Advertisement

Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer

  • David Cibula
Chapter

Abstract

Radical hysterectomy belongs to classical procedures in gynecological oncology with a history longer than a hundred years. The surgical technique and the role of radical hysterectomy in the management of cervical cancer have been developing dramatically and are still in progress. A commonly accepted indication is the treatment of cervical cancer stage IB1, in which radical hysterectomy achieves excellent oncological outcomes. Ongoing randomized trials are validating the possibility of abandoning parametria resection and replacing radical with simple hysterectomy in selected subgroups of patients with small tumors of IB1 stage. Surgical treatment can achieve satisfactory outcomes also in the management of locally advanced tumors of stages IB2, IIA and selected IIB on the condition that adequate radicality of hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy is performed.

Acceptance of harmonized terminology and a unified classification system is a challenging task for the specialty to enable comprehensive collaboration and further research. The ABCD classification system represents a modern and simple solution which recognizes four types of radical hysterectomy (B, C1, C2, D), including nerve sparing modification. A critical parameter for the classification is the resection extent of all three parts of parametria.

The extent of parametrectomy, particularly in vertical dimension, is the crucial factor for early and late morbidity. The most significant symptom in the early postoperative period is a failure of spontaneous voiding, while bladder dysfunctions, including urinary incontinence and impairment of bladder sensation, belong to common late postoperative complications. Quality of life can be also compromised due to less frequent symptoms such as anorectal dysfunctions, mainly constipation and flatulence incontinence as well as sexual dysfunctions.

Keywords

Radical hysterectomy Parametrectomy Cervical cancer Nerve sparing 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by Charles University in Prague (UNCE 204024 and PRVOUK-P27/LF1/1).

