• 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

相似文献

1
Evaluation of Surgical Outcomes of Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy and Total Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis of Data Collected before the LACC Trial.评估宫颈癌腹式根治性子宫切除术与全腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术的手术结局:LACC 试验前数据的回顾性分析。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Oct 13;19(20):13176. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192013176.
2
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.
3
[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.
4
Retrospective comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer.新辅助化疗后腹腔镜与开腹根治性子宫切除术治疗局部晚期宫颈癌的回顾性比较
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016 Jan;132(1):29-33. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.06.042. Epub 2015 Sep 25.
5
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.
6
An Australian, single-centre study of surgical management outcomes for early-stage cervical cancer.澳大利亚单中心研究:早期宫颈癌的手术治疗结局。
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021 Feb;61(1):123-127. doi: 10.1111/ajo.13219. Epub 2020 Jul 27.
7
Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for locally advanced cervical carcinoma (stages IIB, IIA and bulky stages IB) after concurrent chemoradiation therapy: surgical morbidity and oncological results.同步放化疗后行全腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术治疗局部晚期宫颈癌(IIB期、IIA期及大体积IB期):手术并发症及肿瘤学结果
Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Sep;114(3):404-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.05.043. Epub 2009 Jun 24.
8
A case-controlled study of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in a fellowship training program.在一个专科培训项目中,对全腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术加盆腔淋巴结清扫术与根治性腹式子宫切除术进行病例对照研究。
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007 Sep-Oct;17(5):1075-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.00921.x. Epub 2007 Mar 26.
9
[Comparative analysis of the prognosis of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer undergoing laparoscopic or abdominal surgery].[局部晚期宫颈癌患者接受腹腔镜手术或开腹手术预后的比较分析]
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2020 Sep 25;55(9):609-616. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20200727-00612.
10
Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with transvaginal closure of vaginal cuff - a multicenter analysis.腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术联合经阴道阴道残端关闭术——一项多中心分析。
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 Jun;29(5):845-850. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000388.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparison of Prognosis between Abdominal and Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomies in Early-stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.早期宫颈癌腹式与腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术预后比较:一项回顾性队列研究
Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2025 Jul 19;14(3):246-253. doi: 10.4103/gmit.GMIT-D-24-00033. eCollection 2025 Jul-Sep.
2
Exploring Predictors of HPV Vaccination Decisions: A Stage-Based Study on Chinese Parents of Girls.探索人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)疫苗接种决策的预测因素:一项针对中国女童家长的分阶段研究
Adolesc Health Med Ther. 2025 Apr 25;15:119-131. doi: 10.2147/AHMT.S500527. eCollection 2024.
3
Survival status of women with cervical cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 2024.撒哈拉以南非洲地区宫颈癌女性的生存状况:一项系统评价与荟萃分析,2024年
Front Oncol. 2025 Jan 7;14:1491840. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1491840. eCollection 2024.
4
Effects of amide proton transfer imaging in diagnosis, grading and prognosis prediction of cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.酰胺质子转移成像在宫颈癌诊断、分级及预后预测中的作用:一项系统评价与Meta分析
Heliyon. 2024 Nov 8;10(22):e40291. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40291. eCollection 2024 Nov 30.
5
Clinical Performance and Safety of Cerviron® Vaginal Ovules in the Management of Symptomatic Cervical Lesions: A National, Multicentric Study.Cerviron®阴道栓剂治疗有症状宫颈病变的临床疗效与安全性:一项全国多中心研究。
Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2024 Oct 9;101:100762. doi: 10.1016/j.curtheres.2024.100762. eCollection 2024.
6
Prognostic nomograms for locally advanced cervical cancer based on the SEER database: Integrating Cox regression and competing risk analysis.基于 SEER 数据库的局部晚期宫颈癌预后列线图:Cox 回归和竞争风险分析的整合。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Nov 8;103(45):e40408. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000040408.
7
Based on 3D-PDU and clinical characteristics nomogram for prediction of lymph node metastasis and lymph-vascular space invasion of early cervical cancer preoperatively.基于 3D-PDU 和临床特征列线图预测早期宫颈癌术前淋巴结转移和淋巴管脉管间隙侵犯。
BMC Womens Health. 2024 Aug 2;24(1):438. doi: 10.1186/s12905-024-03281-y.
8
A nomogram model based on SII, AFR, and NLR to predict infectious complications of laparoscopic hysterectomy for cervical cancer.基于 SII、AFR 和 NLR 的列线图模型预测宫颈癌腹腔镜子宫切除术的感染性并发症。
World J Surg Oncol. 2024 Jul 24;22(1):190. doi: 10.1186/s12957-024-03489-0.
9
Effect of different treatment modalities on the prognosis of patients with stage IIIC cervical cancer.不同治疗方式对IIIC期宫颈癌患者预后的影响。
Front Oncol. 2024 May 28;14:1405778. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1405778. eCollection 2024.
10
Efficacy and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis.与腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术相比,机器人根治性子宫切除术治疗宫颈癌的疗效和安全性:一项荟萃分析。
Front Oncol. 2024 May 15;14:1303165. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1303165. eCollection 2024.

