MCO Molecular and Clinical Oncology 2049-9450 2049-9469 D.A. Spandidos 10.3892/mco.2019.1959 MCO-0-0-1959 Articles Efficacy of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy vs. conventional radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis LeeSeung Hyun BaeJong Woon HanMyoungseok ChoYeon Jean ParkJung-Woo OhSo Ra KimSu Jin ChoeSun Yi YunJeong Hye LeeYongmin Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Dong-A University, Seo-gu, Busan 49201, Republic of Korea Correspondence to: Professor Jong Woon Bae, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Dong-A University, 26 Daesingongwon-ro, Seo-gu, Busan 49201, Republic of Korea jwbae@dau.ac.kr 02 2020 04 12 2019 12 2 160 168 13 05 2019 29 10 2019 Copyright: © Lee et al. 2019 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

The aim of the present study was to compare the oncological outcome of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) and conventional radical hysterectomy (CRH) for early-stage cervical cancer using a meta-analysis. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, including 4 randomized controlled trials (RCT), 8 case-control and 11 comparative cohort studies comparing the morbidity, pelvic dysfunctions and oncological outcome between the two surgical methods. A total of 23 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The studies reported data of patients affected by cervical cancer; were written in English; included ≥20 patients; and reported data of patients with a comparison of clinical outcomes between NSRH and CRH. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by four independent reviewers. A total of 1,796 patients were included: 884 patients (49.2%) undergoing NSRH and 912 (50.8%) undergoing CRH. The meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager version 5.3 software, which is designed for conducting Cochrane reviews. As regards perioperative parameters, NSRH was found to be associated with a lower intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay in comparison with CRH. Patients undergoing NSRH experienced lower incidence of urinary, colorectal and sexual dysfunction compared with patients undergoing CRH. However, the resected parametrial width was favorable in patients with CRH, suggesting that NSRH was inferior to CRH in terms of radicality. The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates were similar between the two groups. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the collected data to date demonstrated that the nerve-sparing approach guarantees minimized surgical-related pelvic dysfunction, with similar oncological outcomes as CRH. However, further RCTs should be conducted to confirm the superiority and safety of NSRH.

 cervical cancer nerve-sparing hysterectomy oncological outcome Introduction

Despite the large-scale screening programs in developed countries, cervical cancer remains a major health concern in the United States, accounting for >12,800 and 4,200 new diagnoses and deaths, respectively, in 2017(1). In addition, cervical cancer is the second most common cause of death from cancer among women aged 20-39 years (2). Early cervical cancer (ECC), which can be treated with radical hysterectomy, has been reported to have 5-year survival rates of 88-97% after surgery (3,4).

Various types of conventional radical surgery, such as radical hysterectomy, trachelectomy, and parametrectomy, remain the standard treatment for ECC (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I-IIA) (5,6). According to the Querleu and Morrow classification, conventional radical hysterectomy (CRH) means type C2 hysterectomy. Following this procedure, the hypogastric nerve (sympathetic nerve), the pelvic splanchnic nerve (parasympathetic nerve), and the vesical branch of the pelvic plexus (both sympathetic and parasympathetic nerves) are damaged during the dissection of the uterosacral ligament, vesicouterine ligament and parametrium. These injuries are the leading cause of postoperative pelvic dysfunction, typically including bladder, sexual and colorectal dysfunction (7,8).

As ECC has a high 5-year survival rate, the long-term quality of life of the patients is important. It is also important how quickly the pelvic dysfunction is restored. The concept of ‘nerve-sparing’ surgery was first described by Höckel et al (9) in 1998 as part of an effort to improve the oncological outcome of radical hysterectomy by extending the resection of parametrial tissue without further impairing pelvic autonomic nerve functions. Since then, this surgical procedure has been actively performed and studied, mainly by the Japanese research group (9). However, nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) remains controversial in gynecological oncology. Although this technique may have a positive impact on the quality of life of the patients, the heterogeneity of the technique itself is substantial and there is ongoing debate regarding the oncological outcome (3,4,10).

Although five systematic reviews with meta-analyses and three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to date, they are not sufficient to verify the efficacy and safety of NSRH in ECC (4,10-16). In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, pooled data may provide evidence regarding both comparative effectiveness and safety between NSRH and CRH in ECC. The aim was to review the currently available relevant literature and compare morbidity, pelvic dysfunction and oncological outcomes between the two surgical methods.

 Materials and methods <sec> <title>Search strategy

The present systematic review and meta-analysis followed the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (17). For this meta-analysis, the Cochrane Central Register of controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MedLine and Embase were searched for relevant studies published between 2000 and 2018, using the terms ‘cervical AND cancer OR malignancy OR carcinoma’ AND ‘nerve AND sparing’ AND ‘radical AND hysterectomy’.

 Study selection and inclusion criteria

Published articles were included if they met the following criteria: i) Studies reporting data of patients affected by cervical cancer; ii) English language studies; iii) series including ≥20 patients and iv) studies reporting data of patients with comparison of clinical outcomes between NSRH and CRH. If there were duplicate studies, the studies that were published first or provided more information were included.

 Data extraction

Two authors (KHY, KSJ) independently extracted the data, and disagreements were re-evaluated by two other authors (YJH, CSE). Two reviewers (KHY, KSJ) worked independently, and examined the potential eligibility of all studies retrieved from the databases based on selection and exclusion criteria. The third and fourth reviewers (YJH, CSE) resolved inconsistencies between the first two reviewers through consensus and discussion. The data investigated were perioperative outcomes, quality of life indicators, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

 Quality assessment

The questionnaire for methodological quality of the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias assessment tool was answered for each article to determine the risk of bias. The level of bias of the included studies was assessed based on the Cochrane Collaboration system (18). Furthermore, the quality of outcomes was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (19). The meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager software, version 5.3(20), which is designed for conducting Cochrane reviews.

 Statistical analysis

Dichotomous outcomes eligible in each study are demonstrated as risk ratio (RR) with estimated 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous outcomes are shown as the weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI, which were calculated from mean, standard deviation (SD), P-value and sample size in each study. Heterogeneity was assessed using Higgins I2, evaluating the percentage of total variation across studies that was due to heterogeneity rather than chance. Thus, an I2 of >50% was considered to reflect substantial heterogeneity, and thereby the random effects model using the DerSimonian and Laird method was used. The fixed effects model, using the Mantel-Haenszel method, was employed when I2 was ≤50%, indicating no heterogeneity. The Cochrane Review software (Review Manager version 5.3) was used in order to assess the heterogeneity of the included studies and to evaluate pooled results of the included investigations. The level of heterogeneity was studied for each comparison. On the basis of the level of heterogeneity, the random and fixed effects models were used to compare outcomes between groups. Random and fixed effects models were used as appropriate. Forest plots were created for each comparison and RR, WMD and 95% CI are presented; P-values <0.05 were considered to indicate statistically significant differences.

 Results <sec> <title>Eligible studies

A total of 211 studies were identified, and 26 duplicated articles were excluded. In addition, 153 studies, including non-cervical cancer (n=35), non-English language studies (n=27), case reports and reviewed articles (n=91), were excluded. After assessment of full-text articles for eligibility, an additional 9 studies were excluded due to the following criteria: Number of patients <20 (n=5), no control group (n=2), and ineligible statistical information (n=2). Finally, 4 RCTs, 8 case control and 11 comparative cohort studies were included in the present meta-analysis. A total of 23 articles were selected for data extraction. Detailed information of study acquisition may be found in Fig. 1.

 Study characteristics

A total of 23 articles were selected for inclusion in this meta-analysis, 4 of which were RCTs and the remaining 19 were case control or comparative cohort studies. Overall, 1,769 patients were included: 912 (50.8%) and 884 (49.2%) patients had undergone CRH and NSRH, respectively. The risk of bias was assessed for all studies. A summary of the included studies (11,21-42) is presented in Table I.

