Evolution of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: a historical flashback and technical features

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Extended radical hysterectomy (RAH) is one of the standard treatments for FIGO stage IA2–IIA cervical cancer (CC). Patients after RAH may develop complications associated with impaired autonomic innervation of the pelvic organs. Bladder and rectal dysfunction is a common complication after the standard radical hysterectomy and can significantly affect quality of life in the patients. Nerve-sparing RAH (NSRH) is a modified RAH designed to preserve the pelvic autonomic nerves, without substantially affecting the radicalness of the operation. The use of NSRH was initially limited due to the difficulties associated with the definition of anatomical structures and lack of data on the oncologic safety of nerve-sparing operations. The complex anatomy of the autonomic nerve plexuses of the pelvis is a sufficient problem for the surgeon, as it requires a comprehensive knowledge of the pelvic anatomy and the characteristics of innervation and blood supply to the cervix, vagina, and parametrial tissue, as well as the practical skills to visualize and select these anatomical structures. Knowledge of the topographic anatomy of the pelvis and a clear visualization of all anatomical regions are the only way to preserve important structures, such as the internal pelvic nerves, pelvic celiac nerves, hypogastric nerves, as well as the branches that fan out from the inferior hypogastric plexus, which innervate the bladder.

Conclusion: RAH makes it possible to maintain quality of life in patients with CC; however, its minimally invasive surgery reduces recurrence-free survival, despite a decline in the number of early postoperative complications and the length of hospital stay. Nevertheless, the role of laparoscopic and robot-assisted hysterectomies in the treatment of early CC continues to be studied worldwide; the categories of patients who can undergo endoscopic surgery having no negative impact on their survival are identified.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Alisa V. Dymova

A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow City Healthcare Department

Author for correspondence.
Email: a.dymova@mknc.ru

Obstetrician-Gynecologist at the Department of Oncosurgery of the Pelvic Organs

Russian Federation, Moscow

Irina Yu. Davydova

A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow City Healthcare Department

Email: i.davydova@mknc.ru

Dr. Med. Sci., Leading Researcher at the Department of Oncosurgery of the Pelvic Organs

Russian Federation, Moscow

Ramiz K. Valiev

A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow City Healthcare Department

Email: radiosurgery@bk.ru

PhD, Head of the Department of Oncosurgery of the Pelvic Organs

Russian Federation, Moscow

Maksat B. Nurberdyev

A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow City Healthcare Department

Email: m.nurberdyev@mknc.ru

PhD, Leading Researcher at the Department of Oncosurgery of the Pelvic Organs

Russian Federation, Moscow

Larisa B. Ivanova

A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow City Healthcare Department

Email: l.ivanova@mknc.ru

PhD, Head of the Laboratory of Gynecology

Russian Federation, Moscow

Mukhammedsakhet N. Saryev

A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow City Healthcare Department

Email: m.saryev@mknc.ru

Oncologist at the Department of Oncosurgery of the Pelvic Organs

Russian Federation, Moscow

Ekaterina A. Loginova

A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow City Healthcare Department

Email: e.loginova@mknc.ru

PhD, Obstetrician-Gynecologist at the Gynecology Laboratory

Russian Federation, Moscow

Evgenia A. Tizilova

A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow City Healthcare Department

