Evidence Hub

Minimally Invasive Lymphadenectomy in Uterine Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review

Rizou N, Moris D, Pikoulis E, Dimitrokallis N, Mpaili E, Felekouras E, Papalampros A

Anticancer research, 2017

1,676 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to review the current literature on the role of minimally invasive lymphadenectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Non-randomized control trials published between January 2007 to May 2016 were identified by searching the Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Primary endpoints included operative outcomes (operative time, intraoperative blood loss, number of transfused patients and conversion rates), postoperative outcomes (length of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative morbidity and postoperative in-hospital mortality), and oncological outcomes (number of harvested lymph nodes, tumor recurrence, disease-free rates and overall survival rates).

RESULTS: A total of 17 studies with a total of 1,676 patients were included in the review. Compared to the open approach, minimally invasive lymphadenectomy demonstrated a significantly larger number of harvested lymph nodes, longer operative time, lower intraoperative blood loss and shorter postoperative hospital stay. No significant differences were observed between groups treated with an open, laparoscopic or robotic approach for the following criteria: lymph node metastasis, postoperative morbidity, tumor recurrence and postoperative mortality.

CONCLUSION: Although a technically demanding and time-consuming procedure, minimally invasive lymphadenectomy appears to be safe and feasible and may offer an alternative approach in staging and treatment of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,676 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free