Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for FIGO Stage IB and IIA Cervical Cancer With Tumor Diameter of 3 cm or Greater

Objective There have been many comparative reports on laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for early-stage cervical cancer. However, most of these studies included patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IA2 and small (tumor diameter 2 or 3 cm) IB1 disease. The purpose of this study was to compare the feasibility, morbidity, and recurrence rate of LRH and ARH for FIGO stage IB and IIA cervical cancer with tumor diameter of 3 cm or greater. Materials and Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 88 patients with FIGO stage IB and IIA cervical cancer with tumor diameter of 3 cm or greater. All patients had no evidence of parametrial invasion and lymph node metastasis in preoperative gynecologic examination, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography-computed tomography, and they all underwent LRH or ARH between February 2006 and March 2013. Results Among 88 patients, 40 patients received LRH whereas 48 underwent ARH. The mean estimated blood loss was 588.0 mL for the ARH group compared with 449.1 mL for the LRH group (P < 0.001). The mean operating time was similar in both groups (246.0 minutes in the ARH vs 254.5 minutes in the LRH group, P = 0.589). Return of bowel motility was observed earlier after LRH (1.8 vs 2.2 days, P = 0.042). The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter for the LRH group (14.8 vs 18.0 days, P = 0.044). There were no differences in histopathologic characteristics between the 2 groups. The mean tumor diameter was 44.4 mm in the LRH and 45.3 mm in the ARH group. Disease-free survival rates were 97.9% in the ARH and 97.5% in the LRH group (P = 0.818). Conclusions Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy might be a feasible therapeutic procedure for the management of FIGO stage IB and IIA cervical cancer with tumor diameter of 3 cm or greater. Further randomized studies that could support this approach are necessary to evaluate long-term clinical outcome.