Skip to main content

Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic pelvic and paraaortic staging for early endometrial cancer


While abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy is still considered the gold standard for the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer, the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) plus laparoscopic lymphadenectomy has been performed in FIGO stage I endometrial cancer in selected centers for about a decade. Clinical studies have shown that the frequency of intra- and postoperative complications, the pelvic and paraaortic lymph node yield, and—more importantly—the overall survival, are similar both with the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal approach and the abdominal approach in stage I disease. Blood loss and duration of hospital stay may even be reduced with the LAVH. In summary, provided there is compliance with established oncologic guidelines, LAVH with pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy can probably be performed in patients with endometrial cancer FIGO stage I without safety loss.


Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy. Annually, about 42,000 women die from this disease worldwide [1]. In Germany [2] and the United States [3] estimated incidences of approximately 12,000 and 36,000 new patients per year, respectively, have been published. The mean age at diagnosis is 68 years [1, 2]. However, 4% of all patients with endometrial cancer are younger than 40 years of age [4]. The surgical treatment—if feasible—is preferred over primary radiation therapy at all stages of the disease [37].

Owing to the risk profile of the typical patient with type I endometrial cancer, the surgeon is often faced with a number of problems as follows: older age, obesity, hypertension, and other associated morbidity [69]. Median laparotomy with hysterectomy, salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy (LAE)—according to stage and risk factors—is considered the therapeutic gold standard [3, 57]. In cases of marked obesity and morbidity, the vaginal approach for hysterectomy - from a surgical point of view - may be the more favorable one [8, 9]. However, vaginal hysterectomy—from an oncologic point of view—is considered less safe in endometrial cancer, with the following arguments being asserted. First, both inspection and palpation of the abdomen, peritoneal surfaces, and the liver are impossible. Second, in large uteri morcellation may be necessary with potential opening of the tumor and cell spillage. Third, pelvic and paraaortic lymph nodes can neither be assessed by palpation nor be removed—if indicated. Fourth, occasionally, removal of the adnexa by the vaginal route is difficult, and, finally, some authors have reported an increased rate of vaginal cuff recurrences after vaginal hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Consequently, the abdominal, open technique has been established as the surgical approach of choice for endometrial cancer [3, 4, 6, 10, 11]. Having said that, in a retrospective study, Massi et al. [12] compared 180 patients with endometrial cancer FIGO stage I who were operated on vaginally with a group of 147 similar patients who underwent the abdominal approach (106 of whom with LAE). Interestingly, 5- and 10-year survival were 90 and 87% vs. 91 and 90% for the vaginal and the abdominal group, respectively, (not significant). Both LAE and adjuvant radiation therapy were not correlated with the survival in that study [12].

With the development of the laparoscopic technique for the exploration of the abdomen and pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection, the combination of vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopy would seem to be the thing to do in selected cases of early endometrial cancer [13, 14]. However, the laparoscopic approach is also being viewed critically in oncologic indications with problems of the laparoscopic management of complex adnexal masses being transferred to other oncologic entities [15, 16]. More specifically, there is concern that a laparoscopic LAE may cause tumor cell spillage, and that port site recurrences may be increased [17]. On the other hand, this observation (i.e., abdominal wall recurrence) is known from the open approach as well [18, 19]. The authors would like to refer to the ongoing extensive debate on this problem regarding ovarian tumors [15, 16].

Review of the literature

In a systematic search of the scientific literature (PubMed), publications on the laparoscopic-assisted approach to endometrial cancer have been identified. So far, more than 600 patients have been included in such studies [14]. Since 1992, several authors have emphasized the good technical feasibility of laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) with laparoscopic LAE for proper surgical staging of endometrial cancer. These feasibility studies were primarily based on the experience with cervical cancer [2022]. For the laparoscopic LAE, it must be remembered that there is a considerable learning curve [23, 24]. Altogether, most of the investigators consider the LAVH ± laparoscopic pelvic and paraaortic LAE for endometrial cancer an attractive alternative to the open surgical approach [2530].

