title: Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To investigate the value of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer by comparing intraoperative and postoperative outcomes with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the Medline, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, through February 2, 2016 with keywords of "laparoscopic OR laparoscopy" AND "radical hysterectomy OR early cervical cancer OR stage IB, stage IB1, stage IB2, stage IIA, stage IIA1, stage IIA2, stage IIA cervical cancer" to identify all relevant studies that compared LRH with ARH in treating early cervical cancer. Two reviewers evaluated the quality of literature independently. Standardized tables were used to extract data (study or participant details and results) from the texts, tables, figures, or any other attachments of eligible publications. Weighted mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs) were pooled with the random effects model. Then we conducted meta-analysis using the RevMan5.3 software.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 615 studies were initially identified. After screening, 23 studies, including 4205 patients were recruited. LRH was associated with lower estimated blood loss (mL) (MD = -178.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -214.89 to -141.94, P < .00001), longer operation time (minutes) (MD = 43.68, 95% CI = 29.42-57.95, P < .00001), fewer retrieved lymph nodes (MD = -3.44, 95% CI = -5.96 to -0.92, P = .007), shorter hospital stay (day) (MD = -3.17, 95% CI = -4.06 to -2.29, P < .00001), quicker return to normal bowel activity (day) (MD = -0.7, 95% CI = -0.96 to -0.45, P < .00001), and shorter duration of bladder catheterization (day) (MD = -1.69, 95% CI = -2.83 to -0.55, P < .004) than ARH. LRH also demonstrated lower odds of transfusion (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30-0.73, P = .0007), and ileus (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.12-0.91, P = .03) than ARH.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  LRH outweighs ARH in treating early stage cervical cancer in most essential aspects, which should arouse sufficient attention.
authors.affiliation: 1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital , Beijing, China .|2 Biological Sciences & Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California , Berkeley, California.
authors.forename: Yue
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Zhao
authors.affiliation: 2 Biological Sciences & Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California , Berkeley, California.
authors.forename: Bo
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Hang
authors.affiliation: 3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Third Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University , Chongqing, China .
authors.forename: Guang-Wu
authors.initials: GW
authors.lastname: Xiong
authors.affiliation: 1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital , Beijing, China .
authors.forename: Xiao-Wei
authors.initials: XW
authors.lastname: Zhang
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007044:Hysterectomy / Q000379:methods; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000379:methods; D008198:Lymph Nodes / Q000473:pathology; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D002583:Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*
keywords: ARH; LRH; cervical cancer; meta-analysis