Evolution of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: a historical flashback and technical features

DOI

https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2022.258

Dymova A.V., Davydova I.Yu., Valiev R.K., Nurberdyev M.B., Ivanova L.B., Saryev M.N., Loginova E.А., Tizilova E.A.
A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow City Healthcare Department, Moscow, Russia

Extended radical hysterectomy (RAH) is one of the standard treatments for FIGO stage IA2–IIA cervical cancer (CC). Patients after RAH may develop complications associated with impaired autonomic innervation of the pelvic organs. Bladder and rectal dysfunction is a common complication after the standard radical hysterectomy and can significantly affect quality of life in the patients. Nerve-sparing RAH (NSRH) is a modified RAH designed to preserve the pelvic autonomic nerves, without substantially affecting the radicalness of the operation. The use of NSRH was initially limited due to the difficulties associated with the definition of anatomical structures and lack of data on the oncologic safety of nerve-sparing operations. The complex anatomy of the autonomic nerve plexuses of the pelvis is a sufficient problem for the surgeon, as it requires a comprehensive knowledge of the pelvic anatomy and the characteristics of innervation and blood supply to the cervix, vagina, and parametrial tissue, as well as the practical skills to visualize and select these anatomical structures. Knowledge of the topographic anatomy of the pelvis and a clear visualization of all anatomical regions are the only way to preserve important structures, such as the internal pelvic nerves, pelvic celiac nerves, hypogastric nerves, as well as the branches that fan out from the inferior hypogastric plexus, which innervate the bladder.
Conclusion: RAH makes it possible to maintain quality of life in patients with CC; however, its minimally invasive surgery reduces recurrence-free survival, despite a decline in the number of early postoperative complications and the length of hospital stay. Nevertheless, the role of laparoscopic and robot-assisted hysterectomies in the treatment of early CC continues to be studied worldwide; the categories of patients who can undergo endoscopic surgery having no negative impact on their survival are identified.

Authors’ contributions: Dymova A.V. – literature study and data collection, literature analysis, writing the text;
Davydova I.Yu. – formulation of the problem, development of the concept of the article, critical analysis of the literature;
Valiev R.K., Nurberdyev M.B., Ivanova L.B. – development of the concept of the article, critical analysis of the literature; Loginova E.А., Tizilova E.A., Saryev M.N. – formation of investigation conclusions, literature analysis.
Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Funding: There is no source of funding for this investigation.
For citation: Dymova A.V., Davydova I.Yu., Valiev R.K., Nurberdyev M.B.,
Ivanova L.B., Saryev M.N., Loginova E.А., Tizilova E.A. Evolution of nerve-sparing
radical hysterectomy: a historical flashback and technical features.
Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya/Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2023; (3): 14-20 (in Russian)
https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2022.258

cervical cancer

nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy

laparoscopic hysterectomy

robot-assisted surgery

extended radical hysterectomy

Full text (in Russian)

