Minimally invasive surgery on treatment of early-stage cervical cancer is debatable. Traditional approaches of colpotomy are considered responsible for an inferior oncological outcome. Evidence on whether protective colpotomy could optimize minimally invasive technique and improve prognoses of women with early-stage cervical cancer remains limited. We produced a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare oncological outcomes of the patients treated by minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy to those treated by open surgery according to existing literature. We explored PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized controlled trials or observational studies published in English, (2) studies comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy to abdominal radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer, and (3) studies comparing survival outcomes. Two reviewers performed the screening, data extraction, and quality assessment independently. A total of 8 retrospective cohort studies with 2020 women were included in the study, 821 of whom were in the minimally invasive surgery group, and 1199 of whom were in the open surgery group. The recurrence-free survival and overall survival in the minimally invasive surgery group were both similar to that in the open surgery group (pooled hazard ratio, 0.88 and 0.78, respectively; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38 and 0.42-1.44, respectively). Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy on treatment of early-stage cervical cancer had similar recurrence-free survival and overall survival compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy. Protective colpotomy could be a guaranteed approach to modifying minimally invasive technique.
Keywords: Early-stage cervical cancer; Meta-analysis; Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy; Protective colpotomy; Survival.
© 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.