Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Anna Jo Bodurtha Smith, Tiffany Nicole Jones, Diana Miao, Amanda Nickles Fader

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

3 Scopus citations


Objective: To compare recurrence rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival for early-stage cervical cancer after minimally invasive (MIS) vs abdominal radical hysterectomy. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Library databases. Methods of Study Selection: We identified studies from 1990 to 2020 that included women with stage I or higher cervical cancer treated with primary radical hysterectomy and compared recurrence and/or PFS and overall survival with MIS vs abdominal radical hysterectomy. (The review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD4202173600). Tabulation, Integration, and Results: We performed random-effects meta-analyses overall and by length of follow-up. Fifty articles on 40 cohort studies and 1 randomized controlled trial that included 22 593 women with cervical cancer met the inclusion criteria. Twenty percent of the studies had <36 months of follow-up, and 24% had more than 60 months of follow-up. The odds of PFS were worse for women undergoing MIS radical hysterectomy (odds ratio 1.54; 95% CI [confidence interval], 1.24–1.94; 14 studies). When limited to studies with longer follow-up, the odds of PFS were progressively worse with MIS radical hysterectomy (HR [hazard ratio] 1.48 for >36 months; 95% CI, 1.21–1.82; 10 studies; HR 1.69 for >48 months; 95% CI, 1.26–2.27; 5 studies; and HR 2.020 for >60 months; 95% CI, 1.36–3.001; 3 studies). For overall survival, the odds were not significantly different for MIS vs abdominal hysterectomy (odds ratio 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66–1.35; 14 studies) (HR 0.99 for >36 months; 95% CI, 0.66–1.48; 9 studies; HR 1.05 for >48 months; 95% CI, 0.57–1.94; 4 studies; and HR 1.35 for >60 months; 95% CI, 0.73–2.51; 3 studies). Conclusion: In our meta-analysis of 50 studies, MIS radical hysterectomy was associated with worse PFS than open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. The emergence of this finding with longer follow-up highlights the importance of long-term, high-quality studies to guide cancer and surgical treatments.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)544-555.e7
JournalJournal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 2021


  • Hysterectomy
  • Laparoscopy
  • Robotics
  • Survival

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology


Dive into the research topics of 'Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this