Aim: We devised a simplified nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy that is simpler than commonly used procedures.
Methods: We retrospectively examined 16 cases of classical non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (non-nerve-sparing group) and 16 cases of simplified nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (nerve-sparing group) performed between 2019 and 2020. We examined and compared the duration of surgery, blood loss, perioperative complications, postoperative urinary function (presence or absence of urinary sensation, number of days with residual urine measurement, and frequency and duration of oral sustained release urapidil capsules and self-catheterization), and short-term prognosis between the two groups.
Results: Compared to conventional non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy, the duration of surgery for nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was significantly shorter (407 [339-555] min vs. 212 [180-356] min; p < 0.001), and blood loss was significantly less. Compared to the nerve-sparing group, the non-nerve-sparing group had more cases of oral urapidil use and a higher frequency of clean intermittent catheterization. Clean intermittent catheterization was required in two cases in the nerve-sparing group; however, it was withdrawn at 180 and 240 days. Conversely, clean intermittent catheterization was still required in three cases in the non-nerve-sparing group. There were no statistically significant differences in progression-free survival and overall survival between the two groups.
Conclusion: The simple nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy resulted in shorter duration of surgery and less blood loss as well as in a clear improvement in the postoperative urinary status and short-term prognosis. This technique simplifies nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy, which is commonly thought to be complicated, making it easier to understand.
Keywords: cervical cancer; gynecologic surgical procedures; lymph nodes; prognosis.
© 2022 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.