BACKGROUND

The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer study results revolutionized our understanding of the best surgical management for this disease. After its publication, the guidelines state that the standard and recommended approach for radical hysterectomy is an open abdominal approach. Nevertheless, the effect of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial on real-world changes in the surgical approach to radical hysterectomy remains elusive.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the trends and routes of radical hysterectomy and to evaluate postoperative complication rates before and after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial (2018).

STUDY DESIGN

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry was used to examine radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer performed between 2012 and 2022. This study excluded vaginal radical hysterectomies and simple hysterectomies. The primary outcome measures were the trends in the route of surgery (minimally invasive surgery vs laparotomy) and surgical complication rates, stratified by periods before and after the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial in 2018 (2012-2017 vs 2019-2022). The secondary outcome measure was major complications associated specifically with the different routes of surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 3611 patients included, 2080 (57.6%) underwent laparotomy, and 1531 (42.4%) underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. There was a significant increase in the minimally invasive surgery approach from 2012 to 2017 (45.6% in minimally invasive surgery in 2012 to 75.3% in minimally invasive surgery in 2017; P<.01) and a significant decrease in minimally invasive surgery from 2018 to 2022 (50.4% in minimally invasive surgery in 2018 to 11.4% in minimally invasive surgery in 2022; P<.001). The rate of minor complications was lower in the period before the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial than after the trial (317 [16.9%] vs 288 [21.3%], respectively; P=.002). The major complication rates were similar before and after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial (139 [7.4%] vs 78 [5.8%], respectively; P=.26). The rates of blood transfusions and superficial surgical site infections were lower in the period before the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial than in the period after the trial (137 [7.3%] vs 133 [9.8%] [P=.012] and 20 [1.1%] vs 53 [3.9%] [P<.001], respectively). In a comparison of minimally invasive surgery vs laparotomy radical hysterectomy during the entire study period, patients in the minimally invasive surgery group had lower rates of minor complications than in those in the laparotomy group (190 [12.4%] vs 472 [22.7%], respectively; P<.001), and the rates of major complications were similar in both groups (100 [6.5%] in the minimally invasive surgery group vs 139 [6.7%] in the laparotomy group; P=.89). In a specific complications analysis, the rates of blood transfusion and superficial surgical site infections were lower in the minimally invasive surgery group than in the laparotomy group (2.4% vs 12.7% and 0.6% vs 3.4%, respectively; P<.001; for both comparisons), and the rate of deep incisional surgical site infections was lower in the minimally invasive surgery group than in the laparotomy group (0.2% vs 0.7%, respectively; P=.048). In the multiple logistic regression analysis, the route of radical hysterectomy was not independently associated with the occurrence of major complications (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.65).

CONCLUSION

Although the proportion of minimally invasive radical hysterectomies decreased abruptly after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial, there was no change in the rate of major postoperative complications. In addition, the hysterectomy route was not associated with major postoperative complications.