Abstract
AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the surgical safety and clinical effectiveness of RH versus LH and laparotomy for cervical cancer. METHODS We searched Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, and the Cochrane library through May 2015, and checked references of relevant studies. We selected the comparative studies reported the surgical safety (overall; peri-operative; and post-operative complications; death within 30 days; and specific morbidities), and clinical effectiveness (survival; recurrence; length of stay [LOS]; estimated blood loss [EBL]; operative time [OT]) and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS Fifteen studies comparing RH with OH and 11 comparing RH with LH were identified. No significant differences were found in survival outcomes. The LOS was shorter and transfusion rate was lower with RH compared to OH or LH. EBL was significantly reduced with RH compared to OH. Compared to OH, overall complications, urinary infection, wound infection, and fever were significantly less frequent with RH. The overall, peri-operative, and post-operative complications were similar in other comparisons. Several patient-reported outcomes were improved with RH, though each outcome was reported in only one study. CONCLUSIONS RH appears to have a positive effect in reducing overall complications, individual adverse events including wound infection, fever, urinary tract infection, transfusion, LOS, EBL, and time to diet than OH for cervical cancer patients. Compared to LH, the current evidence is not enough to clearly determine its clinical safety and effectiveness. Further rigorous prospective studies with long-term follow-up that overcome the many limitations of the current evidence are needed.
