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

[31]

13/17

Significant cost savings, improved quality of life

[32]

29/64

Fewer complications, shortened hospital stay

[33]

69/251

Fewer complications, shorter hospitalization

[34]

19/17

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

[35]

65/65

LAVH in early endometrial cancer feasible, also in obese patients

[36]

86/57

Shorter hospitalization, earlier recovery, higher financial cost

[37]

67/45

Increased OR time, shorter stay

[38]

96/24

Attractive alternative, shorter recovery time

[18]

52/46

Reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stay

[14]

600

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

[39]

226/284

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

[40]

47/31

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

[41]

63/59

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

[42]

41/36

Longer duration of surgery, but shorter hospital stay for LAVH

[43]

74/168

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

[44]

38/37

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

[45]

20/36

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