Skip to content


  • Review Article
  • Open Access

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

  • 1, 2Email author,
  • 2,
  • 1 and
  • 3
Gynecological SurgeryEndoscopy, Imaging, and Allied Techniques20064:3

  • Received: 1 May 2006
  • Accepted: 8 June 2006
  • Published:


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


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


n (LAVH/laparotomy)

Results and authors’ conclusions



Significant cost savings, improved quality of life



Fewer complications, shortened hospital stay



Fewer complications, shorter hospitalization



Less pain, improved quality of life, total costs statistically not different



LAVH in early endometrial cancer feasible, also in obese patients



Shorter hospitalization, earlier recovery, higher financial cost



Increased OR time, shorter stay



Attractive alternative, shorter recovery time



Reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stay



Review article, laparoscopic-assisted surgical staging as safe as open procedure



Eleven conversions from total laparoscopic hysterectomy to laparotomy, similar clinical course, similar recurrence rates



Morbidly obese patients (mean weight 118.7 kg), five conversions from total laparoscopic hysterectomy to laparotomy, significantly fewer wound infections in the laparoscopy group



Fewer postoperative complications in the LAVH group—especially in patients with comorbidity



Longer duration of surgery, but shorter hospital stay for LAVH



Higher number of lymph nodes, fewer postoperative complications, and shorter hospital stay for LAVH



More postoperative complications in the laparotomy group, shorter hospital stay for LAVH group



Longer operating time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay for LAVH

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


n (LAVH/laparotomy)

Results/authors’ conclusions



Three-year survival and recurrence rates similar those of the abdominal approach



No difference with regard to recurrence or survival between groups (median follow-up 33.6 months)



Similar 2-year and 5-year estimated recurrence-free survival rates as well as overall survival rates



No difference in overall and recurrence-free survival between LAVH and laparotomy (follow-up 0–67 months)



Case reports on vaginal cuff recurrences after LAVH



Five-year survival rate similar that for laparotomy (94.7% FIGO I)



Patterns of recurrence similar in both groups (total laparoscopic vs. total abdominal hysterectomy; median follow-up 29.4 months)



Disease-free and overall survival similar in both groups (median follow-up 44 months, range 5–96 months)



Retrospective study, no differences in recurrence and survival rates



Three-year recurrence-free survival rates were similar: 97.5% vs. 98.6% respectively



No significant differences for disease-free and overall survival (total laparoscopic vs. total abdominal hysterectomy)



No significant difference in disease recurrence between the two groups



No statistically significant differences in disease-free survival and recurrence rate between groups

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].

Authors’ Affiliations

Present address: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Florence Nightingale Hospital, Kreuzbergstrasse 79, 40489 Duesseldorf, Germany
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cologne School of Medicine, Cologne, Germany
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Humboldt Hospital, Vivantes Clinic, Berlin, Germany


  1. Amant F, Moerman P, Neven P, Timmerman D, Van Limbergen E, Vergote I (2005) Endometrial cancer. Lancet 366:491–505PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 3–8Google Scholar
  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 265–278Google Scholar
  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 53–65Google Scholar
  5. Kommission Uterus der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (2006) Leitlinie Endometriumkarzinom.
  6. Baltzer J (2004) Standards der operativen Therapie des Endometriumkarzinoms. Gyn Prakt Gynäkol 9:174–177Google Scholar
  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 31–36Google Scholar
  8. Eltabbakh GH, Shamonki MI, Moody JM, Garafano LL (2000) Hysterectomy for obese women with endometrial cancer: laparoscopy or laparotomy? Gynecol Oncol 78:329–335PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 7:83–88PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Chu CS, Randall TC, Bandera CA, Rubin SC (2003) Vaginal cuff recurrence of endometrial cancer treated by laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol 88:62–65PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 60:2035–2041PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 174:1320–1326PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Childers JM, Surwit EA (1992) Combined laparoscopic and vaginal surgery for the management of two cases of stage I endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 45:46–51PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Holub Z (2003) The role of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 30:7–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Berek JS (1995) Ovarian cancer spread: is laparoscopy to blame? Lancet 346:200PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Ulrich U, Paulus W, Schneider A, Keckstein J (2000) Laparoscopic surgery for complex ovarian masses. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 7:373–380PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 96:539–542PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 62:446–451View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 104:1170–1172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Childers JM, Hatch K, Surwit EA (1992) The role of laparoscopic lymphadenectomy in the management of cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 47:38–43PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Dargent D (1987) A new future for Schauta’s operation through pre-surgical retroperitoneal pelviscopy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 8:292–296Google Scholar
  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 88:1057–1060PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Eltabbakh GH (2000) Effect of surgeon’s experience on the surgical outcome of laparoscopic surgery for women with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 78:58–61PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Melendez TD, Childers JM, Nour M, Harrigill K, Surwit EA (1997) Laparoscopic staging of endometrial cancer: the learning experience. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 1:45–49Google Scholar
  25. Childers JM, Brzechffa PR, Hatch KD, Surwit EA (1993) Laparoscopically assisted surgical staging (LASS) of endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 51:33–38PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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) 24:485–490Google Scholar
  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 4:443–448PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Bidzinski M, Mettler L, Zielinski J (1998) Endoscopic lymphadenectomy and LAVH in the treatment of endometrial cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 19:32–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 107:24–27Google Scholar
  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 14:341–347PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 174:1795–1800PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Hidlebaugh DA, Orr RK (1997) Staging endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Clinical and financial comparison of laparoscopic and traditional approaches. J Reprod Med 42:482–488PubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 73:1–3View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Scribner DR Jr, Mannel RS, Walker JL, Johnson GA (1999) Cost analysis of laparoscopy versus laparotomy for early endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 75:460–463PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 20:268–271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Eltabbakh GH, Shamonki MI, Moody JM, Garafano LL (2001) Laparoscopy as the primary modality for the treatment of women with endometrial cancer. Cancer 91:378–387PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 83:563–568PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 6:125–131Google Scholar
  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 92:789–793PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 15:319–324PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 97:4–9PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 124:232–236PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 15:932–937PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 98:222–227PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 31:286–290PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 80:239–244PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 181:376–381PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 23:305–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Eltabbakh GH (2002) Analysis of survival after laparoscopy in women with endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 95:1894–1901PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Magrina JF, Weaver AL (2004) Laparoscopic treatment of endometrial cancer: five-year recurrence and survival rates. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 25:439–441PubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 12:130–136PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 25:2423–2428PubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 15:946–951PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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–CR591PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Ulrich U (2005) Laparoscopic staging in advanced cervical cancer: the pros and cons of an oncological concept. Gynecol Surg 2:151–154View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 96:245–248PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Schneider A, Possover M, Kühne-Heid R, Krause N (1997) Laparoskopische paraaortale und pelvine Lymphonodektomie. Gynäkologe 30:483–499View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 71:19–28PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Piver MS, Rutledge F, Smith JP (1974) Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 44:265–272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Magrina JF (2005) Outcomes of laparoscopic treatment for endometrial cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 17:343–346PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Barakat RR (2005) Laparoscopically assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 15:407View ArticleGoogle Scholar


© Springer-Verlag Berlin / Heidelberg 2006