4.6 Article

Classical and nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: An evaluation of the nerve trauma in cardinal ligament

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 125, 期 1, 页码 245-251

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.12.448

关键词

Cervical cancer; Radical hysterectomy; Nerve-sparing technique; Cardinal ligament; Biological stereology

资金

  1. Guangdong Province Science and Technology Plan project [2009B0301227]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. This study evaluated histopathology and clinical outcome of autonomic nerve trauma and vessels removal within the cardinal ligament (CL) during nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) compared with radical hysterectomy (RH). Methods. 25 women with FIGO stage Ib1-IIa cervical cancer underwent RH (n = 13) or NSRH (n = 12). Removed CLs lengths were measured. Biopsies were collected from the proximal, middle and distal segment of CLs and fixed. Different markers were used for immunohistochemisty analysis: tyrosine hydroxylase for sympathetic nerves; vasoactive intestinal polypeptide for parasympathetic nerves; CD34 for blood vessels; and D2-40 for lymphatic vessels. The volume density (Vv), a parameter of biological stereology, was used to quantitatively measure CL components, while post-operative functions, such as defecation, micturition and two-year disease free survival in RH and NSRH groups were compared. Results. The nerves mainly existed in the middle and distal segments of CLs. The Vv was greater in RH compared with NSRH for both sympathetic and parasympathetic nerve markers (P<0.05), while the Vv of blood and lymphatic vessels were same in the two groups. Average time to achieve residual urine <= 50 ml and first defecation were shorter in NSRH than in RH (P<0.05). Conclusions. Less autonomic nerves within CL are transected in NSRH than in RH, while blood/lymphatic vessels are efficiently removed in both treatments. Compared to RH, NSRH decreases iatrogenic injury, which leads to reduced post-operative co-morbidities, with ensure the same radicality. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据