These pilot studies were followed by clinical comparisons of the two approaches (Table 1). In the present studies, reduced hospitalization, shorter convalescence, reduced blood loss (resulting in a better quality of life), fewer postoperative complications—but longer operating times—have been described as the advantages—and disadvantage— of LAVH [14, 18, 3145]. Some studies have dealt with the cost. While the overall reduced cost of LAVH were presented in one study [31], other authors have even found increased charges [36]—and still others have found no difference [34]. In his review paper, Holub [14] has summarized that the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal approach to endometrial cancer is as safe as the conventional open one. Among the papers looked at, there was only one prospective randomized series [18, 46]. In a recently published investigation, significantly fewer postoperative complications were shown for the LAVH group—this tendency was especially pronounced in the subgroup with associated morbidity (e.g., obesity) [41].

Table 1 Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) ±  lymphadenectomy (LAE) vs. laparotomy ± LAE in the treatment of early endometrial cancer

The main criterion for the treatment of malignant tumors is survival. In this respect, 11 studies have been identified—one of which is a prospective, randomized trial [18, 46]—with no difference regarding recurrence rate and overall survival compared with the open approach being found [18, 40, 42, 43, 4753]. Chu et al. [10] have reported three patients with vaginal cuff recurrence after LAVH for endometrial cancer, warning not to implement this surgical method too fast (Table 2).

Table 2 Follow-up, recurrence, and survival after LAVH ± LAE compared with laparotomy ± LAE for early endometrial cancer

There are further potential indications for performing a laparoscopy in endometrial cancer. For instance, some researchers are working on the development of sentinel lymph node detection in this malignancy [54]. Others recommend a staging laparoscopy like that for advanced cervical cancer [55] in order to exclude intraabdominal manifestations in very early endometrial cancer if a uterus-preserving procedure is planned in women who wish to preserve their fertility [56]. As these measures are still experimental, they should only be used within clinical trials.

Surgical management

Based on the systematic investigations by the groups of Hatch and Childers et al. [13, 20, 25], Eltabbakh et al. [8, 23, 36, 49], Holub et al. [9, 14, 38, 48, 54], Magrina et al. [47, 50], and Schneider et al. [18, 41, 46, 51, 57, 58] surgical measures are recommended as described below. In general, outside clinical studies LAVH ± LAE should be restricted to cases deemed FIGO stage I [3]. (This is not the place to address the question as to whether or not endometrial cancer FIGO stage IIB requires a radical hysterectomy (Piver II/III), be it as an open procedure or as Schauta’s operation [5, 7, 18, 46, 51, 59].)

At first, it should be checked by pelvic examination under anesthesia whether or not a vaginal approach to the hysterectomy seems to be feasible. Upon laparoscopy, both the parietal and the visceral peritoneal surfaces, the liver, the diaphragm, and the pelvic lymph node regions are thoroughly inspected, and the uterine size is assessed again. If there are no peritoneal manifestations of the disease, and if the indication for the LAE is already clear at this point, the surgeon may want to start with the systematic removal of the pelvic and paraaortic lymph nodes (see below). However, the first step of the operation should be the bipolar coagulation of the fallopian tubes in order to prevent potential retrograde dissemination of tumor cells. For the laparoscopic part of the hysterectomy, the round ligaments are coagulated and cut, and the retroperitoneal space opened. The ureter is identified and the infundibulopelvic ligaments coagulated and cut while the adnexa remain connected to the uterus. Some authors prefer the laparoscopic mobilization of the uterus down to level of the ascending branch of the uterine artery including the dissection of the vesicocervical and rectovaginal septum; others even like to coagulate or clip the uterine artery at its origin from the internal iliac artery; and still others would at the point mentioned above proceed with the vaginal part of the operation. It seems to be important to stress that the uterine fundus should not be grasped with tenacula while being removed vaginally in order to leave it intact. As an alternative to the LAVH, a total laparoscopic hysterectomy is performed in some centers [39, 40, 52]. The vagina is closed vaginally or laparoscopically, respectively.

The laparoscopic pelvic and paraaortic LAE has been well standardized by a number of groups, and the authors would like to refer to the scientific literature [57, 58]. According to the latest Guidelines for the Management of Endometrial Cancer by the Task Force “Uterus” of the Gynecologic Oncology Study Group (AGO) of the German Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology [5] the indications for the systematic pelvic and paraaortic LAE are as follows [37, 51]. With the exception of tumor stages pT1a and pT1b, grading 1–2 where the LAE is considered optional, the LAE is to be performed at all other stages of endometrioid adenocarcinoma. For the serous and clear cell forms of endometrial cancer, the LAE plus omentectomy is indicated at all stages as these histological forms are considered “high grade” by definition, having a more aggressive malignant potential.

