Practice patterns and complications of hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial

Background: After the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial, the standard surgical approach for early-stage cervical cancer is open radical hysterectomy. Only limited data were available regarding whether the change to open abdominal hysterectomy observed after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial led to an increase in postoperative complication rates as a consequence of the decrease in the use of the minimally invasive approach. Objective: This study aimed to analyze whether there was a correlation between the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial and an increase in the 30-day complications associated with surgical treatment of invasive cervical cancer. Study Design: Data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program were used to compare the results in the pre–Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (January 2016 to December 2017) vs the results in the post–Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (January 2019 to December 2020). The rates of each surgical approach (open abdominal or minimally invasive) hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer during the 2 periods were assessed. Subsequently, 30-day major complication, minor complication, unplanned hospital readmission, and intra- or postoperative transfusion rates before and after the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial were compared. Results: Overall, 3024 patients undergoing either open abdominal hysterectomy or minimally invasive hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer were included in the study. Of the patients, 1515 (50.1%) were treated in the pre–Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period, and 1509 (49.9%) were treated in the post–Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period. The rate of minimally invasive approaches decreased significantly from 75.6% (1145/1515) in the pre–Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period to 41.1% (620/1509) in the post–Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period, whereas the rate of open abdominal approach increased from 24.4% (370/1515) in the pre–Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period to 58.9% (889/1509) in the post–Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (P<.001). The overall 30-day major complications remained stable between the pre–Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (85/1515 [5.6%]) and the post–Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (74/1509 [4.9%]) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.61–1.17). The overall 30-day minor complications were similar in the pre–Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (103/1515 [6.8%]) vs the post–Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (120/1509 [8.0%]) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.89–1.55). The unplanned hospital readmission rate remained stable during the pre–Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (7.9% per 30 person-days) and during the post–Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (6.3% per 30 person-days) (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.58–1.04)]. The intra- and postoperative transfusion rates increased significantly from 3.8% (58/1515) in the pre–Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period to 6.7% (101/1509) in the post–Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (adjusted odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.27–2.53). Conclusion: This study observed a significant shift in the surgical approach for invasive cervical cancer after the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial, with a reduction in the minimally invasive abdominal approach and an increase in the open abdominal approach. The change in surgical approach was not associated with an increase in the rate of 30-day major or minor complications and unplanned hospital readmission, although it was associated with an increase in the transfusion rate.