Postoperative pain and perioperative outcomes after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: a randomised controlled trial

Trials

Antonio Nocchi Kalil²  Airton Tetelbom Stein¹  Leo Francisco Limberger³  Luciana Silveira Campos² 

[1] Serviço de Epidemiologia do Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição, Porto Alegre, Brazil, Av Francisco Trein, 596, Bairro Cristo Redentor CEP, Porto Alegre 91350-200, Brazil;Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Brazil, Rua Sarmento Leite, 245 CEP, Porto Alegre 90050-170, Brazil;Serviço de Ginecologia do Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição, Av Francisco Trein, 596, Bairro Cristo Redentor CEP, Porto Alegre 91350-200, Brazil

关键词: Radical hysterectomy;    Laparoscopy;    Cervical cancer;   

Others  :  1093067
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-14-293

 received in 2013-06-02, accepted in 2013-08-28,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Non-randomised studies have suggested that the postoperative complications of (Campos LS, Limberger LF, Stein AT, Kalil AN) laparoscopic radical hysterectomy are similar to those in abdominal radical hysterectomy. However, no study evaluating postoperative pain comparing both techniques has been published thus far. Our objective was to compare pain intensity and other perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in early cervical cancer.

Methods

This single centre, randomised, controlled trial enrolled 30 cervical cancer patients who were clinically staged IA2 with lymph vascular invasion and IB according to the FIGO (International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics) classification, and underwent LRH or ARH between late 1999 and early 2004. Postoperative pain, as measured by a 10-point numerical rate scale, was considered the primary endpoint. Postoperative pain was assessed every six hours during a patient’s usual postoperative care. Perioperative outcomes were also registered. Both surgical techniques were executed by the same surgical team. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative and other postoperative surgicopathological factors and 5-year survival rates.

Results

IA2 patients with lymphatic vascular space invasion and IB cervical cancer patients were randomised to either the LRH group (16 patients) or the ARH group (14 patients). Four patients (25%) in the LRH group and 5 patients (36%) in the ARH group presented with transoperative or serious postoperative complications. All of the transoperative complications occurred in the LRH group. The relative risk of presenting with complications was 0.70; CI 95% (0.23–2.11); P = 0.694. LRH group mean pain score was significantly lower than ARH after 36 h of observation (P = 0.044; mean difference score: 1.42; 95% CI: 0.04–2.80). The survival results will be published elsewhere.

Conclusions

LRH provided lower pain scores after 36 h of observation in this series. The perioperative and serious postoperative complications ratios were comparable between the groups.

