RESUMO
UNLABELLED: This study is a retrospective comparison of laparoscopy and laparotomy lymphadenectomy (pelvic and lumbar-aortic) in cervical cancer stage IA1 and more, in a gynaecological service in Lyon, France. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During 11 years, there were 126 cases of cervical cancer patients in which lymphadenectomy was performed, either by laparoscopy or laparotomy. We analysed if there were significant differences regarding the 2 accesses in terms of stage, tumour size, surgical interventions associated, number of lymph nodes extracted, and outcome. RESULTS: Regarding the stage of our cases, 3 of them were IB1, IB2 and IIB; the more advanced the stage, the fewer lymphadenectomies were performed by laparoscopy. As for the tumour size, the smaller tumour was statistical significantly associated with pelvic laparoscopic lymphadenectomy (p = 0.01) while the tumours larger than 4 cm mean lumbar-aortic lymphadenectomy by laparotomy (p = 0.006). Regarding the associated surgical interventions, the laparoscopic lymphadenectomies were associated to low-stage operations: conisation/trachelectomy, vaginal or abdominal simple hysterectomy, or extra-fascial hysterectomy (type 1 or 2). There was no significant difference between laparoscopy and laparotomy ways regarding the number of lymph nodes extracted (median 13.5 vs 11, p = 0.45 for pelvic nodes, and 8 vs 4 for lomb-aortic nodes, p = 0.43, for laparoscopy vs laparotomy). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic lymphadenectomy is as effective as the laparotomy procedures, and the training of young gynaecologic oncologists should not ignore laparoscopy as an alternative technique for nodes sampling.