If the indication for LAE is only clear after the definite histologic examination, i.e., if the tumor is being upstaged on definite histology, the LAE should be performed during a second session [30]. Likewise, if endometrial cancer is found incidentally after a hysterectomy for another reason, the secondary laparoscopic LAE is a good procedure.

Potential contraindications

Stages higher than FIGO I should only be treated by LAVH within clinical studies [3]. Pathological findings concerning the adnexa, relevant adhesions that make a vaginal hysterectomy difficult, fixed uteri and narrow vagina are considered contraindications [47]. A large uterus clearly requiring vaginal morcellation in order to be removed—based on our current understanding—is obviously an absolute contraindication to LAVH in endometrial cancer.


Compared with the conventional surgical approach using laparotomy, reduced blood loss and reduced hospital stay can be stated as the advantage of the laparoscopic-assisted approach. As yet, based on published studies, these results apply to FIGO stage I. There is no difference between the laparoscopic and the open technique with regard to the number of lymph nodes harvested. For laparoscopic LAE, a considerable learning curve must be taken into account. Also, initially, a longer operating time should be considered.

Hitherto, there have been no reports in the scientific literature describing a worse prognosis (i.e., with regard to recurrence rate, overall survival) for LAVH ± LAE compared with laparotomy ± LAE in FIGO stage I endometrial cancer [53, 60]. Long-term results of large, prospective, randomized trials with sufficient statistical power are lacking though [3, 18, 51]. Such a phase III study (with 2,100 planned patients) is currently being conducted by the Gynecologic Oncology Group [61].


  1. 1.

    Amant F, Moerman P, Neven P, Timmerman D, Van Limbergen E, Vergote I (2005) Endometrial cancer. Lancet 366:491–505

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Schubert-Frischle G, Engel J, Hölzel D (2000) Epidemiologie. In: Kimmig R (ed) Malignome des Corpus uteri. Empfehlungen zur Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Tumorzentrums München, 2nd edn. Zuckschwerdt, Munich, pp 3–8

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Sabbatini PJ, Alektiar KM, Barakat RR (2000) Endometrial cancer. In: Barakat RR, Bevers MW, Gershenson DM, Hoskins WJ (eds) Handbook of gynecologic oncology. Dunitz, London, pp 265–278

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Schmidt-Matthiesen H, Bastert G, Wallwiener D (2000) Gynäkologische Onkologie. Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge der bösartigen Genitaltumoren und des Mammakarzinoms, 6th edn. Schattauer, Stuttgart, pp 53–65

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kommission Uterus der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (2006) Leitlinie Endometriumkarzinom.

  6. 6.

    Baltzer J (2004) Standards der operativen Therapie des Endometriumkarzinoms. Gyn Prakt Gynäkol 9:174–177

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kolben M, Höß C (2000) Operative Therapie des Endometriumkarzinoms. In: Kimmig R (ed) Malignome des corpus uteri. Empfehlungen zur Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Tumorzentrums München, 2nd edn. Zuckschwerdt, Munich, pp 31–36

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Eltabbakh GH, Shamonki MI, Moody JM, Garafano LL (2000) Hysterectomy for obese women with endometrial cancer: laparoscopy or laparotomy? Gynecol Oncol 78:329–335

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Holub Z, Bartos P, Jabor A, Eim J, Fischlova D, Kliment L (2000) Laparoscopic surgery in obese women with endometrial cancer. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 7:83–88

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Chu CS, Randall TC, Bandera CA, Rubin SC (2003) Vaginal cuff recurrence of endometrial cancer treated by laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol 88:62–65

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Creasman WT, Morrow C, Bundy BN, Homesley HD, Graham JE, Heller PB (1987) Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer. A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Cancer 60:2035–2041

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Massi G, Savino L, Susini T (1996) Vaginal hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of stage I endometrial adenocarcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174:1320–1326

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Childers JM, Surwit EA (1992) Combined laparoscopic and vaginal surgery for the management of two cases of stage I endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 45:46–51

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Holub Z (2003) The role of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 30:7–12

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Berek JS (1995) Ovarian cancer spread: is laparoscopy to blame? Lancet 346:200

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ulrich U, Paulus W, Schneider A, Keckstein J (2000) Laparoscopic surgery for complex ovarian masses. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 7:373–380

