Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator for early‐stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Background Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy has been reported to increase the risk of cancer relapse and death compared with open surgery in women with early‐stage cervical cancer. The use of a uterine manipulator is considered one of the risk factors. Objectives To investigate whether women...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2023-01, Vol.130 (2), p.176-183 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 183 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 176 |
| container_title | BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology |
| container_volume | 130 |
| creator | Li, Rui‐Zhe Sun, Li‐Fei Li, Rui Wang, Hong‐Jing |
| description | Background
Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy has been reported to increase the risk of cancer relapse and death compared with open surgery in women with early‐stage cervical cancer. The use of a uterine manipulator is considered one of the risk factors.
Objectives
To investigate whether women with early‐stage cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator have oncological outcomes similar to those of open surgery.
Search strategy
Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from their inception until 31 March 2022.
Selection criteria
Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomised controlled trials or observational cohort studies published in English, (2) studies comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using a uterine manipulator with open radical hysterectomy in women with early‐stage cervical cancer, and (3) studies comparing survival outcomes.
Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed study quality. We calculated the hazard ratios (HR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the inverse variance approach for survival outcome.
Main results
Six observational studies with 2150 women were included. The minimally invasive surgery group had a significantly higher risk of cancer relapse compared with open surgery group (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.15–2.10).
Conclusions
Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using a uterine manipulator resulted in an inferior recurrence‐free survival compared with open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of women with early‐stage cervical cancer. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/1471-0528.17339 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2732537631</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2746440129</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3719-8a8d7111e130964c3522faff8e222520a93ab9da3e582f90f20940a9404bb2263</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkbtuFTEQhi0EIiFQ0yFLNDSb-LJXuiQiXBQpBVBbc7zjxJHXe7DXe7Qdj8A75M14Erw5IQUNlkYezXzz25qfkNecHfN8TnjZ8IJVoj3mjZTdE3L4WHl6n7OCSdEekBcx3jLGa8Hkc3Igayk5Y-0hufuawmxncBTMhIEO1tsBnFuo9TNEOyMN0FudgZslZgL1NA4L3dnpZkwTTdH6a5pyw3qkA3i7TQ6mMVCTAyG45ffPX3GCa6Qa81Orkgaf8_f0lMZVc4DJahpwtrij4Hs64AR5Cjy4Jdr4kjwz4CK-eriPyPeLD9_OPxWXVx8_n59eFlo2vCtaaPsmLwW5ZF1dalkJYcCYFoUQlWDQSdh0PUisWmE6ZgTrylwtWbnZCFHLI_Jur7sN44-EcVKDjRqdA49jiko0UlSyqSXP6Nt_0NsxhfzflSrrsmRcdJk62VM6jDEGNGob8nbDojhTq39qdUutbql7__LEmwfdtBmwf-T_GpaBag_srMPlf3rq7MvVXvgPnqCpbw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2746440129</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator for early‐stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Li, Rui‐Zhe ; Sun, Li‐Fei ; Li, Rui ; Wang, Hong‐Jing</creator><creatorcontrib>Li, Rui‐Zhe ; Sun, Li‐Fei ; Li, Rui ; Wang, Hong‐Jing</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy has been reported to increase the risk of cancer relapse and death compared with open surgery in women with early‐stage cervical cancer. The use of a uterine manipulator is considered one of the risk factors.
Objectives
To investigate whether women with early‐stage cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator have oncological outcomes similar to those of open surgery.
Search strategy
Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from their inception until 31 March 2022.
Selection criteria
Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomised controlled trials or observational cohort studies published in English, (2) studies comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using a uterine manipulator with open radical hysterectomy in women with early‐stage cervical cancer, and (3) studies comparing survival outcomes.
Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed study quality. We calculated the hazard ratios (HR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the inverse variance approach for survival outcome.
Main results
Six observational studies with 2150 women were included. The minimally invasive surgery group had a significantly higher risk of cancer relapse compared with open surgery group (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.15–2.10).