Email: e.tizilova@mknc.ru

Oncologist at the Department of Oncosurgery of the Pelvic Organs

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Burke W.M., Orr J., Leitao M., Salom E., Gehrig P., Olawaiye A.B. et al. Endometrial cancer: a review and current management strategies: part I. Gynecol. Oncol. 2014; 134(2): 385-92. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.05.018
  2. Cohen S.L., Vitonis A.F., Einarsson J.I. Updated hysterectomy surveillance and factors associated with minimally invasive hysterectomy. JSLS. 2014; 18(3): e2014.00096. https://dx.doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2014.00096
  3. Colombo N., Creutzberg C., Amant F., Bosse T., González-Martín A., Ledermann J. et al. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2016; 27(1): 16-41. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv484
  4. AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. AAGL position statement: route of hysterectomy to treat benign uterine disease. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2011; 18(1): 1-3. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jmig.2010.10.001
  5. Advincula A.P., Wang K. Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2009; 16(3): 291-301. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2009.03.003
  6. Advincula A.P., Song A. The role of robotic surgery in gynecology. Curr. Opin. Obste.t. Gynecol. 2007; 19(4): 331-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e328216f90b
  7. Siegel R.L., Miller K.D., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2016; 66(1): 7-30. https://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.21332
  8. Bray F., Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Siegel R.L., Torre L.A., Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018; 68(6): 394-424. https://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492
  9. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and corpus uteri. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2014; 125(2): 97‐8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.02.003
  10. Suprasert P., Srisomboon J., Charoenkwan K., Siriaree S., Cheewakriangkrai C., Kietpeerakool C. et al. Twelve years experience with radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in early stage cervical cancer. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2010; 30(3): 294-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/01443610903585192
  11. Hongladaromp W., Tantipalakorn C., Charoenkwan K., Srisomboon J. Locoregional spread and survival of stage IIA1 versus stage IIA2 cervical cancer. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2014; 15(2): 887‐90. https://dx.doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.2.887
  12. Mahawerawat S., Charoenkwan K., Srisomboon J., Khunamornpong S., Suprasert P., Sae‐Teng C.T. Surgical outcomes of patients with stage IA2 cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2013; 14(9): 5375-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2013.14.9.5375
  13. Laterza R.M., Sievert K.D., Ridder D., Vierhout M.E., Haab F., Cardozo L. et al. Bladder function after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2015; 34(4): 309‐15. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nau.22570
  14. Vizza E., Pellegrino A., Milani R., Fruscio R., Baiocco E., Cognetti F. et al. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in locally advanced stage IB2-IIB cervical cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2011; 37(4): 364-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2010.12.001
  15. Simsek T., Ozekinci M., Saruhan Z., Sever B., Pestereli E. Laparoscopic surgery compared to traditional abdominal surgery in the management of early stage cervical cancer. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol. 2012; 33(4): 395-8
  16. Ramirez P., Frumovitz M., Pareja R., López A., Vieira M., Ribeiro R. Phase III randomized trial of laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy vs. abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: LACC Trial. Gynecol .Oncol. 2918; 149(Suppl. 1): 245. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ygyno.2018.04.552
  17. Charoenkwan K. A simplified technique for nerve‐sparing type III radical hysterectomy: by reorganizing their surgical sequence, surgeons could more easily identify key nerves. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 203(6): 600.e1‐6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.09.027
  18. Laterza R.M., Sievert K.D., Ridder D., Vierhout M.E., Haab F., Cardozo L. et al. Bladder function after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2015; 34(4): 309‐15. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nau.22570
  19. Katepratoom C., Manchana T., Amornwichet N. Lower urinary tract dysfunction and quality of life in cervical cancer survivors after concurrent chemoradiation versus radical hysterectomy. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2014; 25(1): 91‐6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2151-6
  20. Pieterse Q., Maas C., ter Kuile M., Lowik M., van Eijkeren M.A., Trimbos J.B., Kenter G.G. An observational longitudinal study to evaluate miction, defecation, and sexual function after radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2006; 16(3): 1119-29. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00461.x.
  21. Meigs J.V. Radical hysterectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissections; a report of 100 patients operated on five or more years ago. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1951; 62(4): 854-70. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(51)90175-5
  22. Meigs J.V. Radical hysterectomy with bilateral dissection of the pelvic lymph nodes for cancer of the cervix (the Wertheim, Reis, Clark, Wertheim-Meigs operation). Surg. Clin. North Am. 1956 Aug.; 1083-116. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0039-6109(16)34948-9
  23. Querleu D., Cibula D., Abu-Rustum N.R. 2017 Update on the querleu-morrow classification of radical hysterectomy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2017; 24(11): 3406-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6031-z
  24. Bogani G., Cromi A., Uccella S., Serati M., Casarin J., Pinelli C. et al. Nerve-sparing versus conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a minimum 12 months’ follow-up study. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2014; 24(4): 787-93. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000110
  25. Basaran D., Dusek L., Majek O., Cibula D. Oncological outcomes of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015; 22(9): 3033-40. https://dx.doi.org/10.1245/ s10434-015-4377-7
  26. Ditto A., Martinelli F., Mattana F., Reato C., Solima E., Carcangiu M. et al. Class III nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy versus standard class III radical hysterectomy: an observational study. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2011; 18(12): 3469-78. https://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1767-3
