Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy in endometrial cancer

University of Verona, Verona, Veneto, Italy
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics (Impact Factor: 1.54). 06/2006; 93(3):209-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.02.011
Source: PubMed


To see whether laparoscopy provides exact staging and effective treatment of endometrial cancer patients, compared with total abdominal hysterectomy, with shorter hospital stay, prompter recovery, and better quality of life.
This retrospective study identified 110 patients scheduled for surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer. Fifty-five (50%) were treated by laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) and 55 (50%) by total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). All patients underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy. The majority of patients (79%) had stage I disease.
The mean number of lymph nodes removed was 17 for the LAVH group and 18.5 for the TAH group (p = 0.294). Compared with TAH, LAVH required a significantly longer operating time (220 vs. 175 min; p < 0.01); but shorter hospital stay (4 vs. 8.5 days; p < 0.001) and less estimated blood loss (177 cm3 vs. 285 cm3; p = 0.02). Overall, there were fewer post-operative complications in the LAVH group (6 vs. 11 cases; p < 0.001). Three TAH patients (5.4%) had recurrence of disease. No LAVH patients had recurrences and all are currently disease-free.
These findings suggest LAVH gives correct staging of endometrial disease, like TAH, but with fewer complications and a slightly longer operating time.

9 Reads
  • Source
    • "This is similar to the findings of other investigators. Frigerio et al. [31] compared laparoscopy and laparotomy and found fewer postoperative complications among patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Gil-Moreno et al. [32] compared laparoscopy and laparotomy and found that the amount of blood loss, number of blood transfusions required, and LOHS were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group; however, the OT was significantly longer. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose To compare the relative merits among robotic surgery, laparoscopy, and laparotomy for patients with endometrial cancer by conducting a meta-analysis. Methods The MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison between robotic surgery and laparoscopy or between robotic surgery and laparotomy for endometrial cancer were selected. The outcome measures included operating time (OT), number of complications, length of hospital stay (LOHS), estimated blood loss (EBL), number of transfusions, total lymph nodes harvested (TLNH), and number of conversions. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using either a fixed-effects or random-effects model. Results Twenty-two studies were included in the meta-analysis. These studies involved a total of 4420 patients, 3403 of whom underwent both robotic surgery and laparoscopy and 1017 of whom underwent both robotic surgery and laparotomy. The EBL (p = 0.01) and number of conversions (p = 0.0008) were significantly lower and the number of complications (p<0.0001) was significantly higher in robotic surgery than in laparoscopy. The OT, LOHS, number of transfusions, and TLNH showed no significant differences between robotic surgery and laparoscopy. The number of complications (p<0.00001), LOHS (p<0.00001), EBL (p<0.00001), and number of transfusions (p = 0.03) were significantly lower and the OT (p<0.00001) was significantly longer in robotic surgery than in laparotomy. The TLNH showed no significant difference between robotic surgery and laparotomy. Conclusions Robotic surgery is generally safer and more reliable than laparoscopy and laparotomy for patients with endometrial cancer. Robotic surgery is associated with significantly lower EBL than both laparoscopy and laparotomy; fewer conversions but more complications than laparoscopy; and shorter LOHS, fewer complications, and fewer transfusions but a longer OT than laparoscopy. Further studies are required.
    PLoS ONE 09/2014; 9(9):e108361. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0108361 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In our study the mean hospital stay was 4.5 days. Frigerio et al. [6] had a mean hospital stay of 8.5 days in the TAH and a mean of 4 days in the TLH group [6]. Zullo et al. (2005) "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The standard treatment for women with endometrial cancer is total abdominal hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for surgical staging. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLH) is an alternative approach providing surgical and patient related advantages to laparoscopy. Twenty female patients with early stage endometrial cancer were operated upon by TLH and pelvic lymphadenectomy, aiming to assess the safety and efficacy of TLH. The mean operative time was 296.8min conversion to laparotomy was done in one patient due to bleeding from the uterine vessels. The mean blood loss was 517.5cc. The uterus was removed transvaginally in 18 patients (90%) and via a small Pfannenstiel incision in two patients (10%). The mean number of pelvic lymph nodes retrieval was 21.2. Postoperative bleeding occurred in one patient (5%) which necessitated exploration. One patient (5%) suffered a pulmonary embolism. Four patients (20%) developed pyrexia, and one patient (5%) suffered from a chest infection. One patient (5%) had wound infection. The mean hospital stay was 4.5days (range 3-10). TLH with pelvic lymphadenectomy is a safe and effective approach in the treatment of early endometrial carcinoma.
    Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute 09/2011; 23(3):101-4. DOI:10.1016/j.jnci.2011.09.008
  • Source
    • "Patient blood loss (70mL) was a significant prognostic indicator of increased surgery time. However, our rate was similar to that reported in prior LAVH studies.14,17 We suggest that the patients' uterine weight may have resulted in longer surgery times, although additional LAVH outcomes studies have not reported analogous findings.4,15,18 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the impact of RealHand instruments on laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) for the treatment of stage I uterine cancer. This was a single-center, nonrandomized, consecutive patient pilot study. Patient status was evaluated in terms of operative morbidity, length of surgery, anesthesia time, body mass index (BMI), estimated blood loss, uterine weight, and hospital stay. In the group of 10 patients, mean operative time was 1.7 hours, and anesthesia time was 2.3 hours. Mean estimated blood loss was 70mL, and patient hospital stay was 31.8 hours. No intra- or postoperative complications occurred. Blood loss, anesthesia time, BMI, and uterine weight were significant predictors of operative time. In one patient, LAVH using the RealHand instruments was canceled because of deep pelvic visualization difficulties, resulting in a conversion to laparotomy. We present the first reported individual physician LAVH experience using RealHand instruments for the treatment of clinical stage I uterine cancer. The reported operative time, reasonable patient complication rates, and acceptable postoperative stay suggest that these innovative surgical instruments may have significant promise in the treatment of patients diagnosed with this gynecologic disease.
    JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons / Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 03/2009; 13(1):27-31. · 0.91 Impact Factor
Show more