A Modification of Laparoscopic Type C1 Hysterectomy to Reduce Postoperative Bladder Dysfunction: A Retrospective Study

ABSTRACT Objective: To investigate the feasibility of a modified type C1 hysterectomy, using the deep uterine vein (DUV) and its branches as an anatomical landmark, to reduce postoperative bladder dysfunction in cervical cancer patients. Methods: One hundred fifty-two stage IA2–IIB cervical cancer patients were enrolled to undergo a laparoscopic hysterectomy. According to the operation methods, 93 or 59 of the patients were assigned to a type C1 hysterectomy (group 1), using the DUV and its branches as an anatomical landmark, and a type C2 hysterectomy (group 2), respectively. The baseline data, operation time, blood loss, hospitalization time, survival rate, and bladder dysfunction of both groups were compared. Results: The patients in group 1 experienced shorter overall and postoperative hospitalization time, less blood loss, and shorter catheterization time, as compared to those in group 2. There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative damage, postoperative complications, numbers of dissected lymph nodes, and rates of positive resection margins between two groups. The incidences of long-term overall bladder dysfunction, urinary retention, and bladder-emptying difficulties were lower in group 1 than those in group 2. There was no statistically significant difference in bladder storage dysfunction, such as urinary incontinence and frequent urination, between two groups. The 3-year disease-free survival rates and 3-year overall survival rates in the two groups were both similar. Conclusion: Compared to type C2 hysterectomies, type C1 hysterectomies, using the DUV and its branches as an anatomical landmark, resulted in shorter hospitalization time, less blood loss, reduced bladder dysfunction, and uncompromised radicality.

[1]  Wei Zhang,et al.  Laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for bulky cervical cancer (≥6 cm) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A multicenter prospective cohort study. , 2016, International journal of surgery.

[2]  Y. Teng,et al.  Comparison of Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy and Radical Hysterectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2016, Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry.

[3]  G. Centini,et al.  Step-by-step Type C Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy With Nerve-sparing Approach. , 2015, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[4]  Y. Song,et al.  Conventional versus nerve-sparing radical surgery for cervical cancer: a meta-analysis , 2015, Journal of gynecologic oncology.

[5]  Lingfei Cui,et al.  Perineural invasion as a prognostic factor for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2015, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[6]  S. Puntambekar,et al.  Nerve-sparing robotic radical hysterectomy: our technique , 2014, Journal of Robotic Surgery.

[7]  P. Benedetti‐Panici,et al.  New classification system of radical hysterectomy: emphasis on a three-dimensional anatomic template for parametrial resection. , 2011, Gynecologic oncology.

[8]  L. Mariani,et al.  Class III Nerve-sparing Radical Hysterectomy Versus Standard Class III Radical Hysterectomy: An Observational Study , 2011, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[9]  Huicheng Xu,et al.  Laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy with fascia space dissection technique for cervical cancer: description of technique and outcomes. , 2010, Gynecologic oncology.

[10]  L. Horn,et al.  Resection of the embryologically defined uterovaginal (Müllerian) compartment and pelvic control in patients with cervical cancer: a prospective analysis. , 2009, The Lancet. Oncology.

[11]  A. Peters,et al.  Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy: Local Recurrence Rate, Feasibility, and Safety in Cervical Cancer Patients Stage IA to IIA , 2009, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[12]  S. Fujii.  Anatomic identification of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: a step-by-step procedure. , 2008, Gynecologic oncology.

[13]  Gongyi Zhang,et al.  [A prospective study on nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer]. , 2008, Zhonghua fu chan ke za zhi.

[14]  K. Kato,et al.  Unilateral or bilateral nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: a surgical technique to preserve the pelvic autonomic nerves while increasing radicality , 2007, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[15]  G. Murakami,et al.  Discrepancies between classic anatomy and modern gynecologic surgery on pelvic connective tissue structure: harmonization of those concepts by collaborative cadaver dissection. , 2005, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  S. Kusamura,et al.  NERVE-SPARING RADICAL HYSTERECTOMY: A SURGICAL TECHNIQUE FOR PRESERVING THE AUTONOMIC HYPOGASTRIC NERVE , 2004, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[17]  R. Angioli,et al.  Vesical dysfunctions after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a critical review. , 2003, Critical reviews in oncology/hematology.

[18]  A. Schneider,et al.  Identification and preservation of the motoric innervation of the bladder in radical hysterectomy type III. , 2000, Gynecologic oncology.

[19]  Koyo Yoshida,et al.  New Method to Prevent Bladder Dysfunction after Radical Hysterectomy for Uterine Cervical Cancer , 2000, The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research.

[20]  Y. Yabuki,et al.  Dissection of the cardinal ligament in radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer with emphasis on the lateral ligament. , 1991, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.