References

  1. 1.
    Baalbergen A, Smedts F, Helmerhorst TJ. Conservative therapy in microinvasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix is justified: an analysis of 59 cases and a review of the literature. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21(9):1640–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnes W, Waggoner S, Delgado G, Maher K, Potkul R, Barter J, Benjamin S. Manometric characterization of rectal dysfunction following radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 1991;42:116–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benedetti-Panici P, Zullo MA, Plotti F, Manci N, Muzii L, Angioli R. Long-term bladder function in patients with locally advanced cervical carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and type 3–4 radical hysterectomy. Cancer. 2004;100:2110–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergmark K, Avall-Lundqvist E, Dickman PW, Henningsohn L, Steineck G. Vaginal changes and sexuality in women with a history of cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(18):1383–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buda A, Pellegrino A, Vitobello D, Meroni MG, Recalcati D, Perego P. Total laparoscopic radical parametrectomy, partial colpectomy, and pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with occult cervical cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;107(1):73–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charoenkwan K, Srisomboon J, Suprasert P, Tantipalakorn C, Kietpeerakool C. Nerve-sparing class III radical hysterectomy: a modified technique to spare the pelvic autonomic nerves without compromising radicality. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16:1705–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Charoenkwan K, Pranpanas S. Prevalence and characteristics of late postoperative voiding dysfunction in early-stage cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2007;8:387–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cibula D, Sláma J, Velechovská P, Fischerova D, Zikán M, Pinkavová I, Hill M. Factors affecting spontaneous voiding recovery after radical hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20(4):685–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cibula D, Velechovska P, Sláma J, et al. Late morbidity following nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116(3):506–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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(2):264–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cibula D, Pinkavova I, Dusek L, et al. Local control after tailored surgical treatment of early cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21(4):690–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR, Dusek L, et al. Prognostic significance of low volume sentinel lymph node disease in early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124(3):496–501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clark JG. A more radical method of performing hysterectomy for cancer of the uterus. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1895;6:120.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ditto A, Martinelli F, Hanozet F, et al. Class III NSRH: oncological outcome in 170 cervical cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119:192–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Donovan KA, Taliaferro LA, Alvarez EM, Jacobsen PB, Roetzheim RG, Wenham RM. Sexual health in women treated for cervical cancer: characteristics and correlates. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;104(2):428–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Epstein E, Testa A, Gaurilcikas A, et al. Early-stage cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound—a European multicenter trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(3):449–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ercoli A, Delmas V, Gadonneix P, Fanfani F, Villet R, Paparella P, Manusco S, Scambia G. Classical and nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: an evaluation of the risk of injury to the autonomous pelvic nerves. Surg Radiol Anat. 2003;25:200–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fischerova D, Cibula D, Stenhova H, et al. Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of early cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18(4):766–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fotiou S, Tserkezoglou A, Hatzieleftheriou G, Apostolikas N. Class III vs. class II radical hysterectomy in stage IB cervical carcinoma: a comparison of morbidity and survival. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1997;7:17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Freund WA. Eine neue methode der exstirpation des ganten uterus. Zentralbl Gynakol. 1878;10:222.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frumovitz M, Sun CC, Schmeler KM, Deavers MT, Dos Reis R, Levenback CF, Ramirez PT. Parametrial involvement in radical hysterectomy specimens for women with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(1):93–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fujii S, Takakura K, Matsumura N, Higuchi T, Yura S, Mandai M, Baba T, Yoshika S. Anatomic identification and functional outcomes of the nerve sparing Okabayashi radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;107:4–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Geetha P, Nair MK. Laparoscopic, robotic and open method of radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review. J Minim Access Surg. 2012;8(3):67–73.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Geisler JP, Orr C, Manahan KJ. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical parametrectomy and radical vaginectomy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2011;32(6):674–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gil-Ibáñez B, Díaz-Feijoo B, Pérez-Benavente A, Puig-Puig O, Franco-Camps S, Centeno C, Xercavins J, Gil-Moreno A. Nerve sparing technique in robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy: results. Int J Med Robot. 2013;9:339–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Höckel M, Horn LC, Manthey N, Braumann UD, Wolf U, Teichmann G, Frauenschläger K, Dornhöfer N, Einenkel J. Resection of the embryologically defined uterovaginal(Müllerian) compartment and pelvic control in patients with cervical cancer: a prospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(7):683–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hou J, Goldberg GL, Qualls CR, Kuo DY, Forman A, Smith HO. Risk factors for poor prognosis in microinvasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix (IA1 and IA2): a pooled analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121(1):135–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jensen PT, Groenvold M, Klee MC, Thranov I, Petersen MA, Machin D. Early-stage cervical carcinoma, radical hysterectomy, and sexual function. A longitudinal study. Cancer. 2004;100(1):97–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Katahira A, Niikura H, Ito K, Takano T, Nagase S, Murakami G, Yaegashi N. Vesicouterine ligament contains abundant autonomic nerve ganglion cells: the distribution in histology concerning nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:193–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kato T, Murakami G, Yabuki Y. Does the cardinal ligament of the uterus contain a nerve that should be preserved in radical hysterectomy? Anat Sci Int. 2002;77:161–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koehler C, Gottschalk E, Chiantera V, Marnitz S, Hasenbein K, Schneider A. From laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy to vaginal assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. BJOG. 2012;119(2):254–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kohlberger PD, Edwards L, Collins C, Milross C, Hacker NF. Laparoscopic port-site recurrence following surgery for a stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix with negative lymph nodes. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;79(2):324–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Landoni F, Maneo A, Cormio G, Perego P, Milani R, Caruso O. Class II versus class III radical hysterectomy in stage IB—IIA cervical cancer: a prospective randomised study. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;80:3–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Latzko W, Schiffmann J. Klinisches and anatomisches zur radikaloperation des gebarmutterkrebses. Zentralbl Gynakol. 1919;43:715.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Leath 3rd CA, Straughn JM, Bhoola SM, Partridge EE, Kilgore LC, Alvarez RD. The role of radical parametrectomy in the treatment of occult cervical carcinoma after extrafascial hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;92(1):215–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Li J, Xu H, Chen Y, Wang D, Li Y, Liang Z. Laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical parametrectomy for occult early-stage invasive cervical cancer after simple hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(8):1383–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Maas CP, ter Kuile MM, Laan E, Tuijnman CC, Weijenborg PT, Trimbos JB, Kenter GG. Objective assessment of sexual arousal in women with a history of hysterectomy. BJOG. 2004;111(5):456–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Magrina JF, Magtibay PM. Robotic nerve-sparing radical parametrectomy: feasibility and technique. Int J Med Robot. 2012;8(2):206–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Meigs JV. The Wertheim operation for carcinoma of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1945;49:542.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Naik R, Jackson KS, Lopes A, Cross P, Henry JA. Laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy—a randomised phase II trial: perioperative outcomes and surgicopathological measurements. BJOG. 2010;117(6):746–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Okabayashi H. Radical abdominal hysterectomy for cancer of the cervix uteri. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1921;33:335.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pálfalvi L, Ungár L. Laterally extended parametrectomy (LEP), the technique for radical pelvic side wall dissection: feasibility, technique and results. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003;13(6):914–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy for elderly patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(3):195.e1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. Laparoscopic compared with open radical hysterectomy in obese women with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(6):1201–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Park SY, Bae DS, Nam JH, et al. Quality of life and sexual problems in disease-free survivors of cervical cancer compared with the general population. Cancer. 2007;110(12):2716–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pieterse QD, Maas CP, Ter Kuile MM, Lowik M, Van Eijkeren MA, Trimbos JBMZ, Kenter GG. An observational longitudinal study to evaluate miction, defecation, and sexual function after radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymhadenectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16:1119–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pieterse QD, Ter Kuile MM, Deruiter MC, Trimbos JB, Kenter GG, Maas CP. Vaginal blood flow after radical hysterectomy with and without nerve sparing. A preliminary report. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18(3):576–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pikaart DP, Holloway RW, Ahmad S, Finkler NJ, Bigsby GE, Ortiz BH, DeNardis SA. Clinical-pathologic and morbidity analyses of types 2 and 3 abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;107:205–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pinkavova I, Fischerova D, Zikan M, et al. Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of tumor size after application of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(6):705–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pluta M, Rob L, Charvat M, Chmel R, Halaska Jr M, Skapa P, Robova H. Less radical surgery than radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113(2):181–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Querleu D, Morrow CP. Classification of radical hysterectomy. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:297–303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ralph G, Winter R, Michelitsch L, Tamussino K. Radicality of parametrial resection and dysfunction of the lower urinary tract after radical hysterectomy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1991;12:27–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ramirez PT, Schmeler KM, Wolf JK, Brown J, Soliman PT. Robotic radical parametrectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with invasive cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111(1):18–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Raspagliesi F, Ditto A, Fontanelli R, et al. Type II versus type III nerve sparing radical hysterectomy: comparison of lower urinary tract dysfunctions. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;102:256–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sauter, Johann Nepomuk. Die gänzliche Extirpation der carcinomatösen Gebärmutter: ohne selbst entstandenen oder künstlich bewirkten Vorfall vorgenommen und glücklich vollführt. Constanz: W. Wallis, 1822. 188 s.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Schauta F. Die erweiterte vaginale Totalexstirpation des Uterus beim Kollumkarzinom. Wien: Verlag von J. Safar; 1908.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sert B. Robotic port-site and pelvic recurrences after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for a stage IB1 adenocarcinoma of the cervix with negative lymph nodes. Int J Med Robot. 2010;6(2):132–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sert MB, Abeler V. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: comparison with total laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy; one surgeon’s experience at the Norwegian Radium Hospital. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121(3):600–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sood AK, Nygaard I, Shahin MS, Sorosky JI, Lutgendorf SK, Rao SSC. Anorectal dysfunction after surgical treatment for cervical cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;195:513–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tinelli R, Malzoni M, Cosentino F, Perone C, Fusco A, Cicinelli E, Nezhat F. Robotics versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: a multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(9):2622–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Schmeler KM, Frumovitz M, Ramirez PT. Conservative management of early stage cervical cancer: is there a role for less radical surgery? Gynecol Oncol. 2011;120(3):321–5.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    van Dam JH, Gosselink MJ, Drogendijk AC, Hop WCJ, Schouten WR. Changes in bowel function after hysterectomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40:1342–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    van Meurs H, Visser O, Buist MR, Ten Kate FJ, van der Velden J. Frequency of pelvic lymph node metastases and parametrial involvement in stage IA2 cervical cancer: a population-based study and literature review. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19(1):21–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Vrzackova P, Weiss P, Cibula D. Sexual morbidity following radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2010;10(7):1037–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wertheim E. The extended abdominal operation for carcinoma uteri (based on 500 operative cases). Am J Obstet Dis Women Child. 1912;66:169–232.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wertheim E. Zur frag der radikaloperation beim uteruskrebs. Arch Gynakol. 1900;61:627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zullo MA, Manci N, Angioli R, Muzii L, Benedetti-Panici P. Vesical dysfunctions after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a critical review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2003;48:287–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynecologic Oncology CenterGeneral University Hospital, First Medical School, Charles UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations