Minimally invasive vs. open surgery: comparison of surgical complications in radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer

Abstract

Cervical cancer remains a significant global health concern, ranking as the third most prevalent malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality among women in the United States. Early-stage cervical cancer is typically managed with radical hysterectomy, traditionally performed via open abdominal or vaginal approaches. Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIS-RH) was introduced in 1993, yet findings from the laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer (LACC) trial have raised substantial concerns regarding the oncologic safety of the laparoscopic approach. As a result, abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) has been reaffirmed as the standard of care in surgical practice for cervical cancer. Despite this shift, some studies suggest that minimally invasive surgery (MIS), specifically laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH), may be associated with fewer perioperative complications compared to open surgery. However, other studies report no significant differences in complication rates when comparing LRH to ARH. Persistent challenges in adopting MIS for cervical cancer treatment include the complexity of these procedures, extended learning curves, and increased costs. This narrative review provides a comprehensive comparison of LRH and ARH complications, offering insights into their safety, efficacy, and overall benefits to advance the ongoing discussion on optimal surgical approaches for cervical cancer treatment.

Keywords

Cervical cancer / surgical complication / minimally invasive surgery

References

[1] Wolf J,Hayek J,Alagkiozidis I.Trends in early-stage cervical cancer management in the US: a national cancer database analysis.Curr Oncol2024;31:2836-45 PMCID:PMC11119135

[2] Arbyn M,Bruni L.Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis.Lancet Glob Health2020;8:e191-203 PMCID:PMC7025157

[3] Ferrari FA,Bosco M.The role of micronutrients in human papillomavirus infection, cervical dysplasia, and neoplasm.Healthcare2023;11:1652 PMCID:PMC10252691

[4] Van Damme A,De Visschere P.Exclusion of non-Involved uterus from the target volume (EXIT-trial): an individualized treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer using modern radiotherapy and imaging techniques followed by completion surgery.Clin Transl Radiat Oncol2024;47:100793 PMCID:PMC11126536

[5] Giannini A,Chiantera V.Minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer: should we look beyond squamous cell carcinoma?.J Invest Surg2022;35:1602-3

[6] Michalas S,Voulgaris Z,Giannakoulis N.Management of early-stage cervical carcinoma by modified (Type II) radical hysterectomy.Gynecol Oncol2002;85:415-22

[7] Vázquez-Vicente D, Boria F, Castellanos T, et al; SUCCOR Study Group. SUCCOR morbidity: complications in minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2024;34:203-8.

[8] Kennedy AW,Tuason LJ,Webster KD.Radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: the effect of shorter length of stay on outcome.Cleve Clin J Med1995;62:193-7

[9] Sevin B,Nadji M,Averette HA.Efficacy of radical hysterectomy as treatment for patients with small cell carcinoma of the cervix.Cancer1996;77:1489-93

[10] Ferrari FA,Torroni L.Wound infiltration with local anesthetics versus transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative pain management in gynecological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.J Minim Invasive Gynecol2024;S1553-4650(24)01505-X

[11] Kay AH,Hills N.Evidence-based prescribing of opioids after laparotomy: a quality-improvement initiative in gynecologic oncology.Gynecol Oncol Rep2024;53:101396 PMCID:PMC11078636

[12] Ramirez PT,Pareja R.Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.N Engl J Med2018;379:1895-904

[13] Bizzarri N,Hsu HC.Consensus on surgical technique for sentinel lymph node dissection in cervical cancer.Int J Gynecol Cancer2024;34:504-9

[14] Abu-Rustum NR,Arend R.NCCN guidelines® insights: cervical cancer, version 1.2024.J Natl Compr Canc Netw2023;21:1224-33

[15] Cibula D,Planchamp F.ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer - Update 2023.Int J Gynecol Cancer2023;33:649-66 PMCID:PMC10176411

[16] Ceccaroni M,Farulla A.Minimally invasive treatment of diaphragmatic endometriosis: a 15-year single referral center’s experience on 215 patients.Surg Endosc2021;35:6807-17

[17] Ghezzi F,Malzoni M.Minilaparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: multi-institutional experience in comparison with conventional laparoscopy.Eur J Surg Oncol2013;39:1094-100

[18] Marchand G,Abdelsattar A.Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.Sci Rep2023;13:273 PMCID:PMC9822966