Burke W.M., Orr J., Leitao M., Salom E., Gehrig P., Olawaiye A.B. et al. Endometrial cancer: a review and current management strategies: part I. Gynecol. Oncol. 2014; 134(2): 385-92. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.05.018.
Cohen S.L., Vitonis A.F., Einarsson J.I. Updated hysterectomy surveillance and factors associated with minimally invasive hysterectomy. JSLS. 2014; 18(3): e2014.00096. https://dx.doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2014.00096.
Colombo N., Creutzberg C., Amant F., Bosse T., González-Martín A., Ledermann J. et al. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2016; 27(1): 16-41.https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv484.
AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. AAGL position statement: route of hysterectomy to treat benign uterine disease. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2011; 18(1): 1-3. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2010.10.001.
Advincula A.P., Wang K. Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2009; 16(3): 291-301. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2009.03.003.
Advincula A.P., Song A. The role of robotic surgery in gynecology. Curr. Opin. Obste.t. Gynecol. 2007; 19(4): 331-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e328216f90b.
Siegel R.L., Miller K.D., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2016; 66(1): 7-30. https://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.21332.
Bray F., Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Siegel R.L., Torre L.A., Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018; 68(6): 394-424. https://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492.
FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and corpus uteri. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2014; 125(2): 97‐8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.02.003.
Suprasert P., Srisomboon J., Charoenkwan K., Siriaree S., Cheewakriangkrai C., Kietpeerakool C. et al. Twelve years experience with radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in early stage cervical cancer. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2010; 30(3): 294-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/01443610903585192.
Hongladaromp W., Tantipalakorn C., Charoenkwan K., Srisomboon J. Locoregional spread and survival of stage IIA1 versus stage IIA2 cervical cancer. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2014; 15(2): 887‐90. https://dx.doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.2.887.
Mahawerawat S., Charoenkwan K., Srisomboon J., Khunamornpong S., Suprasert P., Sae‐Teng C.T. Surgical outcomes of patients with stage IA2 cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2013; 14(9): 5375-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2013.14.9.5375.
Laterza R.M., Sievert K.D., Ridder D., Vierhout M.E., Haab F., Cardozo L. et al.Bladder function after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2015; 34(4): 309‐15. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nau.22570.
Vizza E., Pellegrino A., Milani R., Fruscio R., Baiocco E., Cognetti F. et al.Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in locally advanced stage IB2-IIB cervical cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2011; 37(4): 364-9.https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2010.12.001.
Simsek T., Ozekinci M., Saruhan Z., Sever B., Pestereli E. Laparoscopic surgery compared to traditional abdominal surgery in the management of early stage cervical cancer. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol. 2012; 33(4): 395-8.
Ramirez P., Frumovitz M., Pareja R., López A., Vieira M., Ribeiro R. Phase III randomized trial of laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy vs. abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: LACC Trial. Gynecol .Oncol. 2918; 149(Suppl. 1): 245. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.04.552.
Charoenkwan K. A simplified technique for nerve‐sparing type III radical hysterectomy: by reorganizing their surgical sequence, surgeons could more easily identify key nerves. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 203(6): 600.e1‐6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.09.027.
Laterza R.M., Sievert K.D., Ridder D., Vierhout M.E., Haab F., Cardozo L. et al. Bladder function after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2015; 34(4): 309‐15. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nau.22570.
Katepratoom C., Manchana T., Amornwichet N. Lower urinary tract dysfunction and quality of life in cervical cancer survivors after concurrent chemoradiation versus radical hysterectomy. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2014; 25(1): 91‐6.https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2151-6.
Pieterse Q., Maas C., ter Kuile M., Lowik M., van Eijkeren M.A., Trimbos J.B., Kenter G.G. An observational longitudinal study to evaluate miction, defecation, and sexual function after radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2006; 16(3): 1119-29. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00461.x.
Meigs J.V. Radical hysterectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissections; a report of 100 patients operated on five or more years ago. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1951; 62(4): 854-70. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(51)90175-5.
Meigs J.V. Radical hysterectomy with bilateral dissection of the pelvic lymph nodes for cancer of the cervix (the Wertheim, Reis, Clark, Wertheim-Meigs operation). Surg. Clin. North Am. 1956 Aug.; 1083-116.https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0039-6109(16)34948-9.
Querleu D., Cibula D., Abu-Rustum N.R. 2017 Update on the querleu-morrow classification of radical hysterectomy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2017; 24(11): 3406-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6031-z.
Bogani G., Cromi A., Uccella S., Serati M., Casarin J., Pinelli C. et al. Nerve-sparing versus conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a minimum 12 months’ follow-up study. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2014; 24(4): 787-93.https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000110.
Basaran D., Dusek L., Majek O., Cibula D. Oncological outcomes of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015; 22(9): 3033-40. https://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4377-7.
Ditto A., Martinelli F., Mattana F., Reato C., Solima E., Carcangiu M. et al. Class III nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy versus standard class III radical hysterectomy: an observational study. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2011; 18(12): 3469-78. https://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1767-3.
