Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic staging and surgery for patients with cervical cancer. Methods We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM (from inception to 2009). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then the quality of included trials was accessed, and the data were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.0.2 software. Results Two RCTs involving 120 participants were included. The results of meta-analyses showed laparoscopic surgery, compared with open surgery, shortened postoperative ileus time (MD= –18.20, 95%CI –22.20 to –14.20, Plt;0.001), reduced the postoperative pain (MD= –1.30, 95%CI –1.86, to –0.74, Plt;0.001) and shortened the overall hospital stay (MD= –1.30, 95%CI –1.59 to –1.01, Plt;0.001). Currently, no evidence supported the superiority of laparoscopic surgery on duration of surgery, number of harvested lymph node and intraoperative blood loss over open surgery. Moreover, the laparoscopic surgery neither increased nor decreased the risk of postoperative complications. Conclusion The laparoscopic staging and surgery could shorten the recovery time of gastrointestinal function, shorten hospital stay, reduce pain in patients, but have no advantages in postoperative complications, operative time, number of lymph node biopsy, and intraoperative blood loss, compared with open surgery. However, the evidence is not b enough because of the low quality of the included studies. Thus, more high-quality RCTs are required in future.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant intraarterial chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced cervical cancer. Methods We searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, VIP, CNKI, CBMdisc, conference articles, and Ongoing Controlled Trial for Random Controlled Trials and quasi-Random Controlled Trials up to October 2009. For homogeneous studies, we performed meta-analysis. Results Fifteen studies involving 1 331 participants with advanced cervical cancer were included. Twelve studies showed that the efficacy of the NIC group was 6.72 times than that of the traditional group. Several studies showed that the survival rate of the NIC group was better than that of the traditional group. Meanwhile, the adverse events of the NIC group were fewer than those of the traditional group. Conclusions The results of this system review show that, NIC which is more effective than conventional treatments with less adverse reactions provides a new adjunct for clinical treatment of advanced cervical cancer . However, due to the current clinical treatment for the disease is the coexistence of multiple chemotherapy program status, the higher quality and more focused clinical research which will compare NIC with a variety of conventional chemotherapy are needed in the further.