Nerve-sparing versus conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy a minimum 12 months' follow-up study

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 787-793

  Bogani, Giorgio ^a   Cromi, Antonella ^a   Uccella, Stefano ^a   Serati, Maurizio ^a   Casarin, Jvan ^a   Pinelli, Ciro ^a   Nardelli, Federica ^a   Ghezzi, Fabio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF INSUBRIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Laparoscopy; Nerve sparing; Radical hysterectomy; Survival

Indexed keywords

ADULT; BLADDER CATHETERIZATION; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MICTURITION DISORDER; MINIMALLY INVASIVE PROCEDURE; NERVE SPARING TECHNIQUE; OPERATION DURATION; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PELVIS LYMPH NODE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADICAL HYSTERECTOMY; SAFETY; SURGEON; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; ADENOCARCINOMA; CANCER GRADING; CANCER STAGING; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; HYSTERECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPY; LYMPH NODE DISSECTION; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; NEUROSURGERY; PATHOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; SURVIVAL RATE; TIME; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

ADENOCARCINOMA; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; HYSTERECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPY; LYMPH NODE EXCISION; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM STAGING; NEUROSURGICAL PROCEDURES; ORGAN SPARING TREATMENTS; PROGNOSIS; SURVIVAL RATE; TIME FACTORS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84900426984     PISSN: 1048891X     EISSN: 15251438     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000110     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63:11-30.
2. Salicrú SR, de la Torre JF, Gil-Moreno A. The surgical management of early-stage cervical cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2013;25:312-319.
3. Plotti F, Angioli R, Zullo MA, et al. Update on urodynamic bladder dysfunctions after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011;80:323-329.
4. Liang Z, Chen Y, Xu H, et al. Laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy with fascia space dissection technique for cervical cancer: description of technique and outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119:202-207.
5. Zakashansky K, Bradley WH, Nezhat FR. New techniques in radical hysterectomy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;20:14-19.
6. Chong GO, Lee YH, Hong DG, et al. Robot versus laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a comparison of the intraoperative and perioperative results of a single surgeon's initial experience. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23:1145-1149.
7. Li J, Xu H, Chen Y, et al. Laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical parametrectomy for occult early-stage invasive cervical cancer after simple hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:1383-1388.
8. Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Uccella S, et al. Nerve-sparing minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy plus systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer patients. Surg Innov. 2013;20:493-501.
9. Narducci F, Collinet P, Merlot B, et al. Benefit of robot-assisted laparoscopy in nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: urinary morbidity in early cervical cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:1237-1242.
10. Uccella S, Laterza R, Ciravolo G, et al. A comparison of urinary complications following total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy to open abdominal surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;107:S147-S149.
11. Park NY, Chong GO, Hong DG, et al. Oncologic results and surgical morbidity of laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in the treatment of FIGO stage IB cervical cancer: long-term follow-up. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:355-362.
12. Kavallaris A, Hornemann A, Chalvatzas N, et al. Laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: description of the technique and patients? outcome. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119:198-201.
13. Possover M, Stöber S, Plaul K, et al. Identification and preservation of the motoric innervation of the bladder in radical hysterectomy type III. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;79:154-157.
14. Querleu D, Narducci F, Poulard V, et al. Modified radical vaginal hysterectomy with or without laparoscopic nerve-sparing dissection: a comparative study. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;85:154-158.
15. Possover M, Quakernack J, Chiantera V. The LANN technique to reduce postoperative functional morbidity in laparoscopic radical pelvic surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:913-917.
16. Gallotta V, Fanfani F, Scambia G. Minilaparoscopic nerve sparing radical hysterectomy in locally advanced cervical cancer after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Gynecol Oncol. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.11.031. [Epub ahead of print].
17. Mota F, Vergote I, Trimbos JB, et al. Classification of radical hysterectomy adopted by the Gynecological Cancer Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:1136-1138.
18. Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Ditto A, et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy for stage IB2-IIB cervical cancer in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a multi-institutional cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2007-2015.
19. Bogani G, Cromi A, Uccella S, et al. Laparoscopic staging in women older than 75 years with early stage endometrial cancer: comparison with open surgery. Menopause. 2014. doi:10.1097/GME.0000000000000202[Epub ahead of print].
20. Strasberg SM, Linehan DC, Hawkins WG. The Accordion Severity Grading System of surgical complications. Ann Surg. 2009;250:177-186.