Survival of four different radical hysterectomy approaches for early-stage cervical cancer: a retrospective study

Objective This study compares survival of four different surgical approaches including ARH, LRH, RRH and VRH for early-stage cervical cancer in order to define the best effects and survivals for patients. Design Retrospective study. Setting The First Medical Center of the PLA General Hospital. Population 238 women diagnosed early-stage cervical cancer between January 2013 and December 2017 and followed up until September 2020. Methods All patients with early-stage cervical cancer were retrospective collected in the first medical center of the PLA general hospital. Disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier’s method, and survival curves were compared using log-rank test. Main outcome measures Outcomes were the comparison of patients’ DFS and OS between the four different radical hysterectomy approaches. Results The intraoperative blood loss and postoperative exhaust time of LRH, RRH and VRH groups are better than that in ARH group. The total 5-year OS was significant difference among the four groups. However, the difference of 5-year DFS was not statistically significant among the four groups. Furthermore, patients with early-stage cervical cancer had a significantly better DFS and OS in ARH and RRH groups than that in LRH and VRH groups. Conclusions This retrospective study demonstrated that both ARH and RRH obtained higher rate of 5-year DFS and 5-year OS compared with LRH and VRH for early-stage cervical cancer, and the survival outcomes between ARH and RRH were similar. Keywords Cervical cancer, ARH, LRH, RRH, VRH, survival.