Kuwabara Y., Suzuki M., Hashimoto M., Furugen Y., Yoshida K., Mitsuhashi N. New method to prevent bladder dysfunction after radical hysterectomy for uterine cervical cancer. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2000; 26(1): 1-8.https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2000.tb01192.x.
Sakamoto S., Takizawa K. An improved radical hysterectomy with fewer urological complications and with no loss of therapeutic results for invasive cervical cancer. Baillieres Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1988; 2(4): 953-62.https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0950-3552(98)80022-9.
Yabuki Y., Asamoto A., Hoshiba T., Nishimoto H., Nishikawa Y., Nakajima T.Radical hysterectomy: an anatomic evaluation of parametrial dissection. Gynecol. Oncol. 2000; 77(1): 155-63. https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1999.5723.
Sakuragi N., Todo Y., Kudo M., Yamamoto R., Sato T. A systematic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy technique in invasive cervical cancer for preserving postsurgical bladder function. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2005; 15(2): 389-97. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2005.15236.x.
Querleu D., Morrow C.P. Classification of radical hysterectomy. Lancet Oncol. 2008; 9(3): 297-303. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70074-3.
Ercoli A., Delmas V., Gadonneix P., Fanfani F., Villet R., Paparella P. et al. Classical and nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: an evaluation of the risk of injury to the autonomous pelvic nerves. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2003; 25(3-4):200-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00276-003-0137-7.
Gil-Ibáñez B., Díaz-Feijoo B., Pérez-Benavente A., Puig-Puig O., Franco-Camps S., Centeno C. et al. Nerve sparing technique in robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy: results. Int. J. Med. Robot. 2013; 9(3): 339-44.https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1480.
Chen C., Li W., Li F., Liu P., Zhou J., Lu L. et al. Classical and nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: an evaluation of the nerve trauma in cardinal ligament. Gynecol. Oncol. 2012; 125(1): 245-51. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.12.448.
van Gent M.D.J.M., Rademaker M., van der Veer J.C.B., Gaarenstroom K.N., Putter H., Trimbos J.B.M.Z., de Kroon C.D. Long-term oncological outcome after conventional radical hysterectomy versus 2 nerve-sparing modalities for early stage cervical cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2017; 27(8): 1729-36. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000001067.
Huber S.A., Northington G.M., Karp D.R. Bowel and bladder dysfunction following surgery within the presacral space: an overview of neuroanatomy, function, and dysfunction. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2015; 26(7): 941‐6.https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2572-x.
de Groat W.C., Griffiths D., Yoshimura N. Neural control of the lower urinary tract. Compr. Physiol. 2015; 5(1): 327-96. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cphy.c130056.
Ayhan A., Reed N., Gultekin M., Dursun P., eds. Textbook of gynaecological oncology. Günes: Ankara; 2012.
Yabuki Y., Asamoto A., Hoshiba T., Nishimoto H., Satou N. A new proposal for radical hysterectomy. Gynecol. Oncol. 1996; 62(3): 370-8.https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1996.0251.
Sakuragi N., Murakami G., Konno Y., Kaneuchi M., Watari H. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in the precision surgery for cervical cancer. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2020; 31(3): e49. https://dx.doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2020.31.e49.
Fujii S., Sekiyama K. Precise neurovascular anatomy for radical hysterectomy. Singapore: Springer; 2020.
Lee Y.H., Kim M.K., Moon H.Y., Chong G.O., Lee H.J., Lee Y.S. et al. Proteomic analysis of pelvic autonomic nerve in nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical carcinoma. Cancer Genomics Proteomics. 2018; 15(4): 337-42.https://dx.doi.org/10.21873/cgp.20092
Kraima A.C., Derks M., Smit N.N., van de Velde C.J., Kenter G.G., DeRuiter M.C. Careful dissection of the distal ureter is highly important in nerve-sparing radical pelvic surgery: a 3D reconstruction and immunohistochemical characterization of the vesical plexus. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2016; 26(5): 959-66.https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000709.
Kyo S., Kato T., Nakayama K. Current concepts and practical techniques of nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016; 207: 80-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.10.033.
Raspagliesi F., Ditto A., Fontanelli R., Solima E., Hanozet F., Zanaboni F., Kusamura S. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: a surgical technique for preserving the autonomic hypogastric nerve. Gynecol. Oncol. 2004; 93(2):307-14. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.01.048.
Possover M., Stöber S., Plaul K., Schneider A. Identification and preservation of the motoric innervation of the bladder in radical hysterectomy type III. Gynecol. Oncol. 2000; 79(2): 154-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2000.5919.
Gottschalk E., Lanowska M., Chiantera V., Marnitz S., Schneider A., Brink-Spalink V. et al. Vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: rationale, technique, results. JSLS. 2011; 15(4): 451-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.4293/108680811X13176785203879.
Zhao D., Li B., Wang Y., Liu S., Zhang Y., Zhang G. Limited energy parametrial resection/dissection during modified laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Chin. J. Cancer Res. 2018; 30(6): 647-55.https://dx.doi.org/10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2018.06.09.
Carlander J., Koch C., Brudin L., Nordborg C., Gimm O., Johansson K. Heat production, nerve function, and morphology following nerve close dissection with surgical instruments. World J. Surg. 2012; 36(6): 1361-7.https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1471-x.
Carlander J., Johansson K., Lindström S., Velin A.K., Jiang C.H., Nordborg C.Comparison of experimental nerve injury caused by ultrasonically activated scalpel and electrosurgery. Br. J. Surg. 2005; 92(6): 772-7.https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4948.
Wu J., Liu X., Hua K., Hu C., Chen X., Lu X. Effect of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy on bladder function recovery and quality of life in patients with cervical carcinoma. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2010; 20(5): 905-9.https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181df99c0.

