Original Article
Evolution of radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer along the last two decades: single institution experience
Abstract
Background: The radical hysterectomy (RH) surgical technique has improved along the years. It is used for the treatment of cervical cancer, endometrial cancer when affecting the cervix, and upper vaginal carcinomas. Our aim was to describe the historical evolution of the technique after the introduction of laparoscopy at our institution.
Methods: We performed a retrospective review of medical records of patients who underwent RH, grouped in three periods according to the year of surgery: 1990-1999, 2000-2009 and 2010-2013. Patients’ characteristics, pathologic details, intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed and compared throughout the time periods.
Results: A total of 102 cases of RH were performed at our center during the study period. Among all data collected, the presence of necrosis, age, number of lymph nodes, surgery route, operating time, hospital stay, blood loss and transfusion requirement were statistically significant different among groups. Conversion to laparotomy rate was 19% for the second period compared to the absence of cases in the last one. No significant differences (P=0.124) were observed in the adjuvant treatment received among the three different groups. At the time of the last contact the patients free of disease were 12 (85.7%), 53 (91.3%) and 26 (86.6%) respectively (P=0.406). Regarding the disease-free interval, we found significant better outcomes in the group of laparotomy compared to laparoscopy (P=0.015).
Conclusions: Laparoscopic RH is an acceptable surgery with advantages like magnified vision of the operation’s field, lower surgical complications, shorter hospital stay and earlier resumption to daily activities.
Methods: We performed a retrospective review of medical records of patients who underwent RH, grouped in three periods according to the year of surgery: 1990-1999, 2000-2009 and 2010-2013. Patients’ characteristics, pathologic details, intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed and compared throughout the time periods.
Results: A total of 102 cases of RH were performed at our center during the study period. Among all data collected, the presence of necrosis, age, number of lymph nodes, surgery route, operating time, hospital stay, blood loss and transfusion requirement were statistically significant different among groups. Conversion to laparotomy rate was 19% for the second period compared to the absence of cases in the last one. No significant differences (P=0.124) were observed in the adjuvant treatment received among the three different groups. At the time of the last contact the patients free of disease were 12 (85.7%), 53 (91.3%) and 26 (86.6%) respectively (P=0.406). Regarding the disease-free interval, we found significant better outcomes in the group of laparotomy compared to laparoscopy (P=0.015).
Conclusions: Laparoscopic RH is an acceptable surgery with advantages like magnified vision of the operation’s field, lower surgical complications, shorter hospital stay and earlier resumption to daily activities.
