Objective To compare long-term survival outcomes between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma under the new FIGO 2018 staging guideline. Design Retrospective study Setting and population Early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma received LRH and ORH; 47 Chinese hospitals. Methods We matched patients with early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma in the new FIGO 2018 staging guideline with known risk factors for recurrence who underwent ORH and LRH. Main Outcome Measures 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival rates Results In total, 549 patients were enrolled in our study, including 235 patients in LRH group and 314 in ORH group. After matching some factors that may affect the prognosis, each group had 223 patients. There was no difference in DFS between LRH and ORH in risk-adjusted analysis (HR1.258, 95% CI: 0.507-3.125, P=0.621). There was no difference in OS between LRH and ORH in risk-adjusted analysis (HR1.961, 95% CI: 0.536-7.183, P=0.309). LRH resulted in significantly lower estimated blood loss (361.2 versus 165.3 ml, P < 0.001) and shorter postoperative anal exhaust time (2.8 versus 2.5 days, P = 0.003) . Intraoperative complication ( 2.7% versus 5.8%，P=0.101) and postoperative complication ( 5.8% versus 6.3%, P=0.843) rates were similar in the two groups. Conclusions LRH has comparable survival outcomes with ORH and was associated with earlier recovery in early-stage adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. LRH may be an appropriate option for early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma compared with ORH.

Abstract Objectives: To examine changes in surgeon volume over time and evaluate the influence of surgeon volume on complications of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer. Design: A retrospective cohort study. Setting: 42 hospitals in China. Population: 14536 patients undergoing ARH and 8148 patients underwent LRH. Methods: The influence of the surgeon volume of ARH and LRH on surgical complications was examined using multivariable logistic regression models. Main outcome measures: Intraoperative complications and postoperative complications. Results: In the ARH cohort, the mean surgeon case volume increased from 3.5 cases in 2004 to 8.7 cases in 2013 and then decreased to 4.9 cases in 2016. The number of surgeons performing LRH increased from 1 surgeon with 1 patient (mean cases=1) in 2004 to 183 surgeons who operated on 2,206 patients in 2016 (mean cases=12.1) (P< 0.01). In the ARH, patients treated by intermediate-volume surgeons had more postoperative complications (OR=1.55, 95% CI=1.11-2.15). In the laparoscopic surgery cohort, surgeon volume had no independent effect on intraoperative or postoperative complications (P=0.46; P=0.13). Conclusions: The performance of ARH by intermediate-volume surgeons is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications. However, surgeon volume may have little effect on intraoperative or postoperative complications after LRH.

Objective: Compare the outcomes associated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for cervical cancer. Design: Retrospective, multicenter observational analysis Setting: Select patients of LRH and ARH from cervical cancer database and compare their outcomes. Population: Patients with stage IA1 (Lymphovascular space invasion [LVSI]-positive) and stage IIA2 cervical cancer (N=6804) were enrolled, of whom 3003 underwent laparoscopy (LRH group), and 3801 underwent laparotomy (ARH group). Methods: Kaplan-Meier survival analysis,propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox regression. Main Outcome Measures: Five-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) Results: Before PSM, there was no difference in outcomes between the groups (5-year OS: LRH 89.2% vs. ARH 90.6%, P=0.903.; 5-year DFS: LRH 84.5% vs. ARH 87.1%, P=0.155). Surgical approach did not affect 5-year OS; however, it did affect 5-year DFS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.827, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.711-0.962, P=0.014). After PSM, there was no difference in 5-year OS between the LRH (N=1828) and ARH (N=1828) groups (91.0% vs. 93.1%, P=0.220); but there was a significant difference in 5-year DFS between the LRG and ARH groups (86.2% vs. 90.6%, P=0.002). Cox regression revealed that the surgical approach did not affect 5-year OS; however, it did affect 5-year DFS (HR=0.701, 95% CI: 0.563-0.874, P=0.002). Conclusions: For IA1 (LVSI-positive) and IIA1 cervical cancers, the recurrence rate following laparoscopic surgery was higher than that following open surgery, regardless of the surgeon’s experience.