Comparison of Survival Outcomes after Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Cervical Cancer

ObjectiveA meta-analysis was performed to compare survival outcomes including disease-free survival (DFS) between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in patients with cervical cancer.Data SourcesWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Google scholar, and the Cochrane library for studies published between December 2004 and May 2020. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also performed.Methods of Study SelectionTwo researchers independently extracted the data. Studies with survival outcome information were included.Tabulation, Integration, and ResultsA total of 36 eligible clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the hazard ratio (HR) of LRH for the risk of DFS and overall survival (OS) compared with ARH was 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.41; p = .001; I² = 37.5%) and 1.27 (95% CI, 1.04–1.56; p = .020; I² = 45.5%), respectively. In a subgroup analysis, significant harmful effects of DFS in patients with LRH increased in studies using the HR presented by the article (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21–1.64; p <.001), matched retrospective design (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.19–1.88; p = .001), large-scale studies (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.16–1.55; p <.001), and studies published after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.25–1.71; p <.001). However, LRH did not affect DFS (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.59–1.81; p = .898) or OS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.31–1.05; p = .073) of patients with cervical cancer with cervical masses <2 cm.ConclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrated that LRH was associated with higher recurrence rates than ARH. However, LRH showed similar recurrence and OS among patients with cervical masses <2 cm (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 42020191713).