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!
container_end_page 37
container_issue 1
container_start_page 28
container_title International journal of gynecology and obstetrics
container_volume 160
creator Guo, Xinmeng
Tian, Shuang
Wang, Hui
Zhang, Jinning
Cheng, Yanfei
Yao, Yuanqing
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/ijgo.14209
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2646943578</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2646943578</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3299-92f44e426e5e390fd8ba6fe23c0a1ca5228eceb2c8fa9fa8c411c1e9f962b7a53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtO5DAQhi0EgoaZzRwAeYmQwviRl9mhFk8h9WZmHVU7ZdpMEje2Qys7jsAROAtH4SSkaYYltSlV1adPqp-QX5ydcMbEb3t_5054KpjaIhNeFiqRaaG2yWQ8sqQQSuyR_RDuGWO84HyX7MlMFnKsCXma9VG7FgOFEJy2ELGmKxsXtLbGoMcu0tD7O6uhobBcegd6MdLRvb54qD_WiyHEkdTRtcMpPaNhPbcQraYeHy2uKHQ17TCunP9HW4zw9vQMHTRDsOEH2THQBPz52Q_I34vzP9Or5HZ2eT09u020FEolSpg0xVTkmKFUzNTlHHKDQmoGXEMmRIka50KXBpSBUqeca47KqFzMC8jkATnaeMcXHnoMsWpt0Ng00KHrQyXyNFepzIpyRI83qPYuBI-mWnrbgh8qzqp14tU68eoj8RE-_PT28xbrL_R_xCPAN8DKNjh8o6quby5nG-k7dD6RXw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2646943578</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Outcomes associated with different surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis</title><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Guo, Xinmeng ; Tian, Shuang ; Wang, Hui ; Zhang, Jinning ; Cheng, Yanfei ; Yao, Yuanqing</creator><creatorcontrib>Guo, Xinmeng ; Tian, Shuang ; Wang, Hui ; Zhang, Jinning ; Cheng, Yanfei ; Yao, Yuanqing</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-7292</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-3479</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14209</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35373333</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>radical hysterectomy ; surgical approaches ; systematic review ; vaginal surgery</subject><ispartof>International journal of gynecology and obstetrics, 2023-01, Vol.160 (1), p.28-37</ispartof><rights>2022 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3299-92f44e426e5e390fd8ba6fe23c0a1ca5228eceb2c8fa9fa8c411c1e9f962b7a53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3299-92f44e426e5e390fd8ba6fe23c0a1ca5228eceb2c8fa9fa8c411c1e9f962b7a53</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5942-4121</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fijgo.14209$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fijgo.14209$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35373333$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Guo, Xinmeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tian, Shuang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Hui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Jinning</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Yanfei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yao, Yuanqing</creatorcontrib><title>Outcomes associated with different surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis</title><title>International journal of gynecology and obstetrics</title><addtitle>Int J Gynaecol Obstet</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>radical hysterectomy</subject><subject>surgical approaches</subject><subject>systematic review</subject><subject>vaginal surgery</subject><issn>0020-7292</issn><issn>1879-3479</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtO5DAQhi0EgoaZzRwAeYmQwviRl9mhFk8h9WZmHVU7ZdpMEje2Qys7jsAROAtH4SSkaYYltSlV1adPqp-QX5ydcMbEb3t_5054KpjaIhNeFiqRaaG2yWQ8sqQQSuyR_RDuGWO84HyX7MlMFnKsCXma9VG7FgOFEJy2ELGmKxsXtLbGoMcu0tD7O6uhobBcegd6MdLRvb54qD_WiyHEkdTRtcMpPaNhPbcQraYeHy2uKHQ17TCunP9HW4zw9vQMHTRDsOEH2THQBPz52Q_I34vzP9Or5HZ2eT09u020FEolSpg0xVTkmKFUzNTlHHKDQmoGXEMmRIka50KXBpSBUqeca47KqFzMC8jkATnaeMcXHnoMsWpt0Ng00KHrQyXyNFepzIpyRI83qPYuBI-mWnrbgh8qzqp14tU68eoj8RE-_PT28xbrL_R_xCPAN8DKNjh8o6quby5nG-k7dD6RXw</recordid><startdate>202301</startdate><enddate>202301</enddate><creator>Guo, Xinmeng</creator><creator>Tian, Shuang</creator><creator>Wang, Hui</creator><creator>Zhang, Jinning</creator><creator>Cheng, Yanfei</creator><creator>Yao, Yuanqing</creator><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5942-4121</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202301</creationdate><title>Outcomes associated with different surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis</title><author>Guo, Xinmeng ; Tian, Shuang ; Wang, Hui ; Zhang, Jinning ; Cheng, Yanfei ; Yao, Yuanqing</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3299-92f44e426e5e390fd8ba6fe23c0a1ca5228eceb2c8fa9fa8c411c1e9f962b7a53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>radical hysterectomy</topic><topic>surgical approaches</topic><topic>systematic review</topic><topic>vaginal surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Guo, Xinmeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tian, Shuang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Hui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Jinning</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Yanfei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yao, Yuanqing</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of gynecology and obstetrics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Guo, Xinmeng</au><au>Tian, Shuang</au><au>Wang, Hui</au><au>Zhang, Jinning</au><au>Cheng, Yanfei</au><au>Yao, Yuanqing</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Outcomes associated with different surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis</atitle><jtitle>International journal of gynecology and obstetrics</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Gynaecol Obstet</addtitle><date>2023-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>160</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>28</spage><epage>37</epage><pages>28-37</pages><issn>0020-7292</issn><eissn>1879-3479</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>35373333</pmid><doi>10.1002/ijgo.14209</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5942-4121</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0020-7292
ispartof International journal of gynecology and obstetrics, 2023-01, Vol.160 (1), p.28-37
issn 0020-7292
1879-3479
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2646943578
source Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects radical hysterectomy
surgical approaches
systematic review
vaginal surgery
title Outcomes associated with different surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T04%3A11%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Outcomes%20associated%20with%20different%20surgical%20approaches%20to%C2%A0radical%20hysterectomy:%20A%20systematic%20review%20and%20network%20meta%E2%80%90analysis&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20gynecology%20and%20obstetrics&rft.au=Guo,%20Xinmeng&rft.date=2023-01&rft.volume=160&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=28&rft.epage=37&rft.pages=28-37&rft.issn=0020-7292&rft.eissn=1879-3479&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ijgo.14209&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2646943578%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2646943578&rft_id=info:pmid/35373333&rfr_iscdi=true