本文引用的文献

1
The MEMORY Study: MulticentEr study of Minimally invasive surgery versus Open Radical hYsterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes.MEMORY 研究:早期宫颈癌微创根治性手术与开放性根治性子宫切除术的多中心研究:生存结局。
Gynecol Oncol. 2022 Sep;166(3):417-424. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.07.002. Epub 2022 Jul 22.
2
New Advances in Cervical Cancer: From Bench to Bedside.宫颈癌新进展:从基础到临床。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jun 9;19(12):7094. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19127094.
3
Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer: Should We Look beyond Squamous Cell Carcinoma?宫颈癌的微创手术:我们是否应该超越鳞状细胞癌?
J Invest Surg. 2022 Jul;35(7):1602-1603. doi: 10.1080/08941939.2022.2075495. Epub 2022 May 12.
4
Challenges and Controversies in the Surgical Treatment of Cervical Cancer: Open Radical Hysterectomy versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy.宫颈癌手术治疗中的挑战与争议:开放性根治性子宫切除术与微创根治性子宫切除术
J Clin Med. 2021 Aug 24;10(17):3761. doi: 10.3390/jcm10173761.
5
Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncology screenings: it is time to change course.新冠疫情对肿瘤筛查的影响:是时候改变策略了。
BJOG. 2021 Dec;128(13):2213-2214. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16857. Epub 2021 Aug 17.
6
Role of adjuvant therapy after radical hysterectomy in intermediate-risk, early-stage cervical cancer.根治性子宫切除术治疗中危早期宫颈癌的辅助治疗作用。
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 Jan;31(1):52-58. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001974. Epub 2020 Dec 10.
7
Changing treatment landscape for early cervical cancer: outcomes reported with minimally invasive surgery compared with an open approach.早期宫颈癌治疗方式的转变:微创手术与开放手术的疗效比较。
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;32(1):22-27. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000598.
8
Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer.微创与经腹根治性子宫切除术治疗宫颈癌的比较。
N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 15;379(20):1895-1904. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395. Epub 2018 Oct 31.
9
Tumor Response Assessment for Precision Cancer Therapy: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and Beyond.精准癌症治疗中的肿瘤反应评估:实体瘤及其他肿瘤的反应评估标准
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23;38:1019-1029. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_201441.
10
How should gynecologic oncologists react to the unexpected results of LACC trial?妇科肿瘤学家应该如何应对LACC试验的意外结果?
J Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Jul;29(4):e74. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e74.

评估宫颈癌腹式根治性子宫切除术与全腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术的手术结局:LACC 试验前数据的回顾性分析。

Evaluation of Surgical Outcomes of Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy and Total Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis of Data Collected before the LACC Trial.

机构信息

Maternal and Child Department, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cannizzaro Hospital, University of Enna "Kore", 95126 Catania, Italy.

Obstetrics and Gynecology, "Giovanni Paolo II" Hospital, 97100 Ragusa, Italy.

出版信息

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Oct 13;19(20):13176. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192013176.

DOI:10.3390/ijerph192013176
PMID:36293758
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9603513/
Abstract

Although a surgical approach is one of the key treatments for stages IA1-IIA2, results of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) published in 2018 radically changed the field, since minimally invasive surgery was associated with a four-fold higher rate of recurrence and a six-fold higher rate of all-cause death compared to an open approach. We aimed to evaluate surgical outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) for cervical cancer, including data collected before the LACC trial. In our retrospective analysis, operative time was significantly longer in TLRH compared to ARH ( < 0.0001), although this disadvantage could be considered balanced by lower intra-operative estimated blood loss in TLRH compared with ARH ( < 0.0001). In addition, we did not find significant differences for intra-operative ( = 0.0874) and post-operative complication rates ( = 0.0727) between ARH and TLRH. This was not likely to be influenced by age and Body Mass Index, since they were comparable in the two groups ( = 0.0798 and = 0.4825, respectively). Finally, mean number of pelvic lymph nodes retrieved ( = 0.153) and nodal metastases ( = 0.774), as well as death rate ( = 0.5514) and recurrence rate ( = 0.1582) were comparable between the two groups. Future studies should be aimed at assessing whether different histology/grades of cervical cancer, as well as particular subpopulations, may have significantly different outcomes using minimally invasive surgery or laparotomy, with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

摘要

尽管手术是 IA1-IIA2 期的主要治疗方法之一,但 2018 年发表的《宫颈癌腹腔镜治疗》(LACC)研究结果彻底改变了这一领域,因为与开放手术相比,微创手术的复发率高出四倍,总死亡率高出六倍。我们旨在评估宫颈癌腹式根治性子宫切除术(ARH)和全腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术(TLRH)的手术结果,包括 LACC 试验前收集的数据。在我们的回顾性分析中,TLRH 的手术时间明显长于 ARH(<0.0001),尽管与 ARH 相比,TLRH 的术中估计出血量较少(<0.0001),可以认为这一劣势是平衡的。此外,我们没有发现 ARH 和 TLRH 之间术中(=0.0874)和术后并发症发生率(=0.0727)有显著差异。这可能不受年龄和体重指数的影响,因为两组之间的年龄和体重指数相当(=0.0798 和=0.4825)。最后,两组之间的盆腔淋巴结切除数(=0.153)和淋巴结转移数(=0.774)、死亡率(=0.5514)和复发率(=0.1582)相当。未来的研究应评估不同的宫颈癌组织学/分级以及特定亚群是否可能使用微创手术或剖腹手术以及是否使用新辅助化疗具有明显不同的结果。