eISSN: 2299-0054
ISSN: 1895-4588
Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques
Current issue Archive Videoforum Manuscripts accepted About the journal Supplements Editorial board Reviewers Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors Ethical standards and procedures
SCImago Journal & Country Rank

 
1/2022
vol. 17
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
Gynaecology
abstract:
Meta-analysis

Evaluation of the efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for treating cervical cancer: a meta-analysis

Zhen Zeng
,
Jia Liu
,
Tao Lv
,
Zonghao Feng
,
Lei Zhang
,
Qinping Liao

Videosurgery Miniinv 2022; 17 (1): 69–82
Online publish date: 2021/05/14
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Introduction
Laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) are commonly used for cervical cancer treatment. However, the clinical application of LARVH versus ARH in treating cervical cancer remains controversial. To investigate the efficacy of LARVH versus ARH in treating cervical cancer via comparing several inductors by pooling related studies.

Material and methods
Eligible articles from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were screened using established search terms. Consecutive variables were pooled using weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Categorical variables were pooled using odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI.

Results
A total of 13 articles were included in this meta-analysis, comprising 579 patients who underwent LARVH and 810 who underwent ARH. LARVH required a longer operation time (WMD = 50.97, 95% CI: 38.34, 63.59, p < 0.001) than ARH. However, compared to patients who underwent ARH, those who underwent LARVH had less bleeding volume (WMD = 311.21, 95% CI: 482.77, 139.64, p < 0.001), required a shorter hospital stay (WMD = 3.38, 95% CI: 5.00, 1.76, p < 0.001), and had a lower risk of urinary tract infection (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.89, p = 0.028). Additionally, patients who underwent LARVH showed a slightly lower recurrence rate (OR = 0.549, 95% CI: 0.302, 0.998, p = 0.049) than patients who underwent ARH. However, subgroup analysis results were not in agreement with the pooled results and indicated an unstable outcome.

Conclusions
Owing to these reasons, LARVH has more application prospects than ARH in treating cervical cancer.

keywords:

meta-analysis, cervical cancer, laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy, abdominal radical hysterectomy, efficacy comparison

  
Quick links
© 2022 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.