Li Bin, Yao Hongwen, Zuo Jing, Yang Yeduo, Wang Wenwen, Zhang Gongyi, Zhou Yidan, Wu Lingying
Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China. Email:
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2014 Jan;36(1):63-8.
The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic nerve plane-sparing radical hysterectomy (NPSRH) and compare with that of open NPSRH.
One hundred and thirty-four patients with FIGO stage Ib1-IIa2 cervical cancer were enrolled in the study. Thirty-three patients underwent laparoscopic NPSRH. During the operation, the pelvic autonomic nerve plane which is directly underneath the ureter was integrally preserved by dissecting the pelvic spaces laparoscopically. The vessels around the nerve plane were controlled by Hem-o-lok polymer clips. One hundred and one patients underwent open NPSRH without special instruments. The clinical, pathological and surgery-related parameters were compared between the two groups. Moreover, postoperative short-term bladder function of these patients was also analyzed.
There was no significant difference between the laparoscopic group and open group in terms of age, body mass index, previous surgery, FIGO stage, pathologic type, etc. (P > 0.05). The mean duration of surgery in the laparoscopic group was significantly longer [(303.8 ± 67.5) min vs. (272.4 ± 57.5) min] (P < 0.01). But, the laparoscopic group had less blood loss [177.0 ml vs. 474.5 ml, P < 0.01] and blood transfusion rate [ 6.1% (2/33 cases) vs. 49.5% (50/101 cases), P < 0.001]. There was no significant difference regarding the proportion of patients who firstly passed the post-void residual urine volume (PVR) test (P > 0.05). The median time of catheterization between the two groups were also comparable (P > 0.05). However, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group [median postoperative hospital stay 9.2 days vs. 11.0 days, P < 0.001].
Laparoscopic NPSRH is feasible. It seems to be comparable with open NPSRH in terms of preserving pelvic nerve function, but is more favorable in terms of blood loss and postoperative recovery.
本研究旨在评估腹腔镜保留神经平面根治性子宫切除术(NPSRH)的可行性和安全性,并与开放性NPSRH进行比较。
134例FIGO分期为Ib1-IIa2期的宫颈癌患者纳入本研究。33例患者接受腹腔镜NPSRH。手术过程中,通过腹腔镜解剖盆腔间隙,完整保留输尿管正下方的盆腔自主神经平面。神经平面周围的血管用Hem-o-lok聚合物夹控制。101例患者接受了无特殊器械的开放性NPSRH。比较两组患者的临床、病理及手术相关参数。此外,还分析了这些患者术后的短期膀胱功能。
腹腔镜组和开放组在年龄、体重指数、既往手术史、FIGO分期、病理类型等方面无显著差异(P>0.05)。腹腔镜组的平均手术时间明显更长[(303.8±67.5)分钟对(272.4±57.5)分钟](P<0.01)。但是,腹腔镜组的失血量更少[177.0毫升对474.5毫升,P<0.01],输血率更低[6.1%(2/33例)对49.5%(50/101例),P<0.001]。首次通过排尿后残余尿量(PVR)测试的患者比例无显著差异(P>0.05)。两组患者的中位导尿时间也相当(P>0.05)。然而,腹腔镜组的术后住院时间明显更短[术后中位住院时间9.2天对11.0天,P<0.001]。
腹腔镜NPSRH是可行的。在保留盆腔神经功能方面似乎与开放性NPSRH相当,但在失血量和术后恢复方面更具优势。