Laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy—a randomised phase II trial: perioperative outcomes and surgicopathological measurements
- 8 April 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
- Vol. 117 (6), 746-751
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02479.x
Abstract
Please cite this paper as: Naik R, Jackson K, Lopes A, Cross P, Henry J. Laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy—a randomised phase II trial: perioperative outcomes and surgicopathological measurements. BJOG 2010; DOI: 10.1111/j.1471‐0528.2010.02479.x. Objective To evaluate perioperative surgical outcomes and resection size for laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) compared with radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH). Design A prospective randomised phase II trial. Population Early stage IB cervical cancer requiring radical surgical treatment. Setting Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Gateshead, UK. Methods Fifteen women were randomised to LARVH and to RAH. Main outcome measures Outcomes included requirement in days for bladder catheterisation after surgery, operating time, blood loss, hospital stay, opiate pain relief, complication rate, time to normal activities and resection size of major ligaments and vaginal cuff. Results Statistically significant differences were found between LARVH and RAH, respectively: median duration of bladder catheterisation, 4 days versus 21 days (P = 0.003); median operating time, 180 minutes versus 138 minutes (P = 0.05); median blood loss, 400 ml versus 1000 ml (P = 0.05), median hospital stay, 5 days versus 7 days (P = 0.04) and median opiate requirement in the first 36 hours postoperatively, 30 mg versus 53 mg (P = 0.004). The mean resected lengths for LARVH versus RAH, respectively, were: mean resected vaginal cuff, 1.26 cm versus 2.16 cm (P = 0.014); mean resected cardinal ligament length, 1.30 cm versus 2.79 cm (P = 0.013) and mean resected uterosacral ligament length, 1.47 cm versus 4.68 cm (P = 0.034). Conclusions This study confirms the short‐term surgical benefits of LARVH. In addition, LARVH has been shown to be a less radical procedure than RAH, supporting the need for strict patient selection and to restrict the procedure to small tumours.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Is laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy for cervical carcinoma safe? A case control study with follow upBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2007
- A prospective randomised controlled trial of intermittent self-catheterisation vs. supra-pubic catheterisation for post-operative bladder care following radical hysterectomyGynecologic Oncology, 2005
- Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy vs. radical abdominal hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a match controlled studyGynecologic Oncology, 2004
- A comparison of laparascopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and radical abdominal hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancerGynecologic Oncology, 2004
- Laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH): prospective evaluation of 200 patients with cervical cancerGynecologic Oncology, 2003
- The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trialsThe Lancet, 2001
- Combined Laparoscopic and Vaginal Radical Surgery in Cervical CancerGynecologic Oncology, 2000
- Laparoscopic Assistance for Extended Radicality of Radical Vaginal Hysterectomy: Description of a TechniqueGynecologic Oncology, 1998
- Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (type III) with aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomyAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1996
- Drainage following radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: Dogma or need?Obstetrics & Gynecology, 1995