Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy.
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy within an enhanced recovery programme
IRAS ID
140823
Contact name
Robert Macdonald
Contact email
Research summary
This study is aiming to compare conventional surgery with keyhole surgery for the treatment of cervical cancer, when both are carried out alongside ways to improve recovery.
Surgery is one of the main treatments for early cervical cancer. Conventional surgery includes a cut in the abdomen and is called laparotomy or open surgery. During the last decade the same treatment can be performed with keyhole surgery which is called laparoscopic. During the same time a multimodal approach known as an enhanced recovery programme, have led to major changes in perioperative care. Enhanced recovery programme includes a series of measures aiming to better control symptoms as pain or nausea following surgery and evidence show that this leads to faster recovery.Evidence suggest that keyhole surgery is as good and as safe as open surgery for treating cervical cancer.
Strong evidence suggests that keyhole surgery for endometrial cancer (i.e total laparoscopic hysterectomy), improve clinical outcomes compared to open surgery. Surgery for cervical cancer though is more extensive than that for endometrial.
There is lack of strong evidence to assess if keyhole surgery for cervical cancer (Radical laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection), is equally effective in improving clinical outcomes especially within an enhanced recovery programme.
This study wants to provide preliminary data in answering the question if keyhole surgery for cervical cancer is better at helping people recover sooner with a comparable cost to open surgery.
REC name
East Midlands - Leicester South Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
14/EM/0100
Date of REC Opinion
22 Feb 2014
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion