Comparison of Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy and Radical Hysterectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS Radical hysterectomy (RH) for the treatment of cervical cancer frequently caused pelvic organ dysfunctions. This study aimed to compare the results of pelvic organ function and recurrence rate after Nerve sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) and RH treatment through systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS PubMed, Web of Science and China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database were searched from inception to 25 February 2015. Studies of cervical cancer which reported radical hysterectomy or nerve sparing radical hysterectomy were included. The quality of included studies was evaluated using the guidelines of Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software (Cochrane Collaboration). RESULTS A total of 20 studies were finally included. Meta-analysis demonstrated that NSRH was associated with less bladder and anorectal dysfunction than RH. The time to bladder and anorectal function recovery after NSRH was shorter than RH. Patients undergoing NSRH also scored higher than patients undergoing RH at Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). On the other hand, the local recurrence and overall recurrence rate were similar between NSRH and RH. CONCLUSION NSRH may be an effective technique for lowering pelvic organ dysfunction and improving the function recovery without increasing the recurrence rate of cervical cancer.