Comparison of the efficacy and safety of total laparoscopic hysterectomy without and with uterine manipulator combined with pelvic lymphadenectomy for early cervical cancer.

Objective: Some studies have reported that the prognosis of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) for early-stage cervical cancer (CC) is worse than that of open surgery. And this was associated with the use of uterine manipulator or not. Therefore, this study retrospectively analyzes the efficacy and safety of TLH without uterine manipulator combined with pelvic lymphadenectomy for early-stage CC.
Methods: Fifty-eight patients with CC (stage IB1-IIA1) who received radical hysterectomy from September 2019 to January 2020 were divided into no uterine manipulator (n = 26) and uterine manipulator group (n = 32). Then, clinical characteristics were collected and intraoperative/postoperative related indicators were compared.
Results: Patients in the no uterine manipulator group had significantly higher operation time and blood loss than in the uterine manipulator group. Notably, there was no significant difference in hemoglobin change, blood transfusion rate, number of pelvic nodules, anal exhaust time, complications and recurrence rate between the two groups. Additionally, patients in the uterine manipulator group were prone to urinary retention (15.6%) and lymphocyst (12.5%), while the no uterine manipulator group exhibited high probability of bladder dysfunction (23.1%) and urinary retention (15.4%). Furthermore, the 1-year disease-free survival rate and the 1-year overall survival rate were not significantly different between the two groups.
Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the efficacy and safety of TLH with or without uterine manipulator combined with pelvic lymphadenectomy in the treatment of patients with early-stage CC. However, the latter requires consideration of the negative effects of high operation time and blood loss.
(© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)