Outcomes associated with different surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of five different approaches to cervical cancer surgery. Methods We conducted a systematic search for comparative studies on different radical hysterectomy types for cervical cancer in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. A...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of gynecology and obstetrics 2023-01, Vol.160 (1), p.28-37
Hauptverfasser: Guo, Xinmeng, Tian, Shuang, Wang, Hui, Zhang, Jinning, Cheng, Yanfei, Yao, Yuanqing
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of five different approaches to cervical cancer surgery. Methods We conducted a systematic search for comparative studies on different radical hysterectomy types for cervical cancer in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. All included observational studies used survival analyses to compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing different radical hysterectomy types. All studies were assessed by the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale with scores of at least seven points. We extracted the relevant data and conducted a network meta‐analysis to compare clinical outcomes among five surgical approaches. Results Thirty studies (n = 11 353) were included. Robotic surgery had the lowest blood loss volume and hospitalization duration; open surgery had the shortest operative time. Vaginal assisted laparoscopic surgery was associated with the highest number of resected lymph nodes and lowest rate of perioperative complications. Survival outcomes and tumor recurrence outcomes were similar among the approaches. Conclusion The current approaches to cervical cancer surgery have comparable efficacies.
ISSN:0020-7292
1879-3479
DOI:10.1002/ijgo.14209