Nerve-Sparing Minilaparoscopic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Plus Systematic Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Cervical Cancer Patients

Aim. To present our preliminary experience with nerve-sparing minilaparoscopic radical hysterectomy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy for the surgical treatment of cervical cancer and to compare outcomes with those of the conventional laparoscopic approach. Methods. Data of 87 consecutive women who underwent minimally invasive surgery for early and locally advanced stage cervical cancer were prospectively collected. Ten women who underwent laparoscopic surgery using a nerve-sparing technique performed through 3-mm ancillary ports were compared with the 77 patients who had standard laparoscopic surgery previously with 3 sovrapubic 5-mm trocars. Results. Minilaparoscopic radical hysterectomy was successfully accomplished in every case with no conversion to standard laparoscopy or open surgery. Two (2.6%) conversions to open surgery occurred in the conventional laparoscopy group. Surgical characteristics (operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay) and complication rate were similar between the 2 groups. No differences in the amount of parametrial and vaginal tissue removed were observed. The number of lymph nodes retrieved through minilaparoscopy was higher than conventional laparoscopy (30 [range = 26-38] vs 22 [range = 8-49]; P = .002). However, no difference was observed when the analysis was restricted to the last 10 conventional procedures (30 [range = 26-38] vs 29 [range = 24-49]; P = .81). Conclusions. Our data show that minilaparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy is a feasible procedure if performed by skilled surgeons.

[1]  Andrea Mariani,et al.  Vaginal cuff closure after minimally invasive hysterectomy: our experience and systematic review of the literature. , 2011, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[2]  J. Heldt,et al.  A prospective randomized comparison of traditional laparoendoscopic single-site surgery with needlescopic-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy in the porcine model. , 2011, Journal of endourology.

[3]  F. Ghezzi,et al.  Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: results of a randomized trial. , 2011, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[4]  Cirocchi Roberto,et al.  Trocar Site Hernia after Laparoscopic Colectomy: A Case Report and Literature Review , 2011, ISRN surgery.

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

[6]  M. Cuesta,et al.  Laparoscopy versus open surgery for advanced and resectable gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. , 2011, Revista espanola de enfermedades digestivas : organo oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Patologia Digestiva.

[7]  N. Tagaya,et al.  Reevaluation of needlescopic surgery , 2011, Surgical Endoscopy.

[8]  E. Zaritsky,et al.  Laparoscopic 5-mm Trocar Site Herniation and Literature Review , 2011, JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

[9]  G. Chong,et al.  Oncologic Results and Surgical Morbidity of Laparoscopic Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy in the Treatment of FIGO Stage IB Cervical Cancer: Long-Term Follow-Up , 2010, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[10]  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.

[11]  V. Gebski,et al.  Quality of life after total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy for stage I endometrial cancer (LACE): a randomised trial. , 2010, The Lancet. Oncology.

[12]  J. Thigpen Laparoscopy Compared With Laparotomy for Comprehensive Surgical Staging of Uterine Cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2 , 2010 .

[13]  R. Barakat,et al.  Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  E. Cheek,et al.  Needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta‐analysis , 2009, ANZ journal of surgery.

[15]  F. Ghezzi,et al.  Incorporating Laparoscopy in the Practice of a Gynecologic Oncology Service: Actual Impact Beyond Clinical Trials Data , 2009, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[16]  F. Ghezzi,et al.  Microlaparoscopy: a further development of minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer staging -- initial experience. , 2009, Gynecologic oncology.

[17]  F. Cosentino,et al.  Total Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy with Lymphadenectomy in Patients with Early Cervical Cancer: Our Experience , 2009, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[18]  S. Chueh,et al.  Laparoscopic adrenalectomy using needlescopic instruments for adrenal tumors less than 5cm in 112 cases. , 2008, European urology.

[19]  F. Ghezzi,et al.  Needlescopic hysterectomy: incorporation of 3-mm instruments in total laparoscopic hysterectomy , 2008, Surgical Endoscopy.

[20]  F. Ghezzi,et al.  A comparison of urinary complications following total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy to open abdominal surgery. , 2007, Gynecologic oncology.

[21]  F. Ghezzi,et al.  Surgicopathologic outcome of laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy , 2007 .

[22]  R Garry,et al.  Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for benign ovarian tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2007, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[23]  Shunsuke Hosono,et al.  Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. , 2007, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[24]  F. Ghezzi,et al.  Minimizing ancillary ports size in gynecologic laparoscopy: a randomized trial. , 2005, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[25]  Y. Novitsky,et al.  Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. , 2005, Archives of surgery.

[26]  V. Torri,et al.  Randomized trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy comparing paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin with ifosfamide and cisplatin followed by radical surgery in patients with locally advanced squamous cell cervical carcinoma: the SNAP01 (Studio Neo-Adjuvante Portio) Italian Collaborative Study. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[27]  J. Rosenberg,et al.  Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial. , 2002, Surgical endoscopy.

[28]  C. Low,et al.  Post-operative pain in needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised trial. , 2001, Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.

[29]  E C Poulin,et al.  Needlescopic surgery. A logical evolution from conventional laparoscopic surgery. , 2001, Surgical endoscopy.

[30]  J. Rosenberg,et al.  Pain after microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2000, Surgical Endoscopy.

[31]  J. Rosenberg,et al.  Pain after microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized double-blind controlled study. , 2000, Surgical endoscopy.

[32]  A. García-Ruiz,et al.  Technical aspects of minimally invasive abdominal surgery performed with needlescopic instruments. , 1998, Surgical laparoscopy & endoscopy.

[33]  George Berci,et al.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments , 1998, Surgical Endoscopy.

[34]  G. Berci Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments. Smaller is not necessarily better. , 1998, Surgical endoscopy.

[35]  M. Piver,et al.  Five Classes of Extended Hysterectomy for Women With Cervical Cancer , 1974, Obstetrics and gynecology.