Abstract
Objective
The publication of a prospective [1] and several retrospective [2,3] studies describing a worse prognosis in patients affected with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent a minimally invasive radical hysterectomy has raised a high concern in what measures should be undertaken in order to revert these results. Potential strategies [4] to prevent tumor spillage have been previously proposed.
Methods
In this video, we describe nine strategies that should be addressed in future trials regarding this procedure.
Results
These strategies are:
1. Fallopian tubes should be coagulated prior to start the surgery.
2. All sentinel lymph nodes and lymphadenectomy specimens should be obtained without lymph nodes fragmentation.
3. All surgical specimens should be extracted within a containment bag.
4. Uterine manipulators must never be used.
5. Prior to vaginal section, a closed knotted ligature should be placed around the vagina, proximal to the section line, and the remaining vaginal cavity profusely washed.
6. Once the vagina is opened, the surgical specimen should be extracted vaginally within a specimen retrieval bag.
7. After surgery, the pelvic cavity is profusely washed with physiological serum, and the vagina should be washed with iodopovidone diluted to 10% [5].
8. Port-site metastasis prevention measures should be performed.
9. Every action made to prevent tumor spillage should be recorded in the surgical report.
Conclusion
As there is a biological rationale in these measures that would prevent tumor spillage and seeding, there is a need of prospectively exploring them within appropriate studies in order to determine their own oncological outcome.
Keywords: Cervical Cancer, Minimally Invasive Surgery
VIDEO CLIP
Potential strategies for prevention of tumor spillage in minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. Video can be found with this article online at https://ejgo.org/src/sm/jgo-31-e73-s001.mp4.
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
- Conceptualization: B.V., M.C.S, P.B.A., G.M.A.
- Formal analysis: B.V.
- Investigation: B.V., G.M.A.
- Methodology: B.V., M.C.S., G.M.A.
- Resources: M.C.S.
- Software: B.V., M.C.S.
- Supervision: B.V., P.B.A, G.M.A.
- Validation: B.V., M.C.S., P.B.A., F.C.S., D.F.B., G.M.A.
- Visualization: B.V., M.C.S., P.B.A., F.C.S., D.F.B., G.M.A.
- Writing - original draft: B.V., G.M.A.
- Writing - review & editing: B.V., G.M.A.
References
- 1.Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1895–1904. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Chiva L, Zanagnolo V, Kucukmetin A, Chakalova G, Raspagliesi F, Narducci F, et al. SUCCOR study. An international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 (FIGO 2009, <4 cm) cervical cancer operated in 2013–2014. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29:A1–A2. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, Keating NL, Del Carmen MG, Yang J, et al. Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1905–1914. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kanao H, Matsuo K, Aoki Y, Tanigawa T, Nomura H, Okamoto S, et al. Feasibility and outcome of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with no-look no-touch technique for FIGO IB1 cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2019;30:e71. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Neuhaus SJ, Watson DI, Ellis T, Rofe AM, Jamieson GG. Influence of cytotoxic agents on intraperitoneal tumor implantation after laparoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42:10–15. doi: 10.1007/BF02235176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]