We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
A meta-analysis of treatment for early-stage cervical cancer: open versus minimally invasive radical trachelectomy.
- Authors
Lv, Zi; Wang, Yu-ying; Wang, Yu-wen; He, Jun-jie; Lan, Wen-wei; Peng, Jia-ying; Lin, Zi-han; Zhu, Ruo-fei; Zhou, Jie; Chen, Zi-qi; Jiang, Ying-hui; Yuan, Yi; Xiong, Jian
- Abstract
Background: In previous systematic reviews, meta-analysis was lacking, resulting in the statistical difference between the data of different surgeries being impossible to judge. This meta-analysis aims to contrast the fertility results and cancer outcomes between open and minimally invasive surgery. Method: We systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus to collect studies that included open and minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. A random-effect model calculated the weighted average difference of each primary outcome via Review Manager V.5.4. Result: Eight studies (1369 patients) were incorporated into our study. For fertility results, the Open group excels MIS group in pregnancies-Third trimester delivery [OR = 2.68; 95% CI (1.29, 5.59); P = 0.008]. Nevertheless, there is no statistical difference in clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and second-trimester rate. Concerning cancer outcomes, no difference was detected in the overall survival [OR = 1.56; 95% CI (0.70, 3.45); P = 0.27] and recurrence [OR = 0.63; 95% CI (0.35, 1.12); P = 0.12]. Concerning surgery-related outcomes, the comprehensive effects revealed that the estimated blood loss of the Open group was higher than that of the MIS group[MD = 139.40; 95% CI (79.05, 199.75); P < 0.0001]. However, there was no difference between the postoperative complication rate in the two groups [OR = 1.52; 95% CI (0.89, 2.60); P = 0.12]. Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggested that the fertility result of the Open group may be better than the MIS group, while the MIS group has better surgery-related outcomes. Owing to the poor cases of our study, a more robust conclusion requires more relevant articles in the future. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022352999.
- Subjects
TRACHELECTOMY; CERVICAL cancer; BLOOD loss estimation; MINIMALLY invasive procedures; SURGICAL complications
- Publication
BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth, 2023, Vol 23, Issue 1, p1
- ISSN
1471-2393
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1186/s12884-023-06036-z