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Sanjuan A, Hernandez S, Pahisa J, Ayuso JR, Torne A, Martinez Roman S, Lejarcegui JA, Ordi J, Vanrell JA (2005) Port-site metastasis after laparoscopic surgery for endometrial carcinoma: two case reports. Gynecol Oncol 96:539–542

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Malur S, Steinmetz I, Possover M, Schneider A (2002) Laparoskopisch assistierte vaginale versus abdominale Operationstechnik bei Patientinnen mit Endometriumkarzinom—eine prospektiv randomisierte Studie. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 62:446–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Chen CC, Straughn JM Jr, Kilgore LC (2004) Early abdominal incision recurrence in a patient with stage I adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Obstet Gynecol 104:1170–1172

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Childers JM, Hatch K, Surwit EA (1992) The role of laparoscopic lymphadenectomy in the management of cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 47:38–43

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Dargent D (1987) A new future for Schauta’s operation through pre-surgical retroperitoneal pelviscopy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 8:292–296

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Schneider A, Possover M, Kamprath S, Endisch U, Krause N, Nöschel H (1996) Laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy modified according to Schauta-Stoeckel. Obstet Gynecol 88:1057–1060

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Eltabbakh GH (2000) Effect of surgeon’s experience on the surgical outcome of laparoscopic surgery for women with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 78:58–61

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Melendez TD, Childers JM, Nour M, Harrigill K, Surwit EA (1997) Laparoscopic staging of endometrial cancer: the learning experience. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 1:45–49

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Childers JM, Brzechffa PR, Hatch KD, Surwit EA (1993) Laparoscopically assisted surgical staging (LASS) of endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 51:33–38

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Mage G, Bournazeau JA, Canis M, Glowaczower E, Masson FN, Raiga J, Wattiez A, Pouly JL, Bruhat MA (1995) Le traitement des adenocarcinomes de l’endomètre stade I clinique par coeliochirurgie. A propos de 17 cas. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 24:485–490

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Kadar N (1997) Preliminary prospective observations on the laparoscopic management of endometrial carcinoma using the two-stage approach to aortic lymphadenectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 4:443–448

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Bidzinski M, Mettler L, Zielinski J (1998) Endoscopic lymphadenectomy and LAVH in the treatment of endometrial cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 19:32–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Lim BK, Lavie O, Bolger B, Lopes T, Monaghan JM (2000) The role of laparoscopic surgery in the management of endometrial cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 107:24–27

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Homesley HD, Boike G, Spiegel GW (2004) Feasibility of laparoscopic management of presumed stage I endometrial carcinoma and assessment of accuracy of myoinvasion estimates by frozen section: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 14:341–347

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Spirtos NM, Schlaerth JB, Gross GM, Spirtos TW, Schlaerth AC, Ballon SC (1996) Cost and quality-of-life analyses of surgery for early endometrial cancer: laparotomy versus laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174:1795–1800

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Hidlebaugh DA, Orr RK (1997) Staging endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Clinical and financial comparison of laparoscopic and traditional approaches. J Reprod Med 42:482–488

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Gemignani ML, Curtin JP, Zelmanovich J, Patel DA, Venkatraman RR (1999) Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: clinical outcomes and hospital charges. Gynecol Oncol 73:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Scribner DR Jr, Mannel RS, Walker JL, Johnson GA (1999) Cost analysis of laparoscopy versus laparotomy for early endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 75:460–463

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Holub Z, Bartos P, Dorr A, Eim J, Jabor A, Kliment L Jr (1999) The role of laparoscopic hysterectomy and lymph node dissection in the treatment of endometrial cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 20:268–271

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Eltabbakh GH, Shamonki MI, Moody JM, Garafano LL (2001) Laparoscopy as the primary modality for the treatment of women with endometrial cancer. Cancer 91:378–387

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Scribner DR Jr, Walker JL, Johnson GA, McMeekin SD, Gold MA, Mannel RS (2001) Surgical management of early-stage endometrial cancer in the elderly: is laparoscopy feasible? Gynecol Oncol 83:563–568

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Holub Z, Jabor A, Bartos P, Eim J, Kliment L (2002) Laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy in the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer: results of a multicenter study. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 6:125–131