 Study quality

All 23 studies included were retrospective. The risk of bias was deemed to be high in all the studies due to the lack of blinding of the participants or personnel and outcome assessors. Moreover, all studies were characterized by high risk of allocation bias. A detailed risk of bias assessment is described in Fig. 2.

 Meta-analysis results

Outcomes included the following perioperative parameters: Mean operative time, mean estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay. Outcomes as an indicator of quality of life were as follows: Duration of postoperative catheter (days), urinary dysfunction, rectal dysfunction and sexual dysfunction. The analysis of oncological outcome was performed through radicality, PFS and OS. Radicality was measured by the resected parametrium and vagina. The operative time (WMD, 8.45 min; 95% CI: -2.79 to 19.67; P=0.14) did not differ statistically significantly between patients undergoing CRH and NSRH (Fig. 3). As regards perioperative parameters, NSRH was found to be associated with lower intraoperative blood loss (WMD, -87.29 ml; 95% CI: -139.91 to -34.66; P=0.001) and a shorter length of hospital stay (WMD, -5.37 days; 95% CI: -8.08 to -2.67; P<0.0001) in comparison with CRH.

Data on pelvic floor dysfunction rates are presented in Fig. 4. Patients undergoing NSRH experienced lower urinary (RR=0.34; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.63; P=0.0007), colorectal (RR=0.24; 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.45; P<0.00001) and sexual (RR=0.27; 95% CI; 0.08 to 0.86; P=0.03) dysfunction rates compared with patients undergoing CRH (Fig. 4A). In particular, a shorter duration of postoperative catheterization (WMD, -8.59 days; 95% CI: -12.17 to -5.02; P<0.00001) was observed among patients undergoing NSRH compared with patients undergoing CRH (Fig. 4B). Resected parametrial width was a favorable factor in patients with CRH (WMD, -0.78 cm; 95% CI: -1.45 to -0.11; P=0.02). This result suggests that NSRH is inferior to CRH in terms of radicality (Fig. 5). The 5-year disease free survival (RR=0.98; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.06; P=0.62) and 5-year OS (RR=0.97; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.02; P=0.26) rates were similar between groups (Fig. 6).

 Discussion

The present study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current evidence on the role of the nerve-sparing approach to surgical treatment for ECC, collecting data from studies comparing NSRH with CRH. Considering the heterogeneity between studies, we were able to obtain valuable data regarding pelvic dysfunction rate and oncological outcome. First, our findings supported the results of studies reporting that NSRH was associated with a shorter duration of postoperative catheterization compared with CRH. These findings indicated that bladder function recovered faster and the incidence of bladder dysfunction was lower compared with that of CRH when using the NSRH approach. Second, postoperative flatulence, constipation and fecal incontinence are the main manifestations of anorectal dysfunction, and the results are more favorable for NSRH compared with CRH. The negative effect of CRH on bowel function was also reported in other studies (43). Similarly, the nerve-sparing approach was associated with a lower rate of sexual dysfunction. There was no difference in operative time between the two groups. However, estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay were favorable for NSRH. In a meta-analysis with a non-randomized study, NSRH was reported to be associated with a longer operative time compared with CRH (44). Unlike our results, estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay were similar between the two groups in this non-randomized study.

The results of present systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that NSRH is associated with fewer complications and faster recovery of pelvic function compared with CRH. Therefore, the radicality and oncological outcome were compared between the two groups. Radicality was analyzed by resected parametrium width and vaginal length, and NSRH exhibited lower radicality compared with CRH. Liang et al investigated the safety of 163 ECC patients and observed a statistically significant reduction in the length of the resected parametrium and vagina in the NSRH group (29). The lower radicality per se may also be a concern. However, other studies have reported favorable results of less radical surgery in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (45). There was no significant difference in the 5-year PFS and OS between NSRH and CRH. The reason for the less radical approach not affecting the oncological outcome may be explained by previous studies (12,36,39). Chen et al (12) analyzed the cardinal ligament tissue specimens of 12 and 13 patients undergoing NSRH and CRH, respectively, and found that, compared with CRH, fewer pelvic nerves were removed in NSRH during cardinal ligament dissection. In addition, they confirmed that the same number of blood and lymphatic vessels were eliminated with both approaches. The metastasis of cervical cancer occurs mainly through the blood vessels and the lymphatic system, whereas metastasis through the nerves is extremely rare, with only one such case reported to date (46). However, even this single case was one with advanced cervical cancer, rather than ECC. These results may clarify why oncological outcome did not differ between the two groups, and why the pelvic dysfunction rate was lower in the NSRH group.

