Feasibility and outcome of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with no-look no-touch technique for FIGO IB1 cervical cancer
- Author:
Hiroyuki KANAO
1
;
Koji MATSUO
;
Yoichi AOKI
;
Terumi TANIGAWA
;
Hidetaka NOMURA
;
Sanshiro OKAMOTO
;
Nobuhiro TAKESHIMA
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Cervical Cancer; Hysterectomy; Minimally Invasive Surgery; Laparoscopic Surgery; Survival
- MeSH: Cervix Uteri; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Operative Time; Recurrence; Retrospective Studies; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
- From:Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2019;30(3):e71-
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: OBJECTIVES: Intraoperative tumor manipulation and dissemination may possibly compromise survival of women with early-stage cervical cancer who undergo minimally-invasive radical hysterectomy (RH). The objective of the study was to examine survival related to minimally-invasive RH with a “no-look no-touch” technique for clinical stage IB1 cervical cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study compared patients who underwent total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) with no-look no-touch technique (n=80) to those who underwent an abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH; n=83) for stage IB1 (≤4 cm) cervical cancer. TLRH with no-look no-touch technique incorporates 4 specific measures to prevent tumor spillage: 1) creation of a vaginal cuff, 2) avoidance of a uterine manipulator, 3) minimal handling of the uterine cervix, and 4) bagging of the specimen. RESULTS: Surgical outcomes of TLRH were significantly superior to ARH for operative time (294 vs. 376 minutes), estimated blood loss (185 vs. 500 mL), and length of hospital stay (14 vs. 18 days) (all, p < 0.001). Oncologic outcomes were similar between the 2 groups, including disease-free survival (DFS) (p=0.591) and overall survival (p=0.188). When stratified by tumor size (<2 vs. ≥2 cm), DFS was similar between the 2 groups (p=0.897 and p=0.602, respectively). The loco-regional recurrence rate following TLRH was similar to the rate after ARH (6.3% vs. 9.6%, p=0.566). Multiple-pelvic recurrence was observed in only 1 patient in the TLRH group. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the no-look no-touch technique may be a useful surgical procedure to reduce recurrence risk via preventing intraoperative tumor spillage during TLRH for early-stage cervical cancer.
