Schauta-Amreich Operation vs Piver II Procedure with Pelvic Lymphadenectomy for Cervical Cancer

INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to compare two groups of patients with early stage cervical cancer who underwent either abdominal or vaginal surgery, in terms of post-operative findings and survival. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY 55 patients with diagnosed cervical cancer were retrospectively selected for this study. They were preoperatively staged according to FIGO criteria. Forty four patients had disease between stages Ib and IIa with no evidence of extra-pelvic lymph node involvement and 10 patients had stage ≥ IIb. RESULTS Of the 55 patients, 17 had been operated by Schauta-Amreich radical vaginal hysterectomy and 38 by Piver type II abdominal hysterectomy. No significant statistical differences have been found between two groups about age (median age was 49 for Schauta and 54 for Piver p=0.494) and parity of the patients (Median parity was 2 (range: 0-5) for Piver II group and 1 (range: 0-4) for Schauta group (p=0.607)) and about histotype and stage of the cervical cancer (34 patients with squamous cell carcinoma among Piver II Group vs 16 patients from Schauta Group; 4 women with adenocarcinoma from Piver II Group vs 1 subject from the Schauta Group; p value 1.000). Among the two groups there were significant statistical differences regarding the mean operative time (86 ± 28 minutes for Vaginal surgery and 115 ± 31 minutes for Abdominal surgery, p=0.038) and the average hospital stay (8.65 ± 4.42 days for abdominal surgery and 5.65 ± 2.3 days for vaginal surgery, p=0.020). Significant statistical difference was reported as regarding adjuvant RT, increased in the Piver II group with respect to the Schauta group (22 vs 4 pts; p=0.028). The survival rate at 5-years was without significant difference between the two groups (23 patients frof Piver II Group vs 11 patients from Schauta Group, p=0.510). DISCUSSION This study confirms the benefits of the Schauta-Amreich vaginal radical hysterectomy in terms of hospital stay, mean operative time and early complications. CONCLUSION We believe that this surgery is a plausible alternative to radical abdominal hysterectomy and could be considered to be a valid approach for the treatment of patients with cervical neoplasms, but still randomized trials are needed on this topic with respect to the ethical issues involved.