Table 2. Evidence of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with avoidance of cancer cell spillage.

Author	Study year	Region	Study design	Confounder adjustment	Stage (FIGO 2008)	Control	Experimental	Median follow-up (mo)	No. of recurrence	DFS rate	HR of recurrence or death (95% CI)	OS rate	HR of death (95% CI)
Kong et al. [26]	2014	Korea	ARH vs. LRH	-	IB–IIA, tumor diameter ≥3 cm	48	40	46	1 vs. 1	97.9% vs. 97.5%	N/A	No disease-related deaths happened	Could not be calculated
Kong et al. [27]	2016	Korea	MIRH-intracorporeal colpotomy vs. LRH-vaginal colpotomy	-	IB–IIA	49	79	20.5	4 vs. 8	93.7% vs. 80.8% (2 yr)	N/A	N/A	N/A
Chiva et al. [21]	2020	Spain	ARH vs. MIRH	+	IB	402	291	56	60 vs. 47	79% vs. 89% (4.5 yr)	2.07 (1.35–3.15)	89% vs. 97% (4.5 yr)	2.42
			※Subgroup: protective closure				43 (sub)		3 (sub)	93% (sub)	0.63 (0.15–2.59) (sub)	N/A (sub)	N/A (sub)
Kanao et al. [28], Fusegi et al. [29]	2021	Japan	ARH vs. LRH using the no-look no-touch technique	+	IA2–IIA	118	113	38.4	5 vs. 11	91.4% vs. 90.9% (4.5 yr)	1.28 (0.46–3.56)	96.2% vs. 100% (4.5 yr)	Could not be calculated
Gottschalk et al. [67]	2011	Germany	Single-armed: VALRH	-	IA–IIB	N/A	110	19	7	94% (2 yr)	N/A	98% (2 yr)	N/A
Kohler et al. [68]	2019	Germany	Single-armed: VALRH, LAVRH	-	IA–IIA	N/A	389	99	20	95.8 (4.5 yr)	N/A	97.8% (4.5 yr)	N/A
Tanaka et al. [69]	2019	Japan	Single-armed: LRH with vaginal closure	-	IA2–IIA	N/A	24	12	1	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Ding et al. [70]	2021	USA	Single-armed: LRH with vaginal cuff with a stapler	-	IB	N/A	8	6	0	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Wang et al. [71]	2021	China	Single-armed: VALRH (gasless)	-	IA2–IIA	N/A	48	11.7	0	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

ARH, abdominal radical hysterectomy; CI, confidence interval; DFS, disease-free survival; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; HR, hazard ratio; LAVRH, laparoscopy-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy; LRH, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy; MIRH, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy; N/A, not applicable; OS, overall survival; VALRH, vaginal assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.