Conclusions
Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using a uterine manipulator resulted in an inferior recurrence‐free survival compared with open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of women with early‐stage cervical cancer.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1470-0328</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-0528</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17339</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36331008</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Cervical cancer ; Cervix ; Data collection ; early‐stage cervical cancer ; Female ; Humans ; Hysterectomy ; Hysterectomy - methods ; Laparoscopy - methods ; Meta-analysis ; minimally invasive radical hysterectomy ; Minimally invasive surgery ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - etiology ; Neoplasm Staging ; open abdominal radical hysterectomy ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk factors ; Surgery ; Survival ; Uterine cancer ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - pathology ; uterine manipulator ; Uterus</subject><ispartof>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2023-01, Vol.130 (2), p.176-183</ispartof><rights>2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2023 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3719-8a8d7111e130964c3522faff8e222520a93ab9da3e582f90f20940a9404bb2263</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3719-8a8d7111e130964c3522faff8e222520a93ab9da3e582f90f20940a9404bb2263</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F1471-0528.17339$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F1471-0528.17339$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36331008$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Li, Rui‐Zhe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Li‐Fei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Rui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Hong‐Jing</creatorcontrib><title>Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator for early‐stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis</title><title>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology</title><addtitle>BJOG</addtitle><description>Background
Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy has been reported to increase the risk of cancer relapse and death compared with open surgery in women with early‐stage cervical cancer. The use of a uterine manipulator is considered one of the risk factors.
Objectives
To investigate whether women with early‐stage cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator have oncological outcomes similar to those of open surgery.
Search strategy
Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from their inception until 31 March 2022.
Selection criteria
Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomised controlled trials or observational cohort studies published in English, (2) studies comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using a uterine manipulator with open radical hysterectomy in women with early‐stage cervical cancer, and (3) studies comparing survival outcomes.
Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed study quality. We calculated the hazard ratios (HR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the inverse variance approach for survival outcome.
Main results
Six observational studies with 2150 women were included. The minimally invasive surgery group had a significantly higher risk of cancer relapse compared with open surgery group (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.15–2.10).
Conclusions
Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using a uterine manipulator resulted in an inferior recurrence‐free survival compared with open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of women with early‐stage cervical cancer.</description><subject>Cervical cancer</subject><subject>Cervix</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>early‐stage cervical cancer</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hysterectomy</subject><subject>Hysterectomy - methods</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>minimally invasive radical hysterectomy</subject><subject>Minimally invasive surgery</subject><subject>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures</subject><subject>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - etiology</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>open abdominal radical hysterectomy</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Uterine cancer</subject><subject>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>uterine manipulator</subject><subject>Uterus</subject><issn>1470-0328</issn><issn>1471-0528</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkbtuFTEQhi0EIiFQ0yFLNDSb-LJXuiQiXBQpBVBbc7zjxJHXe7DXe7Qdj8A75M14Erw5IQUNlkYezXzz25qfkNecHfN8TnjZ8IJVoj3mjZTdE3L4WHl6n7OCSdEekBcx3jLGa8Hkc3Igayk5Y-0hufuawmxncBTMhIEO1tsBnFuo9TNEOyMN0FudgZslZgL1NA4L3dnpZkwTTdH6a5pyw3qkA3i7TQ6mMVCTAyG45ffPX3GCa6Qa81Orkgaf8_f0lMZVc4DJahpwtrij4Hs64AR5Cjy4Jdr4kjwz4CK-eriPyPeLD9_OPxWXVx8_n59eFlo2vCtaaPsmLwW5ZF1dalkJYcCYFoUQlWDQSdh0PUisWmE6ZgTrylwtWbnZCFHLI_Jur7sN44-EcVKDjRqdA49jiko0UlSyqSXP6Nt_0NsxhfzflSrrsmRcdJk62VM6jDEGNGob8nbDojhTq39qdUutbql7__LEmwfdtBmwf-T_GpaBag_srMPlf3rq7MvVXvgPnqCpbw</recordid><startdate>202301</startdate><enddate>202301</enddate><creator>Li, Rui‐Zhe</creator><creator>Sun, Li‐Fei</creator><creator>Li, Rui</creator><creator>Wang, Hong‐Jing</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202301</creationdate><title>Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator for early‐stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis</title><author>Li, Rui‐Zhe ; Sun, Li‐Fei ; Li, Rui ; Wang, Hong‐Jing</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3719-8a8d7111e130964c3522faff8e222520a93ab9da3e582f90f20940a9404bb2263</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Cervical cancer</topic><topic>Cervix</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>early‐stage cervical cancer</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hysterectomy</topic><topic>Hysterectomy - methods</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>minimally invasive radical hysterectomy</topic><topic>Minimally invasive surgery</topic><topic>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures</topic><topic>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - etiology</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>open abdominal radical hysterectomy</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Uterine cancer</topic><topic>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>uterine manipulator</topic><topic>Uterus</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Li, Rui‐Zhe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Li‐Fei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Rui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Hong‐Jing</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Li, Rui‐Zhe</au><au>Sun, Li‐Fei</au><au>Li, Rui</au><au>Wang, Hong‐Jing</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator for early‐stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis</atitle><jtitle>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology</jtitle><addtitle>BJOG</addtitle><date>2023-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>130</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>176</spage><epage>183</epage><pages>176-183</pages><issn>1470-0328</issn><eissn>1471-0528</eissn><abstract>Background
Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy has been reported to increase the risk of cancer relapse and death compared with open surgery in women with early‐stage cervical cancer. The use of a uterine manipulator is considered one of the risk factors.
Objectives
To investigate whether women with early‐stage cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator have oncological outcomes similar to those of open surgery.
Search strategy
Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from their inception until 31 March 2022.
Selection criteria
Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomised controlled trials or observational cohort studies published in English, (2) studies comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using a uterine manipulator with open radical hysterectomy in women with early‐stage cervical cancer, and (3) studies comparing survival outcomes.
Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed study quality. We calculated the hazard ratios (HR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the inverse variance approach for survival outcome.
Main results
Six observational studies with 2150 women were included. The minimally invasive surgery group had a significantly higher risk of cancer relapse compared with open surgery group (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.15–2.10).
Conclusions
Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using a uterine manipulator resulted in an inferior recurrence‐free survival compared with open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of women with early‐stage cervical cancer.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>36331008</pmid><doi>10.1111/1471-0528.17339</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1470-0328 |
| ispartof | BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2023-01, Vol.130 (2), p.176-183 |
| issn | 1470-0328 1471-0528 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2732537631 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Cervical cancer Cervix Data collection early‐stage cervical cancer Female Humans Hysterectomy Hysterectomy - methods Laparoscopy - methods Meta-analysis minimally invasive radical hysterectomy Minimally invasive surgery Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - etiology Neoplasm Staging open abdominal radical hysterectomy Retrospective Studies Risk factors Surgery Survival Uterine cancer Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - pathology uterine manipulator Uterus |
| title | Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator for early‐stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T17%3A55%3A43IST&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=Survival%20after%20minimally%20invasive%20radical%20hysterectomy%20without%20using%20uterine%20manipulator%20for%20early%E2%80%90stage%20cervical%20cancer:%20A%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta%E2%80%90analysis&rft.jtitle=BJOG%20:%20an%20international%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynaecology&rft.au=Li,%20Rui%E2%80%90Zhe&rft.date=2023-01&rft.volume=130&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=176&rft.epage=183&rft.pages=176-183&rft.issn=1470-0328&rft.eissn=1471-0528&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1471-0528.17339&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2746440129%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=2746440129&rft_id=info:pmid/36331008&rfr_iscdi=true |