Comparative Effectiveness of Abdominal versus Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer in the Postdissemination Era
- Author:
Jin Hee KIM
1
;
Kyungjoo KIM
;
Seo Jin PARK
;
Jung Yun LEE
;
Kidong KIM
;
Myong Cheol LIM
;
Jae Weon KIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Uterine cervical neoplasms; Radical hysterectomy; Minimally invasive surgery; Laparoscopy
- MeSH: Diagnosis; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Propensity Score; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
- From:Cancer Research and Treatment 2019;51(2):788-796
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: PURPOSE: Despite the benefits of minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer, there are a lack of randomized trials comparing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy. We compared morbidity, cost of care, and survival between abdominal radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the Korean nationwide database to identify women with cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014. Patients who underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy were compared to those who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. Perioperative morbidity, the use of adjuvant therapy, and survival were evaluated after propensity score balancing. RESULTS: We identified 6,335 patients, including 3,235 who underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy and 3,100 who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. The use of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy increased from 46.1% in 2011 to 51.8% in 2014. Patients who were younger, had a more recent year of diagnosis, and were treated in the metropolitan area were more likely to undergo a laparoscopic procedure (p < 0.001). Compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with lower rates of complication, fewertransfusions, a shorter hospital stay, less adjuvant therapy, and reduced total medical costs (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a better overall survival than abdominal operation (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.85). CONCLUSION: In the postdissemination era, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with more favorable morbidity profiles, a lower cost of care, and comparable survival than abdominal radical hysterectomy.
