Authors
Cristina Zabrian, A Vanoost, Pierrick Theret, Albine Mancaux, Denis Chatelain, Fabrice Sergent
Published in
Gynecologie, obstetrique, fertilite & senologie. Jul 07, 2026. Epub Jul 07, 2026.
Abstract
Since the LACC trial, the ESGO has favoured laparotomy over laparoscopy for radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer. The aim of our study was to compare recurrence-free survival (RFS) and morbidity between laparoscopy and laparotomy.
A single-centre, retrospective observational study (2005-2024) of patients treated with type C radical hysterectomy for stage IA2-IIA1 cervical cancer. The use of an intrauterine manipulator without creating a vaginal collar was routine in laparoscopic surgery.
One hundred and two female patients were included, 65 of whom underwent laparoscopic surgery and 37 laparotomy. With a mean follow-up of 6.2 years, no significant difference was observed in terms of disease-free survival (81.6% for laparoscopy vs 74.2% for laparotomy; p=0.24). After adjusting for stage and conisation, the hazard ratio for recurrence following laparotomy was 1.74 (95% CI: [0.67-4.51]). Long-term overall survival showed no difference between the surgical approaches. Laparoscopy offered significant advantages in terms of blood loss (140.6±264 ml vs 228±229 ml; p<0.05) and length of hospital stay (4.3±2.6 days vs 7.0±2.8 days; p<0.05). Major complications (Clavien-Dindo III-IV) were similar (7.7% with laparoscopy vs 5.4% with laparotomy; p=0.65).
When performed by surgeons trained to deal with tumours of a medium size (<2 cm), laparoscopy did not compromise overall survival compared with laparotomy, whilst significantly reducing perioperative morbidity.
PMID:
42413695
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 08 Jul 2026.
Read full publication at:
Please sign in
to see all details.
Advertisement
Stats
- Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
- Views 4
- Comments 0