RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Minimally Invasive Lymphadenectomy in Uterine Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review
JF Anticancer Research
JO Anticancer Res
FD International Institute of Anticancer Research
SP 335
OP 342
VO 37
IS 1
A1 NATASA RIZOU
A1 DEMETRIOS MORIS
A1 EMMANOUIL PIKOULIS
A1 NIKOLAOS DIMITROKALLIS
A1 EUSTRATIA MPAILI
A1 EVANGELOS FELEKOURAS
A1 ALEXANDROS PAPALAMPROS
YR 2017
UL http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/37/1/335.abstract
AB Background/Aim: The aim of this study was to review the current literature on the role of minimally invasive lymphadenectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer. Materials and Methods: Non-randomized control trials published between January 2007 to May 2016 were identified by searching the Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Primary endpoints included operative outcomes (operative time, intraoperative blood loss, number of transfused patients and conversion rates), postoperative outcomes (length of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative morbidity and postoperative in-hospital mortality), and oncological outcomes (number of harvested lymph nodes, tumor recurrence, disease-free rates and overall survival rates). Results: A total of 17 studies with a total of 1,676 patients were included in the review. Compared to the open approach, minimally invasive lymphadenectomy demonstrated a significantly larger number of harvested lymph nodes, longer operative time, lower intraoperative blood loss and shorter postoperative hospital stay. No significant differences were observed between groups treated with an open, laparoscopic or robotic approach for the following criteria: lymph node metastasis, postoperative morbidity, tumor recurrence and postoperative mortality. Conclusion: Although a technically demanding and time-consuming procedure, minimally invasive lymphadenectomy appears to be safe and feasible and may offer an alternative approach in staging and treatment of cervical cancer. Multicentre randomized controlled trials investigating its long-term oncological outcomes and its cost-effectiveness are required to determine the advantages of this procedure over the open approach in cervical cancer.