  27. Kuwabara Y., Suzuki M., Hashimoto M., Furugen Y., Yoshida K., Mitsuhashi N. New method to prevent bladder dysfunction after radical hysterectomy for uterine cervical cancer. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2000; 26(1): 1-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2000.tb01192.x
  28. Sakamoto S., Takizawa K. An improved radical hysterectomy with fewer urological complications and with no loss of therapeutic results for invasive cervical cancer. Baillieres Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1988; 2(4): 953-62. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0950-3552(98)80022-9
  29. Yabuki Y., Asamoto A., Hoshiba T., Nishimoto H., Nishikawa Y., Nakajima T. Radical hysterectomy: an anatomic evaluation of parametrial dissection. Gynecol. Oncol. 2000; 77(1): 155-63. https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1999.5723
  30. Sakuragi N., Todo Y., Kudo M., Yamamoto R., Sato T. A systematic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy technique in invasive cervical cancer for preserving postsurgical bladder function. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2005; 15(2): 389-97. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2005.15236.x
  31. Querleu D., Morrow C.P. Classification of radical hysterectomy. Lancet Oncol. 2008; 9(3): 297-303. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70074-3
  32. Ercoli A., Delmas V., Gadonneix P., Fanfani F., Villet R., Paparella P. et al. Classical and nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: an evaluation of the risk of injury to the autonomous pelvic nerves. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2003; 25(3-4): 200-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00276-003-0137-7
  33. Gil-Ibáñez B., Díaz-Feijoo B., Pérez-Benavente A., Puig-Puig O., Franco-Camps S., Centeno C. et al. Nerve sparing technique in robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy: results. Int. J. Med. Robot. 2013; 9(3): 339-44. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1480
  34. Chen C., Li W., Li F., Liu P., Zhou J., Lu L. et al. Classical and nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: an evaluation of the nerve trauma in cardinal ligament. Gynecol. Oncol. 2012; 125(1): 245-51. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ygyno.2011.12.448
  35. van Gent M.D.J.M., Rademaker M., van der Veer J.C.B., Gaarenstroom K.N., Putter H., Trimbos J.B.M.Z., de Kroon C.D. Long-term oncological outcome after conventional radical hysterectomy versus 2 nerve-sparing modalities for early stage cervical cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2017; 27(8): 1729-36. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000001067
  36. Huber S.A., Northington G.M., Karp D.R. Bowel and bladder dysfunction following surgery within the presacral space: an overview of neuroanatomy, function, and dysfunction. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2015; 26(7): 941‐6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2572-x
  37. de Groat W.C., Griffiths D., Yoshimura N. Neural control of the lower urinary tract. Compr. Physiol. 2015; 5(1): 327-96. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ cphy.c130056
  38. Ayhan A., Reed N., Gultekin M., Dursun P., eds. Textbook of gynaecological oncology. Günes: Ankara; 2012.
  39. Yabuki Y., Asamoto A., Hoshiba T., Nishimoto H., Satou N. A new proposal for radical hysterectomy. Gynecol. Oncol. 1996; 62(3): 370-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1996.0251
  40. Sakuragi N., Murakami G., Konno Y., Kaneuchi M., Watari H. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in the precision surgery for cervical cancer. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2020; 31(3): e49. https://dx.doi.org/10.3802/ jgo.2020.31.e49
  41. Fujii S., Sekiyama K. Precise neurovascular anatomy for radical hysterectomy. Singapore: Springer; 2020.
  42. Lee Y.H., Kim M.K., Moon H.Y., Chong G.O., Lee H.J., Lee Y.S. et al. Proteomic analysis of pelvic autonomic nerve in nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical carcinoma. Cancer Genomics Proteomics. 2018; 15(4): 337-42. https://dx.doi.org/10.21873/cgp.20092
  43. Kraima A.C., Derks M., Smit N.N., van de Velde C.J., Kenter G.G., DeRuiter M.C. 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. 2016; 26(5): 959-66. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000709
  44. Kyo S., Kato T., Nakayama K. Current concepts and practical techniques of nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016; 207: 80-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.10.033
  45. Raspagliesi F., Ditto A., Fontanelli R., Solima E., Hanozet F., Zanaboni F., Kusamura S. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: a surgical technique for preserving the autonomic hypogastric nerve. Gynecol. Oncol. 2004; 93(2): 307-14. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.01.048
  46. Possover M., Stöber S., Plaul K., Schneider A. Identification and preservation of the motoric innervation of the bladder in radical hysterectomy type III. Gynecol. Oncol. 2000; 79(2): 154-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2000.5919
  47. Gottschalk E., Lanowska M., Chiantera V., Marnitz S., Schneider A., Brink-Spalink V. et al. Vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: rationale, technique, results. JSLS. 2011; 15(4): 451-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.4293/ 108680811X13176785203879
  48. Zhao D., Li B., Wang Y., Liu S., Zhang Y., Zhang G. Limited energy parametrial resection/dissection during modified laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Chin. J. Cancer Res. 2018; 30(6): 647-55. https://dx.doi.org/10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2018.06.09
  49. Carlander J., Koch C., Brudin L., Nordborg C., Gimm O., Johansson K. Heat production, nerve function, and morphology following nerve close dissection with surgical instruments. World J. Surg. 2012; 36(6): 1361-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1471-x.
  50. Carlander J., Johansson K., Lindström S., Velin A.K., Jiang C.H., Nordborg C. Comparison of experimental nerve injury caused by ultrasonically activated scalpel and electrosurgery. Br. J. Surg. 2005; 92(6): 772-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4948
  51. Wu J., Liu X., Hua K., Hu C., Chen X., Lu X. Effect of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy on bladder function recovery and quality of life in patients with cervical carcinoma. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2010; 20(5): 905-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181df99c0

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies