. We reviewed the duration of the surgeries, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, intra-operative and post-operative complications. The inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years and histologic type (squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma). Pelvic MRI confirming a tumor diameter ≤4 cm with no parametrial invasion and a pre-operative CT scan, MRI, or positron emission tomography CT demonstrating no extra-cervical metastatic disease were mandatory. Outcomes of interest were any grade >3 adverse events, intra-operative adverse events, post-operative adverse events, length of hospital stay, length of operation, and blood loss.
RESULTS: The study included 1156 patients, 633 (54%) in the open surgery group and 523 (46%) in the minimally invasive surgery group. Median age was 46 years (range 18-82), median body mass index 25 kg/m2 (range 15-68), and 1022 (88.3%) patients were considered to have an optimal performance status (ECOG Performance Status 0). The most common histologic tumor type was squamous carcinoma (n=794, 68.7%) and the most frequent FIGO staging was IB1 (n=510, 44.1%). In the minimally invasive surgery group the median duration of surgery was longer (240 vs 187 min, p<0.01), median estimated blood loss was lower (100 vs 300 mL, p<0.01), and median length of hospital stay was shorter (4 vs 7 days, p<0.01) compared with the abdominal surgery group. There was no difference in the overall incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications between the two groups. Regarding grade I complications, the incidence of vaginal bleeding (2.9% vs 0.6%, p<0.01) and vaginal cuff dehiscence was higher in the minimally invasive surgery group than in the open group (3.3% vs 0.5%, p<0.01). Regarding grade III post-operative complications, bladder dysfunction (1.3% vs 0.2%, p=0.046) and abdominal wall infection (1.1% vs 0%, p=0.018) were more common in the open surgery group than in the minimally invasive surgery group. Ureteral fistula was more frequent in the minimally invasive group than in the open surgery group (1.7% vs 0.5%, p=0.037).
CONCLUSION: Our study showed that there was no significant difference in the overall incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications between minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and the open approach.
Disciplines :
Surgery Reproductive medicine (gynecology, andrology, obstetrics) Oncology
Author, co-author :
Vázquez-Vicente, Daniel ; Gynecology, Clinica Universitaria de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
Boria, Felix ; Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
Castellanos, Teresa ; Gynecology, Clinica Universitaria de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
Gutierrez, Monica; Gynecology, Clinica Universitaria de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
Chacon, Enrique ; Gynecologic Oncology, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
Manzour, Nabil ; Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
Minguez, Jose Angel ; Gynecology, Clinica Universitaria de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
Martin-Calvo, Nerea; Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
Alcazar, Juan Luis ; Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
Chiva, Luis ; Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain lchiva@unav.es
SUCCOR Study Group
Other collaborator :
Goffin, Frédéric ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences cliniques ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > > Service de gynécologie-obstétrique
Language :
English
Title :
SUCCOR morbidity: complications in minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer.
Koh W-J, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S, et al. Cervical cancer, version 3.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019; 17: 64-84. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2019.0001
Dursun P, Gultekin M, Ayhan A. The history of radical hysterectomy. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2011; 15: 235-45. doi:10.1097/LGT.0b013e31820eb038
Querleu D. Radical hysterectomies by the Schauta-Amreich and Schauta-Stoeckel techniques assisted by celioscopy. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 1991; 20: 747-8.
Nezhat CR, Burrell MO, Nezhat FR, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with paraaortic and pelvic node dissection. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166: 864-5. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(92)91351-a
Zhao Y, Hang B, Xiong G-W, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2017; 27: 1132-44. doi:10.1089/lap.2017.0022
Park DA, Yun JE, Kim SW, et al. Surgical and clinical safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2017; 43: 994-1002. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2016.07.017
Hong JH, Choi JS, Lee JH, et al. Can laparoscopic radical hysterectomy be a standard surgical modality in stage IA2-IIA cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 127: 102-6. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.06.003
Ramirez PT, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic techniques for radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 110 (3 Suppl 2): S21-4. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.03.013
Ramirez PT, Obermair A. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 794-5. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1816590
Obermair A, Asher R, Pareja R, et al. Incidence of adverse events in minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222: 249. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.036
Chiva L, Zanagnolo V, Querleu D, et al. SUCCOR study: an international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020; 30: 1269-77. doi:10.1136/ijgc-2020-001506
Boria F, Chiva L, Chacon E, et al. SUCCOR quality: validation of ESGO quality indicators for surgical treatment of cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32: 1236-43. doi:10.1136/ijgc-2022-003790
Rosenthal R, Hoffmann H, Clavien P-A, et al. Definition and classification of intraoperative complications (CLASSIC): Delphi study and pilot evaluation. World J Surg 2015; 39: 1663-71. doi:10.1007/s00268-015-3003-y
Cao T, Feng Y, Huang Q, et al. Prognostic and safety roles in laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2015; 25: 990-8. doi:10.1089/lap.2015.0390
Wang Y, Deng L, Xu H, et al. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer. BMC Cancer 2015; 15: 928. doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1818-4
Jin Y-M, Liu S-S, Chen J, et al. Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0193033. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0193033
Nevis IF, Vali B, Higgins C, et al. Robot-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial and cervical cancers: a systematic review. J Robot Surg 2017; 11: 1-16. doi:10.1007/s11701-016-0621-9
Shazly SAM, Murad MH, Dowdy SC, et al. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2015; 138: 457-71. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.06.009