• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

IA2 - IB1期宫颈癌全腹腔镜与开放性根治性子宫切除术:疾病复发与生存比较

Total laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer: disease recurrence and survival comparison.

作者信息

Toptas Tayfun, Simsek Tayup

机构信息

Division of Gynecologic Oncological Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akdeniz University Hospital , Antalya, Turkey .

出版信息

J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2014 Jun;24(6):373-8. doi: 10.1089/lap.2013.0514. Epub 2014 Apr 17.

DOI:10.1089/lap.2013.0514
PMID:24742012
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Few reports have examined the impact of laparoscopic approach on survival outcomes in patients with early-stage (IA2-IB1) cervical cancer (CC). In this study we aimed to compare disease recurrence and survival outcomes of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) with those for open radical hysterectomy (ORH) and pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with early-stage CC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A single-center, retrospective analysis was conducted in a total of 68 patients who treated with TLRH (n=22) or ORH (n=46) between 2007 and 2010. The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Median follow-up time was 42.50 months (range, 38.40-55.42 months) for the TLRH group and 43.50 months (range, 37.66-52.65) for the ORH group. The study groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics except the ORH group had more patients with tumor size greater than 2 cm (P=.026), depth of stromal invasion greater than 33% (P<.0001), and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IB1 disease (P=.019). However, these factors had no impact on overall and PFS in Cox regression analyses. In total, three recurrences were observed in the TLRH group. Two of the 3 patients were alive with no evidence of disease, and the remaining individual was alive with disease (AWD). In the ORH group, 5 patients had recurrences. Two of the 5 patients died of disease, and three were AWD. The estimated 3-year PFS (86.1% versus 90.6%, respectively; P=.32) and overall survival (100% vs. 95.4%, respectively; P=.82) were comparable in the TLRH and ORH groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TLRH and ORH have similar survival outcomes in patients with early-stage CC.

摘要

背景

很少有报告研究腹腔镜手术方法对早期(IA2 - IB1期)宫颈癌(CC)患者生存结局的影响。在本研究中,我们旨在比较早期CC患者全腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术(TLRH)与开放性根治性子宫切除术(ORH)及盆腔淋巴结清扫术的疾病复发和生存结局。

患者与方法

对2007年至2010年间接受TLRH(n = 22)或ORH(n = 46)治疗的68例患者进行单中心回顾性分析。该研究的主要终点是无进展生存期(PFS)。

结果

TLRH组的中位随访时间为42.50个月(范围38.40 - 55.42个月),ORH组为43.50个月(范围37.66 - 52.65个月)。除ORH组有更多肿瘤大小大于2 cm的患者(P = 0.026)、基质浸润深度大于33%的患者(P < 0.0001)以及国际妇产科联盟IB1期疾病患者(P = 0.019)外,研究组在基线特征方面具有可比性。然而,在Cox回归分析中,这些因素对总生存期和PFS均无影响。TLRH组共观察到3例复发。3例患者中有2例存活且无疾病证据,其余1例带瘤存活(AWD)。ORH组有5例复发。5例患者中有2例死于疾病,3例AWD。TLRH组和ORH组的估计3年PFS(分别为86.1%和90.6%;P = 0.32)和总生存期(分别为100%和95.4%;P = 0.82)具有可比性。

