Laparoscopic Compared With Open Radical Hysterectomy in Obese Women With Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

OBJECTIVE: To compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in obese women with early-stage cervical cancer. METHODS: The medical records of 166 patients with stage IA2-IIA2 cervical cancer and a body mass index of at least 30 who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (n=54) or open radical hysterectomy (n=112) at the Asan Medical Center between 1998 and 2011 were reviewed. RESULTS: None of the patients in the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy group required conversion to laparotomy. The resection margin was negative in 98.1% of the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy group and 98.2% of the open radical hysterectomy group (P=.976). No difference between the two groups was observed in terms of operating time, perioperative hemoglobin level change, transfusion requirement, or the number of retrieved lymph nodes. Compared with open radical hysterectomy, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with a significant reduction in the following: interval to return of bowel movements (2 days compared with 2.7 days, P<.001); duration of postoperative hospital stay (9.3 days compared with 21 days, P<.001), postoperative complications (5.6% compared with 17.9%, P=.032), and estimated blood loss (494 mL compared with 620 mL, P=.009). After a median follow-up period of 44 months, the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 88% for the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy group and 85% for the open radical hysterectomy group (P=.682). The 5-year overall survival rate was 97% for the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy group and 90% for the open radical hysterectomy group (P=.220). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was a preferred alternative to open radical hysterectomy in the present cohort of obese women with early-stage cervical cancer because it is associated with a more favorable surgical outcome without compromising survival outcomes. (Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:1201-9) DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318256ccc5