ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer. MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2013), CBM, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data (from inception to October, 2013) through computer, and manually searched related journals. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on LRH versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in the treatment of cervical cancer were identified according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, data were extracted, and methodological quality of the included studies was accessed by two reviewer independently. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsSeven RCTs involving 462 patients were finally included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: there were significant differences between LRH and ARH in the operation time, intraoperative bleeding, recovery time of gastrointestinal function, postoperative pain, postoperative hospital stay, and surgical site infection (MD=20.25, 95%CI 0.26 to 40.24, P=0.05; MD=-56.18, 95%CI-74.84 to-37.52, P < 0.000 01; SMD=-1.54, 95%CI-2.92 to-0.16, P=0.03; MD=-1.37, 95%CI-1.85 to-0.89, P < 0.000 01; MD=-2.32, 95%CI-3.57 to-1.06, P=0.000 3; RR=0.42, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.97, P=0.04). But there was no significant difference in the number of lymph node biopsy (MD=1.34, 95%CI-4.26 to 6.94, P=0.64) and some operative complications (lymphocyte: RR=1.19, 95%CI 0.54 to 2.63, P=0.66; DVT: RR=1.23, 95%CI 0.48 to 3.20, P=0.67; urinary retention: RR=0.85, 95%CI 0.41 to 1.75, P=0.66; cystotomy: RR=1.91, 95%CI 0.49 to 7.51, P=0.35). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that although applying LRH costs longer time, and with high-level technology, its safety and short-term efficacy are superior to ARH. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, its long-term efficacy still needs to be further confirmed by conducting more high-quality, multi-centre RCTs with large sample size.