Received 01.11.2022

Accepted 02.02.2023

Alisa V. Dymova, obstetrician-gynecologist at the Department of Oncosurgery of the Pelvic Organs, Loginov MCSC, Moscow City Healthcare Department, +7(967)066-02-06, a.dymova@mknc.ru, 111123, Russia, Moscow, Enthusiastov Highway str., 86.
Irina Yu. Davydova, Dr. Med. Sci., Leading Researcher at the Department of Oncosurgery of the Pelvic Organs, Loginov MCSC, Moscow City Healthcare Department, +7(903)199-07-46, i.davydova@mknc.ru, 111123, Russia, Moscow, Enthusiastov Highway str., 86.
Ramiz K. Valiev, PhD, Head of the Department of Oncosurgery of the Pelvic Organs, Loginov MCSC, Moscow City Healthcare Department, +7(926)359-20-60, radiosurgery@bk.ru, 111123, Russia, Moscow, Enthusiastov Highway str., 86.
Maksat B. Nurberdyev, PhD, Leading Researcher at the Department of Oncosurgery of the Pelvic Organs, Loginov MCSC, Moscow City Healthcare Department,
+7(926)125-84-88, m.nurberdyev@mknc.ru, 111123, Russia, Moscow, Enthusiastov Highway str., 86.
Larisa B. Ivanova, PhD, Head of the Laboratory of Gynecology, Loginov MCSC, Moscow City Healthcare Department, +7(916)353-25-83, l.ivanova@mknc.ru,
111123, Russia, Moscow, Enthusiastov Highway str., 86.
Mukhammedsakhet N. Saryev, Oncologist at the Department of Oncosurgery of the Pelvic Organs, Loginov MCSC, Moscow City Healthcare Department, +7(905)787-01-00, m.saryev@mknc.ru, 111123, Russia, Moscow, Enthusiastov Highway str., 86.
Ekaterina A. Loginova, PhD, obstetrician-gynecologist at the Gynecology Laboratory, Loginov MCSC, Moscow City Healthcare Department, +7(985)182-28-58,
e.loginova@mknc.ru, 111123, Russia, Moscow, Enthusiastov Highway str., 86.
Evgenia A. Tizilova, Oncologist at the Department of Oncosurgery of the Pelvic Organs, Loginov MCSC, Moscow City Healthcare Department, +7(903)788-72-61,
e.tizilova@mknc.ru, 111123, Russia, Moscow, Enthusiastov Highway str., 86.

Evolution of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: a historical flashback and technical features

Dymova A.V., Davydova I.Yu., Valiev R.K., Nurberdyev M.B., Ivanova L.B., Saryev M.N., Loginova E.А., Tizilova E.A.

Keywords

References

About the Authors

Similar Articles