结论

TLRH和ORH在早期CC患者中具有相似的生存结局。

相似文献

1
Total laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer: disease recurrence and survival comparison.IA2 - IB1期宫颈癌全腹腔镜与开放性根治性子宫切除术:疾病复发与生存比较
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2014 Jun;24(6):373-8. doi: 10.1089/lap.2013.0514. Epub 2014 Apr 17.
2
Laparotomic radical hysterectomy versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy using vaginal colpotomy for the management of stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: Survival outcomes.经阴道子宫切除术的剖腹根治性子宫切除术与微创根治性子宫切除术治疗 IB1 期至 IIA2 期宫颈癌:生存结果。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Feb 25;101(8):e28911. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028911.
3
Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: our experience.早期宫颈癌患者行全腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术与腹式根治性子宫切除术加淋巴结清扫术的对比:我们的经验
Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 May;16(5):1316-23. doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0342-7. Epub 2009 Feb 18.
4
[Long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in stage I a2- II a2 cervical cancer: a matched cohort study].[I a2-II a2期宫颈癌腹腔镜与开腹根治性子宫切除术后的长期肿瘤学结局:一项配对队列研究]
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2015 Dec;50(12):894-901.
5
Impact of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy on survival outcome in patients with FIGO stage IB cervical cancer: A matching study of two institutional hospitals in Korea.腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术对 FIGO 分期 IB 期宫颈癌患者生存结局的影响:韩国两家医院的匹配研究。
Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Oct;155(1):75-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.07.019. Epub 2019 Aug 2.
6
Open versus laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection in early stage cervical cancer: no difference in surgical or disease outcome.早期宫颈癌经腹与腹腔镜盆腔淋巴结清扫术的比较:手术和疾病结局无差异。
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012 Jan;22(1):107-14. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e31822c273d.
7
Comparison of Robotic and laparoscopic Radical type-B and C hysterectomy for cervical cancer: Long term-outcomes.机器人辅助与腹腔镜下宫颈癌根治性B型和C型子宫切除术的比较:长期结果
Acta Biomed. 2017 Oct 23;88(3):289-296. doi: 10.23750/abm.v88i3.6100.
8
[Comparison of safety and efficacy of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in the treatment of patients with stage I a2-II b cervical cancer].腹腔镜与腹式根治性子宫切除术治疗Ⅰa2 - Ⅱb期宫颈癌患者的安全性和有效性比较
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2015 Dec;50(12):915-22.
9
Survival rate comparisons amongst cervical cancer patients treated with an open, robotic-assisted or laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: A five year experience.接受开放式、机器人辅助或腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术的宫颈癌患者生存率比较:五年经验。
Surg Oncol. 2016 Mar;25(1):66-71. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2015.09.004. Epub 2015 Sep 14.
10
Feasibility and outcome of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with no-look no-touch technique for FIGO IB1 cervical cancer.无接触无窥视技术行腹腔镜下广泛子宫切除术治疗 FIGO IB1 期宫颈癌的可行性及结局。
J Gynecol Oncol. 2019 May;30(3):e71. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e71.

引用本文的文献

1
A Minimally Invasive Treatment Approach for Early-Stage Uterine Cervical Cancer: The Impact of the LACC Trial and a Literature Review.早期子宫颈癌的微创治疗方法:LACC试验的影响及文献综述
Medicina (Kaunas). 2025 Mar 28;61(4):620. doi: 10.3390/medicina61040620.
2
Comparison of outcomes of laparotomic and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer.比较早期宫颈癌患者行开腹和微创根治性子宫切除术的结局。
J Gynecol Oncol. 2024 Sep;35(5):e60. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2024.35.e60. Epub 2024 Feb 23.
3
Anatomical Description of Anterior Parametrium: A Probable Answer to Pelvic Recurrence Following Radical Hysterectomy.
子宫旁前间隙的解剖学描述:根治性子宫切除术后盆腔复发的一个可能答案
Indian J Surg Oncol. 2023 Jun;14(2):510-517. doi: 10.1007/s13193-023-01709-9. Epub 2023 Feb 24.
4
Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术的荟萃分析,不包括机器人辅助与开放式根治性子宫切除术治疗早期宫颈癌。
Sci Rep. 2023 Jan 6;13(1):273. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-27430-9.
5
Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis.早期宫颈癌微创与腹式根治性子宫切除术的比较:一项更新的荟萃分析
Front Oncol. 2022 Jan 24;11:762921. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.762921. eCollection 2021.
6
A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter.对宫颈癌行微创根治性子宫切除术与开腹根治性子宫切除术的生存情况的荟萃分析:中心相关因素很重要。
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022 Sep;306(3):623-637. doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-06348-5. Epub 2022 Jan 21.
7
Minimally invasive surgery vs laparotomy for early stage cervical cancer: A propensity score-matched cohort study.微创外科手术与开腹手术治疗早期宫颈癌的效果比较:一项倾向评分匹配队列研究。
Cancer Med. 2020 Dec;9(24):9236-9245. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3527. Epub 2020 Nov 25.
8
Survival After Minimally Invasive vs. Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.微创与开放性根治性子宫切除术治疗宫颈癌后的生存率:一项Meta分析
Front Oncol. 2020 Jul 24;10:1236. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01236. eCollection 2020.
9
Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.早期宫颈癌微创根治性子宫切除术与开放性根治性子宫切除术的生存比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
JAMA Oncol. 2020 Jul 1;6(7):1019-1027. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1694.
10
Laparoscopic vs. Open Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Single-Institution, Propensity Score Matching Study in China.腹腔镜与开腹根治性子宫切除术治疗宫颈癌:中国一项单机构倾向评分匹配研究
Front Oncol. 2019 Oct 30;9:1107. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01107. eCollection 2019.