Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical Science, China.
Int J Surg. 2019 Aug;68:72-77. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.06.009. Epub 2019 Jun 18.
Little is known about the definite reasons of the disadvantage of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer. This study is to compare survival outcomes of patients with stage IB cervical cancer who received radical hysterectomy (RH) by one surgeon in different periods.
A retrospective analysis was performed on stage IB cervical cancer patients who received RH from February 2001 to November 2015 at a tertiary hospital. All the major procedures were performed by one surgeon. The clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes were compared with laparoscopic RH (LRH) and abdominal RH (ARH) groups in the periods of 2001-2005, 2006-2010, and 2011-2015.
Totally 406 patients were included in the study, 135 (33.3%) and 271 (66.7%) in ARH and LRH groups respectively. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) of all patients increased from 2001 to 2005 to 2006-2010 but decreased in 2011-2015. No significant differences exist in the 5-year DFS and overall survival (OS) rates in the first 50 patients of LRH and ARH groups. The subgroup analysis in stage IB1 patients (68.2% of all participants) reached the same conclusions.
For RH patients, in which all major procedures were performed by one surgeon, the DFS did not exhibit substantial improvement in the period of 2001-2015 since the extensive adoption of LRH. The learning curve probably explains the disadvantage of LRH.
微创外科治疗早期宫颈癌的劣势的明确原因知之甚少。本研究旨在比较由一位外科医生在不同时期行根治性子宫切除术(RH)治疗的 IB 期宫颈癌患者的生存结局。
对 2001 年 2 月至 2015 年 11 月在一家三级医院接受 RH 的 IB 期宫颈癌患者进行回顾性分析。所有主要手术均由一位外科医生完成。将患者的临床病理特征和生存结局与腹腔镜 RH(LRH)和腹式 RH(ARH)组在 2001-2005 年、2006-2010 年和 2011-2015 年进行比较。
共纳入 406 例患者,ARH 和 LRH 组分别为 135(33.3%)和 271(66.7%)例。所有患者的 5 年无病生存率(DFS)从 2001 年至 2005 年增加到 2006-2010 年,但在 2011-2015 年下降。LRH 和 ARH 组前 50 例患者的 5 年 DFS 和总生存率(OS)率无显著差异。IB1 期患者(所有患者的 68.2%)的亚组分析得出了相同的结论。
对于 RH 患者,在广泛采用 LRH 的情况下,由一位外科医生完成所有主要手术的患者在 2001-2015 年期间,DFS 并未显著改善。学习曲线可能解释了 LRH 的劣势。