Comparison of radical abdominal hysterectomy with laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer

A. V. Hallum, Kenneth D Hatch, M. Nour, M. Saucedo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The objective of this report is to determine the significance of differences in peri- and postoperative morbidity in patients with cervical cancer treated with radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH) versus laparoscopic- assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LRVH) in a single institution. In this nonrandomized case series, the records of 30 patients (median age, 42) with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I or II cervical cancer who underwent primary RAH with pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy and 37 patients (median age, 41) who underwent LRVH and lymphadenectomy were reviewed. The 2 groups were compared with respect to the demographic data, incidence of short- and long-term morbidity, duration of operation, blood loss, and transfusion rate. We used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test to express statistical significance. Twenty-one out of 30 (70%) patients in the RAH group had stage IB, 7 had stage IA2, and 2 had stage IIA. Thirty-three out of 37 (89%) patients in the LRVH group had stage IB, 3 had stage IA2, and 1 had stage IIA. Mean operative time in patients who underwent an abdominal operation was 193 minutes compared with 225 minutes in patients with a laparoscopic vaginal procedure (P < .01). Estimated blood loss in the LRVH group was significantly reduced (525 mL) when compared with the RAH (1,115 mL) (P < .0001). Twelve out of 30 (40%) RAH patients needed a blood transfusion while 4/37 (11%) required blood transfusion in the LRVH group (P < .0001). The mean hospital stay for the RAH was 5.2 days compared with 3 days for the LRVH group (P < .0001). We encountered 1 ureterovaginal fistula in the abdominal approach, while in the vaginal technique we had 2 bladder injuries, 2 ureterovaginal fistulas, and 1 large bowel injury. This study shows that LRVH reduces blood loss and shortens hospital stay. We believe that with the surgeon's experience the urinary complications can be reduced. Comparison of survival data for both procedures is necessary to confirm the adequacy of the LRVH approach.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3-6
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Gynecologic Techniques
Volume6
Issue number1
StatePublished - 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Vaginal Hysterectomy
Hysterectomy
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
Blood Transfusion
Therapeutics
Lymph Node Excision
Fistula
Length of Stay
Morbidity
Wounds and Injuries
Operative Time
Gynecology
Obstetrics
Analysis of Variance
Urinary Bladder
Demography
Survival
Incidence

Keywords

  • Cervical cancer
  • Hysterectomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

@article{aff6ed2e5b97467c87b1fc23e8ee2065,
title = "Comparison of radical abdominal hysterectomy with laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer",
abstract = "The objective of this report is to determine the significance of differences in peri- and postoperative morbidity in patients with cervical cancer treated with radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH) versus laparoscopic- assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LRVH) in a single institution. In this nonrandomized case series, the records of 30 patients (median age, 42) with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I or II cervical cancer who underwent primary RAH with pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy and 37 patients (median age, 41) who underwent LRVH and lymphadenectomy were reviewed. The 2 groups were compared with respect to the demographic data, incidence of short- and long-term morbidity, duration of operation, blood loss, and transfusion rate. We used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test to express statistical significance. Twenty-one out of 30 (70{\%}) patients in the RAH group had stage IB, 7 had stage IA2, and 2 had stage IIA. Thirty-three out of 37 (89{\%}) patients in the LRVH group had stage IB, 3 had stage IA2, and 1 had stage IIA. Mean operative time in patients who underwent an abdominal operation was 193 minutes compared with 225 minutes in patients with a laparoscopic vaginal procedure (P < .01). Estimated blood loss in the LRVH group was significantly reduced (525 mL) when compared with the RAH (1,115 mL) (P < .0001). Twelve out of 30 (40{\%}) RAH patients needed a blood transfusion while 4/37 (11{\%}) required blood transfusion in the LRVH group (P < .0001). The mean hospital stay for the RAH was 5.2 days compared with 3 days for the LRVH group (P < .0001). We encountered 1 ureterovaginal fistula in the abdominal approach, while in the vaginal technique we had 2 bladder injuries, 2 ureterovaginal fistulas, and 1 large bowel injury. This study shows that LRVH reduces blood loss and shortens hospital stay. We believe that with the surgeon's experience the urinary complications can be reduced. Comparison of survival data for both procedures is necessary to confirm the adequacy of the LRVH approach.",
keywords = "Cervical cancer, Hysterectomy",
author = "Hallum, {A. V.} and Hatch, {Kenneth D} and M. Nour and M. Saucedo",
year = "2000",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "3--6",
journal = "Journal of Gynecologic Techniques",
issn = "1069-2673",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of radical abdominal hysterectomy with laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer

AU - Hallum, A. V.

