Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) in treatment of early cervical cancer. Methods Such databases as CBM (1960 to September 2011), CENTRAL (1966 to September 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2011), The Cochrane Library, EMbase (1974 to September 2011) and CNKI (1994 to September 2011) were searched on computer, and relevant magazines were also searched manually. Data were extracted and the quality was assessed after including studies according to exclusive criteria, then meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.1 software. Results Total 7 studies involving 506 cases were selected, of which 255 cases were in the LNSRH group and the other 251 cases were in the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) group. There were no differences between the two groups in age, body mass index, clinical stage, pathological type and histological grade. The results of meta-analysis showed that: a) The operative time of LNSRH was longer than LRH, with significant difference (P=0.02). But there was no significant difference in intraoperative bleeding between the two groups (P=0.69); b) The length of dissected parametrium of LNSRH was shorter than LRH with significant difference (P=0.02). But there was no significant difference in the length of dissected vagina (P=0.69); and c) The functional recovery of the bladder in the LNSRH group was better than LRH (Plt;0.000 01). Conclusion LNSRH is safe and feasible in effectively alleviating the postoperative dysfunction of the bladder in early cervical cancer as well as in improving the quality of life for patients. It is regarded as a new model of operation. Because it has just been put into practice within a short time, and there is lack of multi-center, large-sample, prospective controlled studies at present, so its radical effectiveness, long-term recurrence rate, survival rate, etc. have not yet been confirmed. More high quality studies are needed to provide important data of comparison between LNSRH and LRH.
Objective To evaluate the clinical effect and safety of nerve sparing radical hysterectomy(NSRH) for cervical cancer compared with radical hysterectomy (RH). Methods We searched the Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2010), MEDLINE (1960 to March, 2010), EMbase (1960 to March, 2010), CBM (1960 to March, 2010), VIP (1960 to March, 2010) and CNKI (1960 to March, 2010), and hand searched related literatures. With a defined search strategy, both randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of comparing NSRH with RH for cervical cancer were identified. Data were extracted and evaluated by two reviewers independently. The quality of the included trials was evaluated by Cochrane’s evaluation criterion. Meta-analysis was conducted with the Cochrane collaboration’s RevMan 4.2.2 software. Results Nine controlled clinical trials involving 742 patients were identified. The meta-analysis showed that: a) There was statistical significance in postoperative recovery of bladder function between two groups; compared with RH, NSRH was much better in aspects of the recovery time of post void residual urine volume (PVR) (WMD= – 5.80, 95%CI – 6.22 to – 5.37), the bladder dysfunction morbidity (RR=0.43, 95%CI (0.26 to 0.75), and the urodynamic study; b) The operation time of NSRH was longer than that of RH with a significant difference (WMD=37.23, 95%CI 12.84 to 61.61); c) There was no significant difference between two groups in bleeding amount (WMD=19.66, 95%CI – 51.57 to 90.90); d) There was no significant difference between two groups in both survival rate and recurrent rate (RR=0.79, 95%CI 0.17 to 3.58); e) There was no significant difference between two groups in resection extension and pathologic outcome, such as, infiltration around uterus and vessels; f) One trail showed a significant difference between two groups that NSRH seldom led to anorectal and sexual dysfunction. Conclusions Compared with RH, NSRH can quickly improve the postoperative recovery of bladder, anorectal and sexual functions, but haven’t larger quantity of operative bleeding, larger resection extension, lower survival rates and higher recurrence rates except longer operation time. NSRH can improve the quality of postoperative life and is safe. However, the trails available for this systematic review were limited, as well as non-randomized controlled trails. Some outcomes were only included by one trail. So there is no confirmed conclusion about these. The prospective randomized controlled trials are required for further investigation.
Objective To systematically review the prognostic value of perineural invasion (PNI) for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Methods We searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2016), CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and VIP databases to collect case-control studies about prognostic value of PNI in cervical cancer from inception to October, 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. Results Seven case-control studies from eight articles involving 1 218 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: (1) On Cox's model multivariate analysis, PNI was not identified as an independent risk factor for disease free survival (DFS) (HR=0.73, 95%CI 0.33 to 1.58,P=0.42) or overall survival (OS) (HR=0.89, 95%CI 0.41 to 1.94,P=0.77) with no significant difference; (2) On Kaplan-Meier-curves, DFS (HR=1.86, 95%CI 1.20 to 2.88,P=0.006) and OS (HR=2.43, 95%CI 1.63 to 3.62,P<0.000 1) were both significantly decreased in patients with PNI positive group. Conclusion PNI represents a decreasing disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with early-stage cervical cancer, and is one of the poor prognosis factors which be informed management decisions regarding adjuvant therapy. However, there is no evidence that PNI is an independent factor affecting the prognosis. In view of the limitation of the studies, a large sample prospective controlled trial is warranted to verify the above conclusion.