Laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy: initial multi-institutional experience for treatment of invasive cervical cancer.

Study Objective: To describe the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of women with stage I cervical cancer treated with laparoendoscopic single-site surgery radical hysterectomy (LESS-RH).

Design: A retrospective descriptive study (Canadian Task Force classification III).

Setting: Multiple academic teaching hospitals.

Patients: Women with Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique FIGO stage IA1 to IB1 cervical cancer.

Interventions: LESS-RH as the primary therapy for cervical cancer performed by a gynecologic oncologist with expertise in LESS. A multichannel, single-port access device; a flexible-tipped 5-mm laparoscope; and a multifunctional instrument were used in all cases. Clinicopathologic, surgical, and perioperative outcomes were analyzed.

Measurements And Main Results: Twenty-two women were identified in whom a LESS-RH was attempted; 20 (91%) successfully underwent the procedure, including 19 in whom pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) was completed. Of the 2 converted procedures, 1 patient underwent 2-port laparoscopy secondary to truncal obesity, and 1 patient underwent conversion to laparotomy secondary to external iliac vein laceration during PLND. The median age and body mass index were 46 years and 23.3 kg/m(2), respectively. The median number of pelvic lymph nodes removed was 22. One patient experienced an intraoperative complication, and no patient required reoperation. The margins of excision were negative. One patient with 2 positive pelvic nodes and 1 patient with microscopic parametrial disease received adjuvant chemosensitized radiation; 3 additional patients received adjuvant radiation therapy secondary to an intermediate risk for recurrence. After a median follow up of 11 months, no recurrences were detected.

Conclusion: LESS-RH/PLND is feasible and safe for select patients with stage I cervical cancer. Larger studies are needed to confirm whether the increased technical difficulty of this procedure justifies its use in routine gynecologic oncology practice.