Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy

Zur Kurzanzeige

dc.identifier.uri http://dx.doi.org/10.15488/12842
dc.identifier.uri https://www.repo.uni-hannover.de/handle/123456789/12945
dc.contributor.author Kampers, J.
dc.contributor.author Gerhardt, E.
dc.contributor.author Sibbertsen, P.
dc.contributor.author Flock, T.
dc.contributor.author Hertel, H.
dc.contributor.author Klapdor, R.
dc.contributor.author Jentschke, M.
dc.contributor.author Hillemanns, P.
dc.date.accessioned 2022-10-06T06:53:30Z
dc.date.available 2022-10-06T06:53:30Z
dc.date.issued 2021
dc.identifier.citation Kampers, J.; Gerhardt, E.; Sibbertsen, P.; Flock, T.; Hertel, H. et al.: Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy. In: Archives of gynecology and obstetrics 306 (2022), Nr. 2, S. 295-314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06248-8
dc.description.abstract Purpose: Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Studies have shown superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, but peri- and postoperative complication rates were shown vice versa. This meta-analysis evaluates the peri- and postoperative morbidities and complications of robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared to open surgery. Methods: Embase and Ovid-Medline databases were systematically searched in June 2020 for studies comparing robotic, laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy. There was no limitation in publication year. Inclusion criteria were set analogue to the LACC trial. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the operative technique, the study design and the date of publication for the endpoints intra- and postoperative morbidity, estimated blood loss, hospital stay and operation time. Results: 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between robotic radical hysterectomy (RH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) concerning intra- and perioperative complications. Operation time was longer in both RH (mean difference 44.79 min [95% CI 38.16; 51.42]), and LH (mean difference 20.96 min; [95% CI − 1.30; 43.22]) than in open hysterectomy (AH) but did not lead to a rise of intra- and postoperative complications. Intraoperative morbidity was lower in LH than in AH (RR 0.90 [0.80; 1.02]) as well as in RH compared to AH (0.54 [0.33; 0.88]). Intraoperative morbidity showed no difference between LH and RH (RR 1.29 [0.23; 7.29]). Postoperative morbidity was not different in any approach. Estimated blood loss was lower in both LH (mean difference − 114.34 [− 122.97; − 105.71]) and RH (mean difference − 287.14 [− 392.99; − 181.28]) compared to AH, respectively. Duration of hospital stay was shorter for LH (mean difference − 3.06 [− 3.28; − 2.83]) and RH (mean difference − 3.77 [− 5.10; − 2.44]) compared to AH. Conclusion: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy appears to be associated with reduced intraoperative morbidity and blood loss and improved reconvalescence after surgery. Besides oncological and surgical factors these results should be considered when counseling patients for radical hysterectomy and underscore the need for new randomized trials. © 2021, The Author(s). eng
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher Berlin ; Heidelberg : Springer
dc.relation.ispartofseries Archives of gynecology and obstetrics 306 (2022), Nr. 2
dc.rights CC BY 4.0 Unported
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject Early cervical cancer eng
dc.subject Laparoscopy eng
dc.subject Minimally-invasive eng
dc.subject Postoperative morbidity eng
dc.subject Radical hysterectomy eng
dc.subject Robot-assisted eng
dc.subject.ddc 610 | Medizin, Gesundheit ger
dc.title Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy eng
dc.type Article
dc.type Text
dc.relation.essn 1432-0711
dc.relation.doi https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06248-8
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue 2
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume 306
dc.bibliographicCitation.date 2022
dc.bibliographicCitation.firstPage 295
dc.bibliographicCitation.lastPage 314
dc.description.version publishedVersion
tib.accessRights frei zug�nglich


Die Publikation erscheint in Sammlung(en):

Zur Kurzanzeige

 

Suche im Repositorium


Durchblättern

Mein Nutzer/innenkonto

Nutzungsstatistiken