Long-Term Oncological Outcome After Conventional Radical Hysterectomy Versus 2 Nerve-Sparing Modalities for Early Stage Cervical Cancer

ObjectivesNerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer was introduced to improve quality of life after treatment. Sparing the pelvic autonomic nerves reduces bladder, bowel, and sexual dysfunction. The Leiden nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) was modified to the Swift procedure, the latter being more radical regarding the sacrouterine and parametrial resection. We investigate whether nerve-sparing surgery has comparable oncological outcomes as the conventional radical hysterectomy (CRH). Concurrently, we investigate whether there is a difference regarding the oncological outcomes of the 2 nerve-sparing techniques.MethodsThis is a single-center, observational prospective cohort study analyzing oncological outcomes in women undergoing CRH (1994–1999), LNSRH (2001–2005), or Swift procedure (2006–2010) for early stage cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics IA2–IIA).ResultsThree hundred sixty-three patients (124 CRH, 122 LNSRH, and 117 Swift) were included. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IB2 or higher (P = 0.005) was significantly more prevalent in the CRH cohort. The 5-year pelvic relapse–free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between the 3 cohorts (P = 0.116). Regarding the nerve-sparing cohorts, the Swift cohort showed a significant better 5-year overall survival (87.2%) compared with the LNSRH cohort (78.8%) (P = 0.04). In the LNSRH cohort, resection planes less than 5 mm free and need for adjuvant therapy were significantly higher than in the Swift cohort (P = 0.026 and 0.046, respectively).ConclusionsThe nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy shows a similar oncological outcome compared with the CRH. The more radical Swift version of nerve-sparing techniques is preferable to the former LNSRH procedure.