A Case-control Study on Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy with Pelvic Lymphadenectomy for Early-stage Cervical Cancer

李萌,侯征,王颖,熊光武,乔杰,郭红燕,韩劲松,张璐芳,朱馥丽,梁华茂,李华,吴郁,张坤
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-6604.2014.11.001
2014-01-01
Abstract:Objective To determine whether total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy ( TLRH ) is a feasible alternative to abdominal radical hysterectomy ( ARH ) in the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer ( stage ⅠB -ⅡA ) . Methods The outcomes of 42 patients with cervical cancer (stageⅠB-ⅡA) who underwent laparoscopic (LPS group, n=21) or laparotomic (LPT group, n=21) radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in our hospital from January 2005 to March 2010 were retrospectively estimated.All of the patients from the LPT group were matched 1∶1 with the patients from the LPS group based on stage , age, histological subtype , and nodal status for case-controlled analysis .The parameters were compared between two groups including operating time, intra-operative blood loss, number of lymph nodes resected, gastrointestinal recovery time, intra-and post-operative complications , hospital stay , relapse and mortality rate . Results The operating time and complications were similar between the two groups.The LPS group had less intra-operative blood loss [(233.3 ±202.1) ml vs.(983.3 ±462.2) ml, t=-6.814, P=0.000] and shorter gastro-intestinal recovery time [(41.0 ±13.9) h vs.(55.4 ±15.0) h, t=-3.219, P=0.003] as compared with the LPT group.However, the LPS group showed less lymph nodes resected [(19.7 ±8.2) vs.(27.5 ±7.7), t=-3.170, P=0.003] and longer indwelling catheter time [(31.8 ±23.4) d vs.(14.5 ±4.7) d, t=3.177, P=0.005] as compared with the LPT group.Follow-up visits for 53-107 months (median, 53 months) in 17 patients (with 13 patients in LPS group and 12 patients in LPT group lost of follow-up) found the relapse rate was similar between the two groups [0 (0/8) vs.11.1% (1/9), P=1.000]. Conclusions It is feasible to do radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy by laparoscopy instead of laparotomy for early -stage cervical cancer .Laparoscopy shows more favorable operative outcomes after mid-term follow-up time.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?