Users Online : 1192 About us |  Subscribe |  e-Alerts  | Feedback | Login   
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery Current Issue | Archives | Ahead Of Print Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
           Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
 ¤   Next article
 ¤   Previous article
 ¤   Table of Contents

 ¤   Similar in PUBMED
 ¤  Search Pubmed for
 ¤  Search in Google Scholar for
 ¤Related articles
 ¤   Citation Manager
 ¤   Access Statistics
 ¤   Reader Comments
 ¤   Email Alert *
 ¤   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4370    
    Printed219    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded386    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 8    

Recommend this journal

 

 REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 67-73

Laparoscopic, robotic and open method of radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review


1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, SUT Academy of Medical Sciences, Post Vencode, Vattappara, Trivandrum, India
2 Department of Oncology, SUT Royal Hospital, Pattom Palace, Pattom, Trivandrum, Kerala, India

Correspondence Address:
Puliyath Geetha
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, SUT Academy of Medical Sciences, Post Vencode, Vattappara, Trivandrum-695 028, Kerala
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-9941.97584

Rights and Permissions

Background : Over the last two decades, numerous studies have indicated the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer without compromising the oncological outcome. Objective : Systematic literature review and meta analysis aimed at evaluating the outcome of laparoscopic and robotic radical hysterectomy (LRH and RRH) and comparing the results with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH). Search Strategy : Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and Reference lists were searched for articles published until January 31 st 2011, using the terms radical hysterectomy, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, robotic radical hysterectomy, surgical treatment of cervical cancer and complications of radical hysterectomy. Selection Criteria : Studies that reported outcome measures of radical hysterectomy by open method, laparoscopic and robotic methods were selected. Data collection and analysis: Two independent reviewers selected studies, abstracted and tabulated the data and pooled estimates were obtained on the surgical and oncological outcomes. Results : Mean sample size, age and body mass index across the three types of RH studies were similar. Mean operation time across the three types of RH studies was comparable. Mean blood loss and transfusion rate are significantly higher in ARH compared to both LRH and RRH. Duration of stay in hospital for RRH was significantly less than the other two methods. The mean number of lymph nodes obtained, nodal metastasis and positive margins across the three types of RH studies were similar. Post operative infectious morbidity was significantly higher among patients who underwent ARH compared to the other two methods and a higher rate of cystotomy in LRH. Conclusions : Minimally invasive surgery especially robotic radical hysterectomy may be a better and safe option for surgical treatment of cervical cancer. The laparoscopic method is not free from complications. However, experience of surgeon may reduce the complications rate.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article

© 2004 Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 15th August '04