Radical Laparoscopic-assisted Hysterectomy Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Comparative Study

Cervical cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality among women worldwide. Radical hysterectomy is the standard surgical treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. Traditionally, this procedure has been performed through an open abdominal approach; however, minimally invasive techniques, including laparoscopic-assisted radical hysterectomy, have gained increasing attention due to their potential advantages in reducing surgical trauma and improving perioperative recovery.

This study was conducted to compare the clinical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted radical hysterectomy versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. A total of 60 patients diagnosed with FIGO stage IA1, IA2, and IB1 cervical cancer were included. Participants were admitted to Zagazig University Hospitals between March 2021 and January 2024.

Eligible patients were randomly assigned into two groups: a laparoscopic surgery group and an open surgery group. All patients underwent total hysterectomy, bilateral adnexectomy, and pelvic lymph node dissection. In the laparoscopic group, vaginal stump closure was performed using an endoscopic stapler, whereas in the open group, closure was performed using conventional surgical techniques.

Primary outcomes included perioperative parameters such as operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, complications, hospital stay, and time to removal of urinary catheter and drainage tube. Secondary outcomes included long-term oncological outcomes such as recurrence rate, recurrence-free survival, and overall survival. Patients were followed for up to three years postoperatively.

The study aimed to determine whether laparoscopic-assisted radical hysterectomy provides comparable safety and oncological outcomes to open surgery while offering potential advantages in perioperative recovery. This study was registered retrospectively, as patient enrollment had been completed prior to trial registration, in accordance with journal requirements and to ensure transparency in reporting.