[19] Akdemir A,Ozgurel B,Sendag F.Learning curve analysis of intracorporeal cuff suturing during robotic single-site total hysterectomy.J Minim Invasive Gynecol2015;22:384-9

[20] Bogani G,Leone Roberti Maggiore U.Minimally invasive surgical staging in early-stage ovarian carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Minim Invasive Gynecol2017;24:552-62

[21] Majd H, Ferrari F, Gubbala K, Campanile RG, Tozzi R. Latest developments and techniques in gynaecological oncology surgery.Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol2015;27:291-6

[22] Guerrisi R,Ismail L,Ferrari F.Approach to radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer in pregnancy: surgical pathway and ethical considerations.J Clin Med2022;11:7352 PMCID:PMC9781163

[23] Hwang JH.Urologic complication in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: meta-analysis of 20 studies.Eur J Cancer2012;48:3177-85

[24] Matsuo K,Yamaguchi S.Association of radical hysterectomy surgical volume and survival for early-stage cervical cancer.Obstet Gynecol2019;133:1086-98 PMCID:PMC9045958

[25] Zhang F.Laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Am J Clin Oncol2022;45:465-74 PMCID:PMC9624383

[26] Ferrandina G,Scambia G.Minimally invasive surgery and quality of life in cervical cancer.Lancet Oncol2020;21:746-8

[27] Kim S,Lee S.Learning curve could affect oncologic outcome of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.Asian J Surg2021;44:174-80

[28] Chong GO,Hong DG,Park IS.Learning curve of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the early and locally advanced cervical cancer: comparison of the first 50 and second 50 cases.Int J Gynecol Cancer2009;19:1459-64

[29] Chiva L, Zanagnolo V, Querleu D, et al; SUCCOR study Group. SUCCOR study: an international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020;30:1269-77.

[30] Pecorino B,Scibilia G.Evaluation of surgical outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy and total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a retrospective analysis of data collected before the LACC trial.Int J Environ Res Public Health2022;19:13176 PMCID:PMC9603513

[31] Kampers J,Sibbertsen P.Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy.Arch Gynecol Obstet2022;306:295-314 PMCID:PMC9349163

[32] Li Y,Wei H.Comparison of the complications between minimally invasive surgery and open surgical treatments for early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS One2021;16:e0253143 PMCID:PMC8248723

[33] der Voort M, Heijnsdijk EA, Gouma DJ. Bowel injury as a complication of laparoscopy.Br J Surg2004;91:1253-8

[34] Llarena NC,Milad MP.Bowel injury in gynecologic laparoscopy: a systematic review.Obstet Gynecol2015;125:1407-17

[35] Ott DE.Subcutaneous emphysema - beyond the pneumoperitoneum.JSLS2014;18:1-7 PMCID:PMC3939322

[36] Zorzato PC,Garzon S.Advanced bipolar vessel sealing devices vs conventional bipolar energy in minimally invasive hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Arch Gynecol Obstet2024;309:1165-74 PMCID:PMC10894136

[37] Yun Z,Zhu D,Jiang S.A meta-analysis examining the impact of open surgical therapy versus minimally invasive surgery on wound infection in females with cervical cancer.Int Wound J2024;21:e14535 PMCID:PMC10961045

[38] Corrado G,Bruni S.Patterns of recurrence in FIGO stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer: comparison between minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy.Eur J Surg Oncol2023;49:107047

[39] Steed H,Murphy J,De Petrillo D.A comparison of laparascopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and radical abdominal hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer.Gynecol Oncol2004;93:588-93

[40] Wang H,Wang C.Efficacy evaluation of vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a single-center retrospective case series study.Ann Transl Med2022;10:124 PMCID:PMC8848440

[41] Nam JH,Kim DY,Kim YM.Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study.Ann Oncol2012;23:903-11

[42] Xiao M,Bai H.Quality of life and sexuality in disease-free survivors of cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy alone: a comparison between total laparoscopy and laparotomy.Medicine2016;95:e4787 PMCID:PMC5023906

[43] Bogani G,Nappi R,di Naro E.Nerve-sparing approach reduces sexual dysfunction in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.J Sex Med2014;11:3012-20

[44] Marchand G,Abdelsattar A.Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy vs. robotic assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol2023;289:190-202

[45] Nistor SI,Zouridis A,Soleymani Majd H.Minimally invasive surgery in the management of early stage cervical cancer after the publication of SHAPE trial.Int J Gynecol Cancer2024;34:1115