Nerve-sparing versus non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: surgical and long-term oncological outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: There are controversies regarding the long-term oncological safety of preservation of pelvic innervation during radical hysterectomy (RH). This study aimed to analyze the feasibility and safety of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) for cervical cancer compared with non-NSRH following 17 years of experience in a tertiary cancer referral center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May 1999 and June 2016, all patients who underwent RH for cervical cancer were followed-up prospectively. Comparison analyses regarding surgical outcomes, complications, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were performed between patients treated with NSRH and non-NSRH. RESULTS: A total of 188 patients were included (113 non-NSRH and 75 NSRH). The median follow-up was 112 months. Estimated blood loss and hospital stay were all significantly lower in the NSRH group. Overall intraoperative complication rate (p = 0.02) and need for transfusion (p = 0.016) were lower in the NSRH group. There were no differences in the median operation time, OS, DFS, CSS, or recurrence rates between the NSRH and non-NSRH group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides a wide perspective on the developments of nerve-sparing procedures for the management of women with early-stage cervical cancer. Our results suggest that NSRH is a feasible and safe procedure, with reduced morbidity outcomes.

Laparoscopic Isthmocele Repair with Hysteroscopic Assistance.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate our experience with hysteroscopic assistance in the laparoscopic repair of an isthmocele. DESIGN: Surgical video article (Canadian Task Force classification III). SETTING: University hospital. INTERVENTION: A 42-year-old woman with a history of previous caesarean section presented as an emergency with a large, seriously infected isthmocele. Once the infection was cured with antibiotics, sonography revealed a 23 × 14-mm isthmocele with 1.4-mm residual myometrium thickness. She reported postmenstrual spotting and dysmenorrhea of several years duration, as well as previous dyspareunia that had worsened after her cesarean section. Given her symptomatic isthmocele with thin residual myometrium and desire for childbearing, laparoscopic repair was offered. First, the bladder was dissected to expose the isthmus. Uterine arteries were dissected. Hysteroscopic guidance and transillumination revealed the edges of the defect. The isthmocele and fibrotic tissue were excised with cold scissors, minimizing cauterization. A hysterometer was placed in the uterine cavity to respect the cervical canal and posterior uterine wall, and the myometrium was then closed in 2 layers. The total surgical time was 120 minutes. The postoperative period was uneventful. At 2 months after surgery, sonography confirmed restoration, with a myometrium thickness of 8.3 mm. The patient was asymptomatic, except for dyspareunia. At 6 months after surgery, hysteroscopic examination was normal. We recommended that the patient avoid attempting pregnancy for 9 months. CONCLUSION: Hysteroscopic simultaneous assistance during laparoscopic isthmocele repair can be of great help in identifying the edges of the defect, especially in large cavities and in first cases, in which edges might not be clear otherwise. Resecting all of the fibrotic tissue while respecting healthy myometrium is essential. Excessive cauterization and ischemic suturing could prevent proper healing of the myometrium.

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Transperitoneal Versus Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Aortic Lymphadenectomy for Surgical Staging of Endometrial and Ovarian Cancer: The STELLA Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing debate on which approach, transperitoneal or extraperitoneal, is superior for the performance of laparoscopic aortic lymphadenectomy (LPA-LND) for the surgical staging of gynecologic cancer. A prospective randomized trial (STELLA trial) was designed to compare the perioperative outcomes and node retrieval of extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal aortic lymphadenectomy by laparoscopy or robot-assisted laparoscopy. METHODS: Patients with endometrial or ovarian carcinoma requiring aortic lymphadenectomy for surgical staging were randomized to an extraperitoneal or transperitoneal approach by laparoscopy or robot-assisted laparoscopy between June 2012 and July 2014. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were entered into the study, 48 with endometrial cancer (80 %) and 12 with ovarian cancer (20 %). Thirty-one patients (51.6 %) were randomly assigned to the extraperitoneal group and 29 to the transperitoneal group (48.3 %). The means LPA-LND operating time was 90 min in both group (p = 0.343). The mean (range) blood loss was 105 (10-400) mL for extraperitoneal versus 100 (5-1000) mL for transperitoneal group (p = 0.541). There were no differences in the number of collected lymph nodes between the two groups [median (range) for extraperitoneal 12 (4-41) vs. 13 (4-29) for transperitoneal (p = 0.719)]. CONCLUSIONS: The extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches for laparoscopic and robotic aortic lymphadenectomy provide similar perioperative outcomes and nodal yields. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The STELLA trial is registered at the US National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov) #NCT01810874.