Comparison between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and traditional open surgery in the treatment of early cervical cancer: A 100-case randomized controlled study on postoperative quality of life and complications

  • Ling Zhang Department of Gynecology, Xingtai Central Hospital, Xingtai 050051, China
  • Suhui Ma Department of Gynecology, Xingtai Central Hospital, Xingtai 050051, China
  • Xiaoqian Wang Department of Gynecology, Xingtai Central Hospital, Xingtai 050051, China
  • Tao Yan * Department of Nursing, Xingtai Medical College, Xingtai 054000, China
Article ID: 4578
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18282/po4578
Keywords: laparoscopic surgery; open surgery; early cervical cancer; quality of life; complications

Abstract

Objective: To compare the postoperative quality of life (QOL) and complication rates between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and traditional open hysterectomy (OH) in the treatment of early cervical cancer. Methods: From January 2020 to December 2023, 100 patients with stage ⅠA2-ⅡA1 cervical cancer were randomized into LRH group (50 cases) and OH group (50 cases). Surgical indicators, complications, 6-month QOL (FACT-C score), and 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) were compared. Results: The LRH group showed significantly better outcomes in intraoperative blood loss (150 ± 30 mL vs. 280 ± 50 mL, P < 0.01) and postoperative hospital stay (5.2 ± 1.3 days vs. 7.8 ± 1.5 days, P < 0.01) than the OH group. There was no significant difference in total complication rates (16.0% vs. 14.0%, P = 0.721), but the LRH group had a lower wound infection rate (2.0% vs. 8.0%, P = 0.043). The LRH group also demonstrated superior 6-month FACT-C scores (86.5 ± 8.2 vs. 80.3 ± 7.5, P = 0.002) and 2-year DFS (92.0% vs. 88.0%, P = 0.345), though the DFS difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: LRH is safe and feasible for early cervical cancer, improving postoperative QOL and reducing wound complications, with comparable long-term survival outcomes to OH.

Published
2025-08-20

Copyright (c) 2025 Author(s)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2021; 71(3): 209-249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660

2. Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2018; 379(20): 1895-1904. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa1806395

3. Nezhat CR, Burrell MO, Nezhat FR, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with paraaortic and pelvic node dissection. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1992; 166(3): 864-865. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(92)91351-A

4. Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, et al. Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2018; 379(20): 1905-1914. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa1804923

5. Koh WJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S, et al. NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Cervical Cancer. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2021; 19(6): 659-666.

6. Wang YZ, et al. Laparoscopic vs open radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2021; 162(1): 196-204.

7. Chiva L, Zanagnolo V, Querleu D, et al. SUCCOR study: an international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 2020; 30(9): 1269-1277. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001506

8. Kong TW, et al. “No-Look No-Touch” laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2019; 30(3): e34.

9. Park DA, et al. Comparative safety and effectiveness of energy devices in laparoscopic surgery: systematic review. British Journal of Surgery. 2021; 108(12): 1516-1525.

10. Querleu D, Morrow CP. Classification of radical hysterectomy. Lancet Oncol. 2008; 9(3): 297-303. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70074-3

11. Charoenkwan K, et al. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews. 2020; 12(12): CD012774.

12. Greimel E, Winter R, Kapp KS, Haas J. Quality of life and sexual functioning after cervical cancer treatment. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 2020; 30(11): 1805-1811.

13. Cao T, et al. Learning curve of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2021; 28(1): 117-123.

14. Lu Q, et al. Vaginal closure technique to reduce tumor spillage in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. Gynecologic Oncology. 2022; 165(1): 142-147.

15. Eltabbakh GH, et al. Oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecologic Oncology. 2023; 170: 241-250.