However, only 4 RCTs were included in the evaluated studies, whereas the majority were case-control and comparative cohort studies. There was also heterogeneity between studies, and there was no level A evidence on this issue. However, the studies were well-conducted and the data extracted were sufficient to understand the impact of the nerve-sparing approach compared with CRH. Recently, Chinese study groups conducted larger studies (28,29,47), and a total of 172 patients (82, 60 and 30 patients, respectively) underwent NSRH. Lower pelvic dysfunction rate and improved safety were confirmed with the nerve-sparing approach in these studies.

There were certain limitations to the present study: i) As mentioned earlier, the first limitation of this meta-analysis was the considerable heterogeneity among the studies. There are inherent biases in the various-design papers included in the present study. Therefore, this must be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. The risk of bias of the included studies was systematically assessed, as seen in Fig. 6. ii) There were several omitted data across different studies. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution. iii) The mean number of patients included in the reviewed studies was only 50 per group, which is relatively small. iv) RR rather than hazard ratio was used to assess survival outcomes. RR only measures the number of events and takes no account of when they occur; thus, it is suitable for measuring dichotomous outcomes, but less appropriate for analyzing time-to-event outcomes (48). When the total number of events reported for each study is used to calculate RR, the result is an estimate that is difficult to interpret. Although interpretation may be difficult, RRs can be calculated at specific time points, making estimates comparable and easier to interpret, at least at those time points.

In conclusion, the data collected in this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that the nerve-sparing approach guarantees minimized risk of surgical-related pelvic dysfunction, while achieving a similar oncological outcome as CRH, supporting the preferred use of NSRH over CRH as a treatment for ECC patients. However, further RCTs should be conducted to establish the superiority and safety of NSRH in ECC.

 Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

 Funding

The present study was supported by Dong-A University.

 Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the present study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

 Authors' contributions

SHL wrote the manuscript and analyzed the data. JWB, MH, YJC, JWP and SRO analyzed the data. SJK, SYC, JHY and YL collected the data. All authors have read and approved the final version of this manuscript for publication.

 Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

 Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

 Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

 References SiegelRLMillerKDJemalACancer statistics, 2017CA Cancer J Clin6773020172805510310.3322/caac.21387 SiegelRNaishadhamDJemalACancer statistics, 2013CA Cancer J Clin63113020132333508710.3322/caac.21166 RobLHalaskaMRobovaHNerve-sparing and individually tailored surgery for cervical cancerLancet Oncol1129230120102020261410.1016/S1470-2045(09)70191-3 LongYYaoDSPanXWOuTYClinical efficacy and safety of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysisPLoS One9e9411620142474801510.1371/journal.pone.0094116 DittoAMartinelliFBorreaniCKusamuraSHanozetFBrunelliCRossiGSolimaEFontanelliRZanaboniFQuality of life and sexual, bladder, and intestinal dysfunctions after class III nerve-sparing and class II radical hysterectomies: A questionnaire-based studyInt J Gynecol Cancer1995395720091957479110.1111/IGC.0b013e3181a2d171 KimHSChoiCHLimMCChangSJKimYBKimMAKimTJParkSYKimBGSongYSSafe criteria for less radical trachelectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: A multicenter clinicopathologic studyAnn Surg Oncol191973197920122218316210.1245/s10434-011-2148-7 MaasCPTrimbosJBDeRuiterMCVan De VeldeCJKenterGNerve sparing radical hysterectomy: Latest developments and historical perspectiveCrit Rev Oncol4827127920031469333910.1016/s1040-8428(03)00122-7 QuerleuDMorrowCPClassification of radical hysterectomyLancet Oncol929730320081830825510.1016/S1470-2045(08)70074-3 HöckelMKonerdingMAHeusselCPLiposuction-assisted nerve-sparing extended radical hysterectomy: Oncologic rationale, surgical anatomy, and feasibility studyAm J Obstet Gynecol1789719761998960956910.1016/s0002-9378(98)70533-2 van GentMDRomijnLMvan SantenKETrimbosJBde KroonCDNerve-sparing radical hysterectomy versus conventional radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of survival and quality of lifeMaturitas94303820162782374210.1016/j.maturitas.2016.08.005 WuJLiuXHuaKHuCChenXLuXEffect of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy on bladder function recovery and quality of life in patients with cervical carcinomaInt J Gynecol Cancer2090590920102060654210.1111/IGC.0b013e3181df99c0 ChenCLiWLiFLiuPZhouJLuLSuGLiXGuoYHuangLClassical and nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: An evaluation of the nerve trauma in cardinal ligamentGynecol Oncol12524525120122220977310.1016/j.ygyno.2011.12.448 KimHSKimKRyooSBSeoJHKimSYParkJWKimMAHongKSJeongCWSongYSConventional versus nerve-sparing radical surgery for cervical cancer: A meta-analysisJ Gynecol Oncol2610011020152587289110.3802/jgo.2015.26.2.100 BoganiGRossettiDODittoASignorelliMMartinelliFMoscaLScaffaCLeoneRoberti Maggiore UChiappaVSabatucciINerve sparing approach improves outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysisJ Minim Invasive Gynecol2540241020172919147110.1016/j.jmig.2017.11.014 XueZZhuXTengYComparison of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy and radical hysterectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysisCell Physiol Biochem381841185020162716026710.1159/000443122 LiBZhangRWuLYZhangGYLiXYuGZA prospective study on nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancerZhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi436066102008(In Chinese)1908749710.3321/j.issn:0529-567x.2008.08.013 Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Then Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014 GagnierJThe Cochrane risk of bias tool. 2011; Available at: http://bmg.cochrane.org. Accessed July 12, 2016 GuyattGHOxmanADVistGEKunzRFalck-YtterYAlonso-CoelloPSchünemannHJGRADE WorkingGroupGRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendationsBMJ33692492620081843694810.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD MoherDShamseerLClarkeMGhersiDLiberatiAPetticrewMShekellePStewartLAPRISMA-PGroupPreferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statementSyst Rev4120152555424610.1186/2046-4053-4-1 BoganiGCromiAUccellaSSeratiMCasarinJPinelliCNardelliFGhezziFNerve-sparing versus conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: A minimum 12 months' follow-up studyInt J Gynecol Cancer2478779320142455289410.1097/IGC.0000000000000110 CeccaroniMRoviglioneGSpagnoloECasadioPClariziaRPeirettiMBruniFPetersIAlettiGPelvic dysfunctions and quality of life after nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: A multicenter comparative studyAnticancer Res32581588201222287748 ChenCLiWLiFLiuPZhouJLuLSuGLiXGuoYHuangLClassical and nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: an evaluation of the nerve trauma in cardinal ligamentGynecol Oncol12524525120122220977310.1016/j.ygyno.2011.12.448 ChenCHuangLLiuPSuGLiWLuLWangLLiXDuanHZouCHatchKNeurovascular quantitative study of the uterosacral ligament related to nerve-sparing radical hysterectomyEur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol172747920142421110210.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.09.035 DittoAMartinelliFMattanaFReatoCSolimaECarcangiuMHaeuslerEMarianiLRaspagliesiFClass III nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy versus standard class III radical hysterectomy: An observational studyAnn Surg Oncol183469347820112155694910.1245/s10434-011-1767-3 DittoABoganiGLeoneRoberti Maggiore UMartinelliFChiappaVLopezCPerottoSLorussoDRaspagliesiFOncologic effectiveness of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in cervical cancerJ Gynecol Oncol29e4120182953302410.3802/jgo.2018.29.e41 van GentMDJMRademakerMvan derVeer JCBvan PoelgeestMIEGaarenstroomKNPutterHTrimbosJBMZde KroonCDLong-term oncological outcome after conventional radical hysterectomy versus 2 nerve-sparing modalities for early stage cervical cancerInt J Gynecol Cancer271729173620172870432910.1097/IGC.0000000000001067 KuwabaraYSuzukiMHashimotoMFurugenYYoshidaKMitsuhashiNNew method to prevent bladder dysfunction after radical hysterectomy for uterine cervical cancerJ Obstet Gynaecol Res261820001076132310.1111/j.1447-0756.2000.tb01192.x LiangZChenYXuHLiYWangDLaparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy with fascia space dissection technique for cervical cancer: Description of technique and outcomesGynecol Oncol11920220720102067397110.1016/j.ygyno.2010.06.033 LiuZLiXTaoYLiWYangYYaoYZhuTClinical efficacy and safety of laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for locally advanced cervical cancerInt J Surg25545820162663265510.1016/j.ijsu.2015.11.029 MakowskiMNowakMSzpakowskiMWladzinskiJSerwach-NowinskaAJanasLWilczyńskiJRClassical radical hysterectomy and nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancerPrz Menopauzalny1318018520142632785210.5114/pm.2014.43822 PossoverMStoberSPlaulKSchneiderAIdentification and preservation of the motoric innervation of the bladder in radical hysterectomy type IIIGynecol Oncol7915415720001106363710.1006/gyno.2000.5919 QuerleuDNarducciFPoulardVLacazeSOccelliBLeblancECossonMModified radical vaginal hysterectomy with or without laparoscopic nerve-sparing dissection: A comparative studyGynecol Oncol8515415820021192513610.1006/gyno.2002.6588 RaspagliesiFDittoAFontanelliRZanaboniFSolimaESpattiGHanozetFVecchioneFRossiGKusamuraSType II versus Type III nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: Comparison of lower urinary tract dysfunctionsGynecol Oncol10225626220061644596810.1016/j.ygyno.2005.12.014 RaspagliesiFBoganiGSpinilloADittoABoglioloSCasarinJLeoneRoberti Maggiore UMartinelliFSignorelliMGardellaBIntroducing nerve-sparing approach during minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for locally-advanced cervical cancer: A multi-institutional experienceEur J Surg Oncol432150215620172892777810.1016/j.ejso.2017.08.015 RohJLeeDOSuhDHLimMCSeoSSChungJLeeSParkSYEfficacy and oncologic safety of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A randomized controlled trialJ Gynecol Oncol26909920152587289010.3802/jgo.2015.26.2.90 SakuragiNTodoYKudoMYamamotoRSatoTA systematic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy technique in invasive cervical cancer for preserving postsurgical bladder functionInt J Gynecol Cancer1538939720051582313210.1111/j.1525-1438.2005.15236.x ShiRWeiWJiangPLaparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical carcinoma: Emphasis on nerve content in removed cardinal ligamentsInt J Gynecol Cancer2619219820162656905510.1097/IGC.0000000000000577 Skret-MagierloJNarogMKruczekAKluzaRKluzTMagonTSkretAWicherekLRadical hysterectomy during the transition period from traditional to nerve-sparing techniqueGynecol Oncol11650250520102000495710.1016/j.ygyno.2009.11.013 van denTillaart SAKenterGGPetersAADekkerFWGaarenstroomKNFleurenGJTrimbosJBNerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: Local recurrence rate, feasibility, and safety in cervical cancer patients stage IA to IIAInt J Gynecol Cancer19394520091925893910.1111/IGC.0b013e318197f675 TsengCJShenHPLinYHLeeCYWei-Cheng ChiuWA prospective study of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for uterine cervical carcinoma in TaiwanTaiwan J Obstet Gynecol51555920122248296910.1016/j.tjog.2012.01.011 YangYQinTZhangWWuQYangAXuFLaparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for bulky cervical cancer (≥6 cm) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A multicenter prospective cohort studyInt J Surg34354020162751949810.1016/j.ijsu.2016.08.001 BarnesWWaggonerSDelgadoGMaherKPotkulRBarterJBenjaminSManometric characterization of rectal dysfunction following radical hysterectomyGynecol Oncol421161191991189416810.1016/0090-8258(91)90329-4 LongYYaoDGaoKXieXPreliminary study on clinical effect of nerve sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancerChin Clin Oncol15108310902010 AngioliRPlottiFAloisiAScalettaGCapriglioneSLuveroDFioreLTerranovaCMonteraRPaniciPBA randomized controlled trial comparing four versus six courses of adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer patients previously treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy plus radical surgeryGynecol Oncol13943343820152642894210.1016/j.ygyno.2015.09.082 LiLWuYHuLXuHHeHHuDMetastatic nerve root tumor: A case report and literature reviewMol Clin Oncol41039104020162728444010.3892/mco.2016.852 ChenLZhangWNZhangSMYangZHZhangPEffect of laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy on bladder function, intestinal function recovery and quality of sexual life in patients with cervical carcinomaAsian Pac J Cancer Prev15109711097520142560521110.7314/apjcp.2014.15.24.10971 TierneyJFStewartLAGhersiDBurdettSSydesMRPractical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysisTrials81620071755558210.1186/1745-6215-8-16