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Obermair A, Manolitsas TP, Leung Y, Hammond IG, McCartney AJ (2004) Total laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: patterns of recurrence and survival. Gynecol Oncol 92:789–793

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Obermair A, Manolitsas TP, Leung Y, Hammond IG, McCartney AJ (2005) Total laparoscopic hysterectomy for obese women with endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 15:319–324

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Tozzi R, Malur S, Köhler C, Schneider A (2005) Analysis of morbidity in patients with endometrial cancer: is there a commitment to offer laparoscopy. Gynecol Oncol 97:4–9

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Volpi E, Ferrero A, Jacomuzzi ME, Fuso AP, Martra F, Sismondi P (2006) Laparoscopic treatment of endometrial cancer: feasibility and results. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 124:232–236

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Kim DY, Kim MK, Kim JH, Suh DS, Kim YM, Kim YT, Mok JE, Nam JH (2005) Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy in patients with stage I and II endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 15:932–937

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Zapico A, Fuentes P, Grassa A, Arnanz F, Otazua J, Cortes-Prieto J (2005) Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy in stages I and II endometrial cancer. Operating data, follow up and survival. Gynecol Oncol 98:222–227

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Wong CK, Wong YH, Lo LS, Tai CM, Ng TK (2005) Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for the surgical staging of endometrial carcinoma. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 31:286–290

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Malur S, Possover M, Michels W, Schneider A (2001) Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal versus abdominal surgery in patients with endometrial cancer—a prospective randomized trial. Gynecol Oncol 80:239–244

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Magrina JF, Mutone NF, Weaver AL, Magtibay PM, Fowler RS, Cornella JL (1999) Laparoscopic lymphadenectomy and vaginal or laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for endometrial cancer: morbidity and survival. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181:376–381

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Holub Z, Jabor A, Bartos P, Eim J, Urbanek S, Pivovarnikova R (2002) Laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: long-term results of a multicenter study. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 23:305–310

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Eltabbakh GH (2002) Analysis of survival after laparoscopy in women with endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 95:1894–1901

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Magrina JF, Weaver AL (2004) Laparoscopic treatment of endometrial cancer: five-year recurrence and survival rates. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 25:439–441

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Tozzi R, Malur S, Koehler C, Schneider A (2005) Laparoscopy versus laparotomy in endometrial cancer: first results of survival of a randomized prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12:130–136

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Seracchioli R, Venturoli S, Ceccarin M, Cantarelli M, Ceccaroni M, Pignotti E, De Aloysio D, De Iaco P (2005) Is total laparoscopic surgery for endometrial carcinoma at risk of local recurrence? A long-term survival. Anticancer Res 25:2423–2428

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Sobiczewski P, Bidzinski M, Derlatka P, Danska-Bidzinska A, Gmyrek J, Panek G (2005) Comparison of the results of surgical staging using laparoscopy and laparotomy in patients with endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 15:946–951

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Holub Z, Jabor A, Lukac J, Kliment L (2004) Laparoscopic detection of sentinel lymph nodes using blue dye in women with cervical and endometrial cancer. Med Sci Monit 10:CR587–CR591

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Ulrich U (2005) Laparoscopic staging in advanced cervical cancer: the pros and cons of an oncological concept. Gynecol Surg 2:151–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Morice P, Fourchotte V, Sideris L, Gariel C, Duvillard P, Castaigne D (2005) A need for laparoscopic evaluation of patients with endometrial carcinoma selected for conservative treatment. Gynecol Oncol 96:245–248

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Schneider A, Possover M, Kühne-Heid R, Krause N (1997) Laparoskopische paraaortale und pelvine Lymphonodektomie. Gynäkologe 30:483–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Possover M, Krause N, Plaul K, Kühne-Heid R, Schneider A (1998) Laparoscopic para-aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy: experience with 150 patients and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 71:19–28

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Piver MS, Rutledge F, Smith JP (1974) Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 44:265–272

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Magrina JF (2005) Outcomes of laparoscopic treatment for endometrial cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 17:343–346

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Barakat RR (2005) Laparoscopically assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 15:407

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Uwe Ulrich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ulrich, U., Rhiem, K., Janschek, E. et al. Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic pelvic and paraaortic staging for early endometrial cancer. Gynecol Surg 4, 3 (2007).

Download citation


  • Endometrial cancer
  • Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy
  • Laparoscopy
  • Laparoscopic pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy