Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Urodynamics and Survival Outcomes of Different Methods of Dissecting the Inferior Hypogastric Plexus in Laparoscopic Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy of Type C: A Randomized Controlled Study

  • Urologic Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Little data exist about the impact of dissection methods on bladder function during nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH). This randomized controlled trial compared the urodynamic and survival outcomes of different methods dissecting the inferior hypogastric plexus (IHP) during laparoscopic NSRH.

Methods

Eligible patients presenting with stage IB cervical cancer from 9 May 2013 to 27 October 2015 were randomized at a ratio of 1:1 and subjected to waterjet (study group) or traditional blunt (control group) dissection of the IHP for laparoscopic type C radical hysterectomy. Participants were subjected to urodynamic evaluations before and after NSRH. The primary measurement was the proportion of patients with residual urine (RU) ≤ 100 ml, while secondary measurements included urodynamic parameters, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS).

Results

In total, 191 women met the inclusion criteria, and 160 patients were included in the final analysis, with 80 randomized to each group. At 14 days after NSRH, the study group had more patients with RU ≤ 100 ml than the control group (82.5% vs. 62.5%, p = 0.005). The study group had similar urodynamic outcomes of preoperative and postoperative tests. Comparison with the study group and preoperative tests revealed the control group had significant bladder function impairment at 4 months after NSRH. After a median follow-up of 33 months, the dissection methods had no significant impact on DFS or OS.

Conclusions

Waterjet dissection of the IHP in laparoscopic NSRH resulted in a more rapid return of normal urodynamics without compromising survival outcome.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT03015376 (PUMCH-OBGYN-2013), NCT03291236 (SOCM-1).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zullo MA, Manci N, Angioli R, Muzii L, Panici PB. Vesical dysfunctions after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a critical review. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2003;48:287–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Xue Z, Zhu X, Teng Y. Comparison of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy and radical hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cell Physiol. Biochem. 2016;38:1841–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kim HS, Kim K, Ryoo SB, et al. Conventional versus nerve-sparing radical surgery for cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2015;26:100–10.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kanao H, Fujiwara K, Ebisawa K, Hada T, Ota Y, Andou M. Various types of total laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomies and their effects on bladder function. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2014;25:198–205.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Todo Y, Kuwabara M, Watari H, et al. Urodynamic study on postsurgical bladder function in cervical cancer treated with systematic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2006;16:369–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Maneschi F. Urodynamic study of bladder function following nerve sparing radical hysterectomy. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2014;25:159–61.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Maneschi F, Ianiri P, Sarno M, Gagliardi F, Panici PB. Nerve-sparing class III–IV radical hysterectomy: urodynamic study and surgical technique. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2012;22:675–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kruppa J, Kavvadias T, Amann S, Baessler K, Schuessler B. Short and long-term urodynamic and quality of life assessment after nerve sparing radical hysterectomy: a prospective pilot study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016;201:131–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Roh JW, Lee DO, Suh DH, et al. Efficacy and oncologic safety of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2015;26:90–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Rob L, Halaska M, Robova H. Nerve-sparing and individually tailored surgery for cervical cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:292–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR, Benedetti-Panici P, et al. New classification system of radical hysterectomy: emphasis on a three-dimensional anatomic template for parametrial resection. Gynecol. Oncol. 2011;122:264–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Querleu D, Morrow CP. Classification of radical hysterectomy. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:297–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03. http://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/. Accessed 10 Dec 2012.

  14. Du R, Li L, Ma S, Tan X, Zhong S, Wu M. Lymph nodes metastasis in cervical cancer: Incidences, risk factors, consequences and imaging evaluations. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018;14:e380–e385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, et al. An international urogynecological association (IUGA)/international continence society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2010;29:4–20.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Possover M, Stober S, Plaul K, Schneider A. Identification and preservation of the motoric innervation of the bladder in radical hysterectomy type III. Gynecol. Oncol. 2000;79:154–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Trimbos JB, Maas CP, Deruiter MC, Peters AA, Kenter GG. A nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: guidelines and feasibility in Western patients. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2001;11:180–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kato K, Suzuka K, Osaki T, Tanaka N. Unilateral or bilateral nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: a surgical technique to preserve the pelvic autonomic nerves while increasing radicality. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2007;17:1172–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shi R, Wei W, Jiang P. Laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical carcinoma: emphasis on nerve content in removed cardinal ligaments. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2016;26:192–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu Z, Li X, Tao Y, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for locally advanced cervical cancer. Int. J. Surg. 2016;25:54–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Oda Y, Todo Y, Hanley S, et al. Risk factors for persistent low bladder compliance after radical hysterectomy. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2011;21:167–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pieterse QD, Kenter GG, Maas CP, et al. Self-reported sexual, bowel and bladder function in cervical cancer patients following different treatment modalities: longitudinal prospective cohort study. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2013;23:1717–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim HS, Kim TH, Suh DH, et al. 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. 2015;22:1987–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hao M, Wang Z, Wei F, Wang J, Wang W, Ping Y. Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator in laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: a pilot study. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2016;26(3):594–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Katahira A, Niikura H, Kaiho Y, et al. Intraoperative electrical stimulation of the pelvic splanchnic nerves during nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Gynecol. Oncol. 2005;98:462–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chen CL, Guo HX, Yu YH, et al. The measurement of vesical detrusor electromyographic activity during nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Reprod. Sci. 2010;17:1144–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tschan CA, Tschan K, Krauss JK, Oertel J. New applicator improves waterjet dissection quality. Br. J. Neurosurg. 2010;24:641–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tschan CA, Keiner D, Muller HD, et al. Waterjet dissection of peripheral nerves: an experimental study of the sciatic nerve of rats. Neurosurgery 2010;67:368–76.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Moinzadeh A, Hasan W, Spaliviero M, et al. Water jet assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy without hilar clamping in the calf model. J. Urol. 2005;174:317–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Glybochko PV, Alyaev YG, Rapoport LM, et al. The role of waterjet dissection in improving erectile function and continence after nerve-sparing prostatectomy [in Russian]. Urologiia 2017;(1):43–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Izquierdo-Luna JS, Campos-Salcedo JG, Estrada-Carrasco CE, Torres-Gomez JJ, Lopez-Silvestre JC, Zapata-Villalba MA. Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with hydrodissection. Actas Urol. Esp. 2016;40:333–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Corvin S, Sturm W, Schlatter E, Anastasiadis A, Kuczyk M, Stenzl A. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph-node dissection with the waterjet is technically feasible and safe in testis-cancer patient. J. Endourol. 2005;19:823–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shekarriz B, Upadhyay J, Jewett MA. Nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy using hydro-jet dissection: initial experience. J. Endourol. 2004;18:273–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Magistro G, Chapple CR, Elhilali M, et al. Emerging minimally invasive treatment options for male lower urinary tract symptoms. Eur. Urol. 2017;72:986–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Granick M, Rubinsky L, Parthiban C, Shanmugam M, Ramasubbu N. Dispersion risk associated with surgical debridement devices. Wounds 2017;29:E88–E91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Contin P, Kulu Y, Bruckner T, et al. Comparative analysis of late functional outcome following preoperative radiation therapy or chemoradiotherapy and surgery or surgery alone in rectal cancer. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2014;29:165–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge their thanks to Prof. Lan Zhu from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, PUMCH, for the directions regarding urodynamic tests and their implications. They also acknowledge their thanks to Prof. Quancai Cui from the Department of Pathology, PUMCH, for assistance with the pathological evaluations.

Funding

This study was supported by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Initiative for Innovative Medicine (CAMS-2017-I2M-1-002).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China

    Lei Li MD, Shuiqing Ma MD, Xianjie Tan MD, Sen Zhong MD & Ming Wu MD

Authors
  1. Lei Li MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shuiqing Ma MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xianjie Tan MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sen Zhong MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ming Wu MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ming Wu MD.

Ethics declarations

DISCLOSURE

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 456 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 20 kb)

10434_2019_7228_MOESM3_ESM.docx

Different dissection methods for the inferior hypogastric plexus (IHP) did not have an impact on the disease-free survival (A, log rank test P = 0.897) and overall survival (B, log rank test P = 0295) (DOCX 18 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, L., Ma, S., Tan, X. et al. The Urodynamics and Survival Outcomes of Different Methods of Dissecting the Inferior Hypogastric Plexus in Laparoscopic Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy of Type C: A Randomized Controlled Study. Ann Surg Oncol 26, 1560–1568 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07228-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07228-8

Search

Navigation