Flowchart of study selection process for the systematic review and meta-analysis.

Risk of bias.

Pooled results for operative time, blood loss and length of hospital stay. NSRH, nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy; CRH, conventional radical hysterectomy; SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval.

(A) Pooled results for colorectal and sexual dysfunction. (B) Pooled results for duration of postoperative catheterization and urinary dysfunction. NSRH, nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy; CRH, conventional radical hysterectomy; SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval.

Pooled results for oncological outcome. NSRH, nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy; CRH, conventional radical hysterectomy; SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval.

Pooled results for 2-, 3- and 5-year OS and DFS. OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival; NSRH, nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy; CRH, conventional radical hysterectomy; CI, confidence interval.

Main characteristics of the included studies

First author Year Study design Evaluation Study period Patients, n CRH, n NSRH, n (Refs.)
Bogani 2014 CC PS 2004-2012 96 63 33 (21)
Ceccaroni 2012 CC RS 1997-2009 56 31 25 (22)
Chen 2012 RCT PS NS NS NS NS (12)
Chen 2014 RCT PS NS NS NS NS (23)
Ditto 2011 CC NS NS NS NS NS (25)
Ditto 2018 CC NS NS NS NS NS (26)
van Gent 2017 CC PS 1994-2005 246 124 122 (27)
Kuwabara 2000 CC PS 1993-1994 37 18 19 (28)
Liang 2010 CC PS 2006-2009 163 81 82 (29)
Liu 2016 CC PS 2011-2012 120 60 60 (30)
Makowski 2014 CC NS 2001-2012 73 53 20 (31)
Possover 2000 CC PS 1997-1999 38 28 10 (32)
Querleu 2002 CC RS 1991-1996 95 47 48 (33)
Raspagliesi 2006 CC PS NS 110 51 59 (34)
Raspagliesi 2017 CC PS 2009-2016 83 36 47 (35)
Roh 2015 RCT PS 2003-2005 86 40 46 (36)
Sakuragi 2005 CC PS 2000-2002 27 5 22 (37)
Shi 2016 CC RS 2003-2013 108 42 64 (38)
Skret-Magierlo 2010 CC PS 2007-2008 20 10 10 (39)
van den Tillaart 2009 CC PS 1994-1999 246 124 122 (40)
        2001-2005        
Tseng 2012 CC PS 2010-2011 30 12 18 (41)
Wu 2010 RCT PS 2007-2008 31 16 15 (11)
Yang 2016 CC PS 2012-2015 76 38 38 (42)

CC, case-control; PS, prospective study; RS, retrospective study; RCT, randomized controlled trial; NSRH nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy; CRH, conventional radical hysterectomy; NS, non-specified.