Comparative study for laparoscopico-vaginal radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer

Nam, Joo Hyun; Kim, Jong Hyeok; Kim, Dae Yeon; Kim, Mi Kyung; Yoo, Hang Jo; Kim, Yong Man

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopico-vaginal (modified) radical hysterectomy and to compare surgical parameters and recurrence rate of these with those of conventional abdominal radical hysterectomy.
METHODS
From October 1997 to March 2002, we have performed 37 cases of LVMRH (laparoscopico- vaginal modified radical hysterectomy) +PLND (pelvic lymph node dissection) and 47 cases of LVRH (laparoscopico-vaginal radical hysterectomy) with paraaortic lymph node sampling +PLND. Inclusion criteria for laparoscopic group were patients with FIGO stage IA1 to IB1 which exocervical mass size was less than 2 cm clinically. As a control group, we selected 46 cases for the MRH group and 96 cases for the RH group. These groups had the same FIGO stage and the same tumor size less than 2 cm or tumor volume calculated by MRI being less than 4.2 cm3, while the age for each group were identically matched with the laparoscopic group.
RESULTS
The mean duration of surgery, the number of lymph nodes and the rate of perioperative and postoperative complications were similar in both the laparoscopic and the conventional laparotomy group. The mean duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients treated by laparoscopic surgery (LVMRH vs. MRH; 9 vs. 15, LVRH vs. RH; 13 vs. 21 days). No lymph node metastasis was reported in both LVMRH and MRH group. No recurrences but only one patient in MRH group were found in both groups during the median follow up of 34.5 and 43.5 months, respectively. The positive rates of pelvic lymph node metastasis in both RH groups were similarly 6.4%. Four (8.5%) of 47 LVRH patients and two (2.1%) of 96 RH patients had recurrences. However, in patients who had tumor volume being less than 4.2 cm3, recurrence rate was 2.5% (1/40) and 42.9% (3/7) in those with tumor volume larger than 4.2 cm3. There was one death in a patient with pulmonary metastasis who took LVRH in spite of vigorous chemotherapy. Three year progression free survival rates were 96.7% in LVRH group (tumor volume<4.2 cm3) and 97.9% in RH group (p=0.81).
CONCLUSION
Laparoscopic surgery for treatment of early small volume cervical cancer, especially stage IA is safe and effective alternatives in terms of operative morbidity and mortality. However, patients with large volume disease (>4.2 cm3) who were treated by LVRH had higher recurrence rate compared to those by conventional RH. It is concluded that laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of cervical cancer would be better to be limited to patients with early disease who have the largest tumor diameter less than 2 cm or tumor volume less than 4.2 cm3 carefully measured by MRI.