AU - Hatch, Kenneth D

AU - Nour, M.

AU - Saucedo, M.

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - The objective of this report is to determine the significance of differences in peri- and postoperative morbidity in patients with cervical cancer treated with radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH) versus laparoscopic- assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LRVH) in a single institution. In this nonrandomized case series, the records of 30 patients (median age, 42) with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I or II cervical cancer who underwent primary RAH with pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy and 37 patients (median age, 41) who underwent LRVH and lymphadenectomy were reviewed. The 2 groups were compared with respect to the demographic data, incidence of short- and long-term morbidity, duration of operation, blood loss, and transfusion rate. We used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test to express statistical significance. Twenty-one out of 30 (70%) patients in the RAH group had stage IB, 7 had stage IA2, and 2 had stage IIA. Thirty-three out of 37 (89%) patients in the LRVH group had stage IB, 3 had stage IA2, and 1 had stage IIA. Mean operative time in patients who underwent an abdominal operation was 193 minutes compared with 225 minutes in patients with a laparoscopic vaginal procedure (P < .01). Estimated blood loss in the LRVH group was significantly reduced (525 mL) when compared with the RAH (1,115 mL) (P < .0001). Twelve out of 30 (40%) RAH patients needed a blood transfusion while 4/37 (11%) required blood transfusion in the LRVH group (P < .0001). The mean hospital stay for the RAH was 5.2 days compared with 3 days for the LRVH group (P < .0001). We encountered 1 ureterovaginal fistula in the abdominal approach, while in the vaginal technique we had 2 bladder injuries, 2 ureterovaginal fistulas, and 1 large bowel injury. This study shows that LRVH reduces blood loss and shortens hospital stay. We believe that with the surgeon's experience the urinary complications can be reduced. Comparison of survival data for both procedures is necessary to confirm the adequacy of the LRVH approach.

AB - The objective of this report is to determine the significance of differences in peri- and postoperative morbidity in patients with cervical cancer treated with radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH) versus laparoscopic- assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LRVH) in a single institution. In this nonrandomized case series, the records of 30 patients (median age, 42) with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I or II cervical cancer who underwent primary RAH with pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy and 37 patients (median age, 41) who underwent LRVH and lymphadenectomy were reviewed. The 2 groups were compared with respect to the demographic data, incidence of short- and long-term morbidity, duration of operation, blood loss, and transfusion rate. We used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test to express statistical significance. Twenty-one out of 30 (70%) patients in the RAH group had stage IB, 7 had stage IA2, and 2 had stage IIA. Thirty-three out of 37 (89%) patients in the LRVH group had stage IB, 3 had stage IA2, and 1 had stage IIA. Mean operative time in patients who underwent an abdominal operation was 193 minutes compared with 225 minutes in patients with a laparoscopic vaginal procedure (P < .01). Estimated blood loss in the LRVH group was significantly reduced (525 mL) when compared with the RAH (1,115 mL) (P < .0001). Twelve out of 30 (40%) RAH patients needed a blood transfusion while 4/37 (11%) required blood transfusion in the LRVH group (P < .0001). The mean hospital stay for the RAH was 5.2 days compared with 3 days for the LRVH group (P < .0001). We encountered 1 ureterovaginal fistula in the abdominal approach, while in the vaginal technique we had 2 bladder injuries, 2 ureterovaginal fistulas, and 1 large bowel injury. This study shows that LRVH reduces blood loss and shortens hospital stay. We believe that with the surgeon's experience the urinary complications can be reduced. Comparison of survival data for both procedures is necessary to confirm the adequacy of the LRVH approach.

KW - Cervical cancer

KW - Hysterectomy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033925740&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033925740&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0033925740

VL - 6

SP - 3

EP - 6

JO - Journal of Gynecologic Techniques

JF - Journal of Gynecologic Techniques

SN - 1069-2673

IS - 1

ER -