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.