Trial Registration

NCT01258413

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Campos et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Parkin D, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P: Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2005, 55:74-108.
• [2]Instituto Nacional do Câncer: Estimativas da Incidência e Mortalidade por Câncer. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: INCA, National Institute of Cancer; 2006.
• [3]Benedet JL, Ngam HYS, Hacker NF: FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology: Staging Classifications and Clinical Practice Guidelines of Gynaecologic Cancer. 2010. [http://www.figo.org webcite]
• [4]Ramirez PT, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, dos Reis R, Frumovitz M: Laparoscopic and robotic techniques for radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2008, 110(Suppl 2):21-24.
• [5]Medeiros LR, Stein AT, Fachel J, Garry R, Furness S: Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for benign ovarian tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2008, 18:387-399.
• [6]Kluivers KB, Hendriks JC, Mol BW, Bongers MY, Bremer GL, de Vet HC, Vierhout ME, Brolmann HA: Quality of life and surgical outcome after total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy for benign disease: a randomized, controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007, 14:145-152.
• [7]Holzer A, Jirecek ST, Illievich M, Huber J, Wenzl RJ: Laparoscopic versus open myomectomy: a double-blind study to evaluate postoperative pain. Anesth Analg 2006, 102:1480-1484.
• [8]Spirtos NM, Einsekop SM, Schalerth JB, Ballon SC: Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (type III) with aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with stage I cervical cancer: surgical morbidity and intermediate follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002, 187:340-348.
• [9]Ramirez PT, Slomovitz BM, Soliman PT, Coleman RL, Levenback C: Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy: the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. Gynecol Oncol 2006, 102:252-255.
• [10]Obermair A, Ginbey P, McCartney AJ: Feasibility and safety of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2003, 10:345-349.
• [11]Zakashansky K, Chuang L, Gretz H, Nagarsheth NP, Rahaman J, Nezhat FR: A case-controlled study of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in a fellowship training program. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007, 17:1075-1082.
• [12]Frumovitz M, dos Reis R, Sun CC, Bevers MW, Brown J, Slomowitz M, Ramirez PT: Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 110:96-102.
• [13]Li G, Yan X, Shang H, Wang G, Chen L, Yan Y: A comparison of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy and laparotomy in the treatment of Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2007, 105:176-80.
• [14]Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Ciravolo G, Volpi E, Ucella S, Rampinelli F, Bergamini V: Surgicopathologic outcome of laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2007, 106:502-506.
• [15]Diaz-Feijoo B, Gil-Moreno A, Perez-Benavente MA, Morchon S, Martinez-Palones JM: Sentinel lymph node identification and radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in early stage cervical cancer: laparoscopy versus laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008, 15:531-537.
• [16]Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, Levenback C, Ramirez PT: A phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008, 15:584-588.
• [17]Campos LS, Limberger LF, Koch MD, Kalil AN, Stein AT: Laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: a randomized clinical trial. Braz J Videoendosc Surg 2011, 4:143-148.
• [18]Spirtos N, Schalerth J, Kimball R, Leiphar VM, Ballon SC: Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (type III) with aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996, 174:1763-1768.
• [19]Campos LS, Limberger LF, Kalil AN, de Vargas GS, Damiani PA: Videolaparoscopic radical hysterectomy approach: a ten-year experience. JSLS 2009, 13:504-508.
• [20]Piver MS, Rutledge F, Smith JP: Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1974, 44:265-272.
• [21]Ghezzi F, Ucella S, Cromi A, Siesto G, Serati M, Bogani G, Bolis P: Postoperative pain after laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010, 118:1-8.
• [22]Breivik H, Borchgrevink PC, Allen SM, Rosseland LA, Romundstad A, Hals EK, Kvastein G, Stubhaug A: Assessment of pain. Br J Anaesth 2008, 101:17-24.
• [23]Veenhof AA FA, Sietses C, von Blomberg BME, van Hoogstraten IMW, Vd Pas MHGM, Meijerink WJHJ, Peet DL, Vd Tol MP, Bonjer HJ, Cuesta MA: The surgical stress response and postoperative immune function after laparoscopic or conventional total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer: a randomized trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 2011, 26:53-59.
• [24]Carvalho GL, Cavazzola LT: Can mathematic formulas help us with our patients? Surg Endosc 2011, 25:336-337.
• [25]Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R, van Voorst S, Mol BW, Kluivers KB: Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, 3:CD003677.
• [26]Hong JA, Choi JS, Lee JH, Eom JM, Ko JH, Bae JW, Park SH, Hong JA: Can laparoscopic radical hysterectomy be a standard surgical modality in stage IA2–IIA cervical cancer? Gynecol Oncol 2012, 127:102-106.
• [27]Yan X, Li G, Shang H, Wang F, Han Y, Lin T, Zheng F: Twelve-year experience with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2011, 120:362-367.
• [28]Naik R, Jackson KS, Lopes A, Cross P, Henry JA: Laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy—a randomised phase II trial: perioperative outcomes and surgicopathological measurements. BJOG 2010, 117:746-751.
• [29]DeLoach LJ, Higgins MS, Caplan MB, Stiff JF: The visual analog scale in the immediate postoperative period: lntrasubject variability and correlation with a numeric scale. Anesth Analg 1998, 86:102-106.
• [30]Uccella S, Laterza R, Ciravolo G, Volpi E, Franchi M, Zefiro F, Donadello N, Ghezzi F: A comparison of urinary complications following total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy to open abdominal surgery. Gynecol Oncol 2007, 107(Suppl 1):147-149.
• [31]Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Clarke M, Montoni VM, Cook DJ, Yusuf S, Sackett DL, Cinà CS, Walter SD, Haynes B, Schünemann HJ, Norman GR, Guyatt GH: Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2005, 330:88-92.
• [32]Brummer TH, Seppälä TT, Härkki PS: National learning curve for laparoscopic hysterectomy and trends in hysterectomy in Finland 2000–2005. Hum Reprod 2008, 23:840-845.