Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hannover Medical School, Karl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Faculty of Economics and Management, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021 Sep;304(3):577-587. doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-06082-y. Epub 2021 May 22.
Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy presents the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Recently, studies have shown a superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, however, the reasons remain to be speculated. This meta-analysis evaluates the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to open hysterectomy. Risk groups including the use of uterine manipulators or colpotomy were created.
Ovid-Medline and Embase databases were systematically searched in June 2020. No limitation in date of publication or country was made. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the surgical approach and the endpoints OS and DFS.
30 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Patients were analyzed concerning the surgical approach [open surgery (AH), laparoscopic surgery (LH), robotic surgery (RH)]. Additionally, three subgroups were created from the LH group: the LH high-risk group (manipulator), intermediate-risk group (no manipulator, intracorporal colpotomy) and LH low-risk group (no manipulator, vaginal colpotomy). Regarding OS, the meta-analysis showed inferiority of LH in total over AH (0.97 [0.96; 0.98]). The OS was significantly higher in LH low risk (0.96 [0.94; 0.98) compared to LH intermediate risk (0.93 [0.91; 0.94]). OS rates were comparable in AH and LH Low-risk group. DFS was higher in the AH group compared to the LH group in general (0.92 [95%-CI 0.88; 0.95] vs. 0.87 [0.82; 0.91]), whereas the application of protective measures (no uterine manipulator in combination with vaginal colpotomy) was associated with increased DFS in laparoscopy (0.91 [0.91; 0.95]).
DFS and OS in laparoscopy appear to be depending on surgical technique. Protective operating techniques in laparoscopy result in improved minimal invasive survival.
根治性子宫切除术加盆腔淋巴结清扫术是早期宫颈癌的标准治疗方法。最近的研究表明,开放式手术与微创手术相比具有更好的肿瘤学结果,但原因仍有待推测。本荟萃分析评估了机器人和腹腔镜子宫切除术与开放式子宫切除术的结果。创建了包括使用子宫操纵器或阴道切开术的风险组。
系统检索了 2020 年 6 月的 Ovid-Medline 和 Embase 数据库。未对出版物日期或国家进行限制。进行了手术方法和终点 OS 和 DFS 的亚组分析。
30 项研究符合纳入标准。包括 5 项前瞻性随机对照试验。患者按手术方式[开放式手术(AH)、腹腔镜手术(LH)、机器人手术(RH)]进行分析。此外,从 LH 组中创建了三个亚组:LH 高风险组(使用子宫操纵器)、中风险组(未使用子宫操纵器,经阴道切开术)和 LH 低风险组(未使用子宫操纵器,经阴道切开术)。关于 OS,荟萃分析显示 LH 总死亡率低于 AH(0.97[0.96;0.98])。LH 低风险组(0.96[0.94;0.98)的 OS 显著高于 LH 中风险组(0.93[0.91;0.94])。AH 和 LH 低危组的 OS 率相当。DFS 总体上在 AH 组高于 LH 组(0.92[95%-CI 0.88;0.95]vs.0.87[0.82;0.91]),而在腹腔镜中应用保护措施(不使用子宫操纵器结合阴道切开术)与提高 DFS 相关(0.91[0.91;0.95])。
腹腔镜下的 DFS 和 OS 似乎取决于手术技术。腹腔镜中使用保护手术技术可提高微创生存率。