Abstract:Objective The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications in open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Methods Data were collected from the SUCCOR database of 1272 patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), 2009) who underwent radical hysterectomy in Europe between January 2013 and December 2014. We reviewed the duration of the surgeries, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, intra-operative and post-operative complications. The inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years and histologic type (squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma). Pelvic MRI confirming a tumor diameter ≤4 cm with no parametrial invasion and a pre-operative CT scan, MRI, or positron emission tomography CT demonstrating no extra-cervical metastatic disease were mandatory. Outcomes of interest were any grade >3 adverse events, intra-operative adverse events, post-operative adverse events, length of hospital stay, length of operation, and blood loss. Results The study included 1156 patients, 633 (54%) in the open surgery group and 523 (46%) in the minimally invasive surgery group. Median age was 46 years (range 18–82), median body mass index 25 kg/m 2 (range 15–68), and 1022 (88.3%) patients were considered to have an optimal performance status (ECOG Performance Status 0). The most common histologic tumor type was squamous carcinoma (n=794, 68.7%) and the most frequent FIGO staging was IB1 (n=510, 44.1%). In the minimally invasive surgery group the duration of surgery was longer (246 vs 196 min, p<0.01), estimated blood loss was lower (171 vs 418 mL, p<0.01), and length of hospital stay was shorter (4.7 vs 8.3 days, p<0.01) compared with the abdominal surgery group. There was no difference in the overall incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications between the two groups. Regarding grade I complications, the incidence of vaginal bleeding (2.9% vs 0.6%, p<0.01) and vaginal cuff dehiscence was higher in the minimally invasive surgery group than in the open group (3.3% vs 0.5%, p<0.01). Regarding grade III post-operative complications, bladder dysfunction (1.3% vs 0.2%, p=0.046) and abdominal wall infection (1.1% vs 0%, p=0.018) were more common in the open surgery group than in the minimally invasive surgery group. Ureteral fistula was more frequent in the minimally invasive group than in the open surgery group (1.7% vs 0.5%, p=0.037). Conclusion Our study showed that there was no significant difference in the overall incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications between minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and the open approach.

Minimally Invasive Compared With Open Hysterectomy in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer

Minimally Invasive Compared With Open Surgery in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Survival rates of patients who undergo minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer with cervical involvement

[Comparison of Surgery for Staging Using Laparoscopy and Laparotomy in Patients with Endometrial Cancer].

Comparison of survival and complications between minimally invasive and open staging surgeries in non-endometrioid endometrial cancer

Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Surgery for the Treatment of Endometrial Cancer with a High Risk of Recurrence: A Propensity Score Matching Study in Korea and Taiwan

Minimally invasive surgery for patients with advanced stage endometrial cancer

Survival after Minimally Invasive Vs. Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Surgical Treatment for Endometrial Cancer, Hysterectomy Performed via Minimally Invasive Routes Compared with Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

SUCCOR morbidity: complications in minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer

SUCCOR study. An international european cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 (FIGO 2009, <4 cm) cervical cancer operated in 2013–2014

LACC Trial: Final Analysis on Overall Survival Comparing Open Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter analysis

Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Minimally Invasive Surgery in High-Grade Endometrial Carcinoma and Risk for Local Recurrence: An Israeli Gynecology Oncology Group Study

Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in high-risk histologic endometrial cancer patients: A meta-analysis

Laparoscopic Vs. Open Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Single-Institution, Propensity Score Matching Study in China

Comparison of Survival Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Surgery and Open Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Comparison of laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤2 cm

Impact of uterine manipulator on oncological outcome in endometrial cancer surgery

Comparing oncological outcomes of robotic versus open surgery in the treatment of endometrial cancer