Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 299, Issue 5, pp 1459–1465 | Cite as

Neurovascular and lymphatic vessels distribution in uterine ligaments based on a 3D reconstruction of histological study: to determine the optimal plane for nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy

  • Pengfei Li
  • Hui Duan
  • Jun Wang
  • Shipeng Gong
  • Guidong Su
  • Jianyi Li
  • Lei Tang
  • Yan Zhang
  • Huijian Fan
  • Ping LiuEmail author
  • Chunlin ChenEmail author
Gynecologic Oncology
  • 65 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

To present the distribution of neurovascular and lymphatic vessels in uterine ligaments using 3D models based on the pathological staining of serial 2D sections of postoperative specimens.

Methods

Serial transverse sections of fresh uterine ligaments from a patient with stage IB1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma were studied using the computer-assisted anatomic dissection (CAAD) technique. The sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, Weigert elastic fibers, D2-40 and immunostainings (sheep anti-tyrosine hydroxylase and rabbit anti-vasoactive intestinal peptide). The sections were then digitalized, registered and reconstructed three-dimensionally. Then, the 3D models were analyzed and measured.

Results

The 3D models of the neurovascular and lymphatic vessels in uterine ligaments were created, depicting their precise location and distribution. The vessels were primarily located in the upper part of the ligaments model, while the pelvic autonomic nerves were primarily in the lower part; the lymphatic vessels were scattered in the uterine ligaments, without obvious regularity.

Conclusion

CAAD is an effective anatomical method to study the precise distribution of neurovascular and lymphatic vessels in uterine ligaments. It can present detailed anatomical information about female pelvic autonomic innervation and the spatial relationship between nerves and vessels and may provide a better understanding of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy.

Keywords

Cervical cancer Nerve-sparing Pelvic autonomic nerves 3D reconstruction Histological examination 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study has received funding by the National Natural Science Fund of China (81571422, 81370736), the National Science and Technology Support Program of China (2014BAI05B03), the National Natural Science Fund of Guangdong (2015A030311024), the Science and Technology Plan of Guangzhou (158100075), and the Foundation from the President of Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University (2015C015).

Author contributions

PFL: protocol development, data collection and manuscript writing; HD: protocol development, data analysis and manuscript writing; JW: protocol development, data collection and manuscript writing; SPG: data analysis; GDS: data analysis; JYL: protocol development; LT: protocol development; YZ: protocol development; HJF: manuscript writing; PL: protocol development, data analysis and manuscript editing; CLC: protocol development, data analysis and manuscript editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from the participant included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Koh WJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S, Bradley K, Campos SM, Cho KR, Chon HS, Chu C, Clark R, Cohn D, Crispens MA, Damast S, Dorigo O, Eifel PJ, Fisher CM, Frederick P, Gaffney DK, Han E, Huh WK, Lurain JR 3rd, Mariani A, Mutch D, Nagel C, Nekhlyudov L, Fader AN, Remmenga SW, Reynolds RK, Tillmanns T, Ueda S, Wyse E, Yashar CM, McMillian NR, Scavone JL (2019) Cervical cancer, version 3.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 17:64–84.  https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.0001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Gent MD, Romijn LM, van Santen KE, Trimbos JB, de Kroon CD (2016) Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy versus conventional radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer. a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival and quality of life. Maturitas 94:30–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2016.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang X, Chen C, Liu P, Li W, Wang L, Liu Y (2018) The morbidity of sexual dysfunction of 125 Chinese women following different types of radical hysterectomy for gynaecological malignancies. Arch Gynecol Obstet 297:459–466.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4625-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balaya V, Rossi L, Cornou C, Ngô C, Bensaid C, Bats AS, Lecuru F (2017) Where does pelvic nerve injury occur during radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer? Gynecol Oncol 145:199–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sakamoto S, Takizawa K (1988) An improved radical hysterectomy with fewer urological complications and with no loss of therapeutic results for invasive cervical cancer. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2:953–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Höckel M, Konerding MA, Peter Heuβel C (1998) Liposuction-assisted nerve-sparing extended radical hysterectomy: oncologic rationale, surgical anatomy, and feasibility study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 178:971–976.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70533-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Höckel M, Horn LC, Hentschel B, Höckel S, Naumann G (2003) Total mesometrial resection: high resolution nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy based on developmentally defined surgical anatomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 13:791–803.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2003.13608.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aoun F, van Velthoven R (2015) Lower urinary tract dysfunction after nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J 26:947–957.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2574-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kavallaris A, Hornemann A, Chalvatzas N, Luedders D, Diedrich K, Bohlmann MK (2010) Laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: description of the technique and patients' outcome. Gynecol Oncol 119:198–201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.07.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Gent MD, van den Haak LW, Gaarenstroom KN, Peters AA, van Poelgeest MI, Trimbos JB, de Kroon CD (2014) Nerve-sparing radical abdominal trachelectomy versus nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in early-stage (FIGO IA2-IB) cervical cancer: a comparative study on feasibility and outcome. Int J Gynecol Cancer 24:735–743.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim HS, Kim TH, Suh DH, Kim SY, Kim MA, Jeong CW, Hong KS, Song YS (2015) Success factors of laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for preserving bladder function in patients with cervical cancer: a protocol-based prospective cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol 22:1987–1995.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-4197-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen C, Huang L, Liu P, Su G, Li W, Lu L, Wang L, Li X, Duan H, Zou C, Hatch K (2014) Neurovascular quantitative study of the uterosacral ligament related to nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 172:74–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.09.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Butler-Manuel SA, Buttery LD, A'Hern RP, Polak JM, Barton DP (2000) Pelvic nerve plexus trauma at radical hysterectomy and simple hysterectomy: the nerve content of the uterine supporting ligaments. Cancer 89:834–841.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20000815)89:4%3c834:AID-CNCR14%3e3.0.CO;2-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kato T, Murakami G, Yabuki Y (2003) A new perspective on nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: nerve topography and over-preservation of the cardinal ligament. Jpn J Clin Oncol 33:589–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kraima AC, Derks M, Smit NN, van de Velde CJ, Kenter GG, DeRuiter MC (2016) Careful dissection of the distal ureter is highly important in nerve-sparing radical pelvic surgery: a 3D reconstruction and immunohistochemical characterization of the vesical plexus. Int J Gynecol Cancer 26:959–966.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moszkowicz D, Alsaid B, Bessede T, Penna C, Benoit G, Peschaud F (2011) Female pelvic autonomic neuroanatomy based on conventional macroscopic and computer-assisted anatomic dissections. Surg Radiol Anat 33:397–404.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-010-0773-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bertrand MM, Alsaid B, Droupy S, Benoit G, Prudhomme M (2013) Optimal plane for nerve sparing total mesorectal excision, immunohistological study and 3D reconstruction: an embryological study. Colorectal Dis 15:1521–1528.  https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12459 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kimmig R, Aktas B, Buderath P, Rusch P, Heubner M (2016) Intraoperative navigation in robotically assisted compartmental surgery of uterine cancer by visualisation of embryologically derived lymphatic networks with indocyanine-green (ICG). J Surg Oncol 113: 554–559.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bertrand MM, Macri F, Mazars R, Droupy S, Beregi JP, Prudhomme M (2014) MRI-based 3D pelvic autonomous innervation: a first step towards image-guided pelvic surgery. Eur Radiol 24:1989–1997.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3211-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moszkowicz D, Alsaid B, Bessede T, Zaitouna M, Penna C, Benoit G, Peschaud F (2011) Neural supply to the clitoris: immunohistochemical study with three-dimensional reconstruction of cavernous nerve, spongious nerve, and dorsal clitoris nerve in human fetus. J Sex Med 8:1112–1122.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02182.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li P, Liu P, Chen C, Duan H, Qiao W, Ognami OH (2018) The 3D reconstructions of female pelvic autonomic nerves and their related organs based on MRI: a first step towards neuronavigation during nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5453-8 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thomeer MG, Gerestein C, Spronk S, van Doorn HC, van der Ham E, Hunink MG (2013) Clinical examination versus magnetic resonance imaging in the pretreatment staging of cervical carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 23:2005–2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/10.1007/s00330-013-2783-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park JJ, Kim CK, Park SY, Park BK (2015) Parametrial invasion in cervical cancer: fused T2-weighted imaging and high-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging with background body signal suppression at 3 T. Radiology 274:734–741.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14140920 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyNanfang Hospital, Southern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of Anatomy, Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Medical Biomechanics, School of Basic Medicine ScienceSouthern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Department of PathologyNanfang Hospital, Southern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations