Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator for early‐stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Rui‐Zhe Li, Li‐Fei Sun, Rui Li, Hongjing Wang
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy has been reported to increase the risk of cancer relapse and death compared with open surgery in women with early-stage cervical cancer. The use of a uterine manipulator is considered one of the risk factors. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether women with early-stage cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator have oncological outcomes similar to those of open surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from their inception until 31 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomised controlled trials or observational cohort studies published in English, (2) studies comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using a uterine manipulator with open radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer, and (3) studies comparing survival outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed study quality. We calculated the hazard ratios (HR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the inverse variance approach for survival outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Six observational studies with 2150 women were included. The minimally invasive surgery group had a significantly higher risk of cancer relapse compared with open surgery group (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.15-2.10). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using a uterine manipulator resulted in an inferior recurrence-free survival compared with open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of women with early-stage cervical cancer.