宫颈癌机器人根治性子宫切除术:当前趋势与争议。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Journal of Cancer Pub Date : 2024-08-13 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.7150/jca.99705
Jeeyeon Kim, Ha Kyun Chang, Jiheum Paek, Hyeon Ji Park, Hye Yeon Moon
{"title":"宫颈癌机器人根治性子宫切除术:当前趋势与争议。","authors":"Jeeyeon Kim, Ha Kyun Chang, Jiheum Paek, Hyeon Ji Park, Hye Yeon Moon","doi":"10.7150/jca.99705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) is widely performed as a treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. However, in 2018, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) called the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial showed that MIRH had poorer oncologic outcomes compared to laparotomy. Since then, several clinical studies have supported this finding, and most surgeons now perform MIRH with limited surgical indications. However, most of the reported studies evaluated laparoscopic radical hysterectomy rather than robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH). Robotic surgery has advantages for complex surgical procedures in the deep and narrow pelvic cavity in cervical cancer, making it necessary to evaluate the benefits and potential harms of RRH individually. Based on this systematic review, RRH is a safe and effective alternative to abdominal approach for early-stage cervical cancer. RRH offers significant perioperative benefits, including reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and fewer complications, without compromising oncologic outcomes such as overall survival and progression-free survival. Additionally, surgeons should aim to minimize tumor cell spillage into the peritoneal cavity by eliminating the use of uterine manipulators or vaginal colpotomy. Ongoing RCTs will reveal whether we can perform RRH without oncologic compromise in cervical cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":15183,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11375555/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: current trends and controversies.\",\"authors\":\"Jeeyeon Kim, Ha Kyun Chang, Jiheum Paek, Hyeon Ji Park, Hye Yeon Moon\",\"doi\":\"10.7150/jca.99705\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) is widely performed as a treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. However, in 2018, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) called the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial showed that MIRH had poorer oncologic outcomes compared to laparotomy. Since then, several clinical studies have supported this finding, and most surgeons now perform MIRH with limited surgical indications. However, most of the reported studies evaluated laparoscopic radical hysterectomy rather than robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH). Robotic surgery has advantages for complex surgical procedures in the deep and narrow pelvic cavity in cervical cancer, making it necessary to evaluate the benefits and potential harms of RRH individually. Based on this systematic review, RRH is a safe and effective alternative to abdominal approach for early-stage cervical cancer. RRH offers significant perioperative benefits, including reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and fewer complications, without compromising oncologic outcomes such as overall survival and progression-free survival. Additionally, surgeons should aim to minimize tumor cell spillage into the peritoneal cavity by eliminating the use of uterine manipulators or vaginal colpotomy. Ongoing RCTs will reveal whether we can perform RRH without oncologic compromise in cervical cancer.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15183,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cancer\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11375555/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.99705\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.99705","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

微创根治性子宫切除术(MIRH)作为一种治疗早期宫颈癌的方法被广泛采用。然而,2018 年,一项名为 "宫颈癌腹腔镜治疗方法(LACC)"的随机对照试验(RCT)显示,与开腹手术相比,微创根治性子宫切除术的肿瘤治疗效果较差。此后,又有多项临床研究证实了这一结论,现在大多数外科医生都在有限的手术适应症下实施 MIRH。然而,大多数报道的研究评估的是腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术,而不是机器人根治性子宫切除术(RRH)。机器人手术对于宫颈癌盆腔深部和狭窄部位的复杂手术具有优势,因此有必要单独评估RRH的益处和潜在危害。根据本系统综述,RRH 是一种安全有效的早期宫颈癌腹腔手术替代方法。RRH 具有显著的围手术期优势,包括减少失血量、缩短住院时间和减少并发症,同时不会影响总生存期和无进展生存期等肿瘤学结果。此外,外科医生应避免使用子宫操作器或阴道结肠切除术,以尽量减少肿瘤细胞溢入腹腔。正在进行的 RCT 将揭示我们能否在不影响宫颈癌肿瘤学的情况下实施 RRH。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: current trends and controversies.

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) is widely performed as a treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. However, in 2018, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) called the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial showed that MIRH had poorer oncologic outcomes compared to laparotomy. Since then, several clinical studies have supported this finding, and most surgeons now perform MIRH with limited surgical indications. However, most of the reported studies evaluated laparoscopic radical hysterectomy rather than robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH). Robotic surgery has advantages for complex surgical procedures in the deep and narrow pelvic cavity in cervical cancer, making it necessary to evaluate the benefits and potential harms of RRH individually. Based on this systematic review, RRH is a safe and effective alternative to abdominal approach for early-stage cervical cancer. RRH offers significant perioperative benefits, including reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and fewer complications, without compromising oncologic outcomes such as overall survival and progression-free survival. Additionally, surgeons should aim to minimize tumor cell spillage into the peritoneal cavity by eliminating the use of uterine manipulators or vaginal colpotomy. Ongoing RCTs will reveal whether we can perform RRH without oncologic compromise in cervical cancer.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cancer
Journal of Cancer ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
2.60%
发文量
333
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal with broad scope covering all areas of cancer research, especially novel concepts, new methods, new regimens, new therapeutic agents, and alternative approaches for early detection and intervention of cancer. The Journal is supported by an international editorial board consisting of a distinguished team of cancer researchers. Journal of Cancer aims at rapid publication of high quality results in cancer research while maintaining rigorous peer-review process.
期刊最新文献
Up-regulated SLC25A39 promotes cell growth and metastasis via regulating ROS production in colorectal cancer. Erratum: The role of β-catenin in the initiation and metastasis of TA2 mice spontaneous breast cancer: Erratum. A survival nomogram involving nutritional-inflammatory indicators for cervical cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy. Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Axi-Cel and Tisa-Cel Based on Meta-Analysis. Daphnoretin inhibits glioblastoma cell proliferation and metastasis via PI3K/AKT signaling pathway inactivation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1