A successful case of abdominal radical trachelectomy for cervical cancer during pregnancy.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University, Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2, Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871 Japan.European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology (Impact Factor: 1.97). 05/2011; 158(2):365-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.04.048
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Radical trachelectomy is a standard treatment for selected patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Outcomes are well established for vaginal radical trachelectomy (VRT), but not for abdominal radical trachelectomy (ART). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (October 1997 through October 2012) using the terms: uterine cervix neoplasms, cervical cancer, abdominal radical trachelectomy, vaginal radical trachelectomy, fertility sparing, and fertility preservation. We included original articles, case series, and case reports. Excluded were review articles, articles with duplicate patient information, and articles not in English. RESULTS: We identified 485 patients. Ages ranged from 6 to 44 years. The most common stage was IB1 (331/464; 71%), and the most common histologic subtype was squamous cell carcinoma (330/470; 70%). Operative times ranged from 110 to 586 minutes. Blood loss ranged from 50 to 5,568 mL. Three intraoperative complications were reported. Forty-seven patients (10%) had conversion to radical hysterectomy. One hundred fifty-five patients (35%) had a postoperative complication. The most frequent postoperative complication was cervical stenosis (n=42; 9.5%). The median follow-up time was 31.6 months (range, 1-124). Sixteen patients (3.8%) had disease recurrence. Two patients (0.4%) died of disease. A total of 413 patients (85%) were able to maintain their fertility. A total of 113 patients (38%) attempted to get pregnant, and 67 of them (59.3%) were able to conceive. CONCLUSION: ART is a safe treatment option in patients with early-stage cervical cancer interested in preserving fertility.Gynecologic Oncology 06/2013; · 3.69 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.