Conventional versus nerve-sparing radical surgery for cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.
10.3802/jgo.2015.26.2.100
- Author:
Hee Seung KIM
1
;
Keewon KIM
;
Seung Bum RYOO
;
Joung Hwa SEO
;
Sang Youn KIM
;
Ji Won PARK
;
Min A KIM
;
Kyoung Sup HONG
;
Chang Wook JEONG
;
Yong Sang SONG
Author Information
1. Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. yssong@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Meta-Analysis ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- Keywords:
Hysterectomy;
Intraoperative Complications;
Meta-Analysis;
Radical Surgery;
Urinary Retention;
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
- MeSH:
Constipation/epidemiology/etiology;
Female;
Humans;
Hysterectomy/adverse effects/*methods;
Intraoperative Complications/epidemiology;
*Organ Sparing Treatments/adverse effects/methods;
Pelvis/*innervation/surgery;
Rectum/*innervation/surgery;
Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological/epidemiology/etiology;
Urinary Bladder/*innervation/surgery;
Urinary Retention/epidemiology/etiology;
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/epidemiology/*surgery;
Uterus/innervation/surgery;
Vagina/innervation/surgery
- From:Journal of Gynecologic Oncology
2015;26(2):100-110
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: Although nerve-sparing radical surgery (NSRS) is an emerging technique for reducing surgery-related dysfunctions, its efficacy is controversial in patients with cervical cancer. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes, and urinary, anorectal, and sexual dysfunctions between conventional radical surgery (CRS) and NSRS. METHODS: After searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, two randomized controlled trials, seven prospective and eleven retrospective cohort studies were included with 2,253 patients from January 2000 to February 2014. We performed crude analyses and then conducted subgroup analyses according to study design, quality of study, surgical approach, radicality, and adjustment for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: Crude analyses showed decreases in blood loss, hospital stay, frequency of intraoperative complications, length of the resected vagina, duration of postoperative catheterization (DPC), urinary frequency, and abnormal sensation in NSRS, whereas there were no significant differences in other clinical parameters and dysfunctions between CRS and NSRS. In subgroup analyses, operative time was longer (standardized difference in means, 0.948; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.642 to 1.253), while intraoperative complications were less common (odds ratio, 0.147; 95% CI, 0.035 to 0.621) in NSRS. Furthermore, subgroup analyses showed that DPC was shorter, urinary incontinence or frequency, and constipation were less frequent in NSRS without adverse effects on survival and sexual functions. CONCLUSION: NSRS may not affect prognosis and sexual dysfunctions in patients with cervical cancer, whereas it may decrease intraoperative complications, and urinary and anorectal dysfunctions despite long operative time and short length of the resected vagina when compared with CRS.
