Total mesometrial resection for cervical cancer: a systematic review of oncological outcomes and comparative analysis with radical hysterectomy

Background: This systematic review aims to assess the oncologic efficacy and safety of Total Mesometrial Resection (TMMR) in cervical cancer, focusing on 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Additionally, TMMR outcomes are compared with open radical hysterectomy, the current standard of care, as reported in the Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus following Preferred Reported Instruments for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies evaluating TMMR in cervical cancer were included if they reported DFS, OS, recurrence patterns, and perioperative complications. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for quality assessment, and hazard ratios (HR) were computed for comparative analysis. Results: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1071 patients treated with TMMR. The 3-year DFS ranged from 85% to 97.1%, and OS from 87.9% to 100%. TMMR showed a higher recurrence risk compared to open radical hysterectomy (HR 4.89, 95%CI: 2.42–9.88, p < 0.001) and a significantly increased mortality risk (HR 16.48, 95%CI: 4.08–65.99, p < 0.001). However, in a subgroup analysis restricted to patients with disease stages below IB3 (n = 447), the HR for recurrence was 1.32 (95% CI: 0.57–3.07, p = 0.57), for local recurrence 2.31 (95% CI: 0.76–7.01, p = 0.14), and for OS 0.70 (95% CI: 0.10–4.92, p = 0.72), suggesting no statistically significant difference compared to standard radical hysterectomy. Conclusions: While TMMR demonstrates favorable survival rates, its higher recurrence and mortality risks compared to standard radical hysterectomy raise concerns. Further prospective multicenter studies are needed to determine its role in clinical practice. The PROSPERO Registration: CRD420251125129.

TMMR; Cervical cancer; Disease-free survival; Overall survival; Radical hysterectomy; Recurrence; Adjuvant therapy

[1] Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, de Sanjosé S, Saraiya M, Ferlay J, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. The Lancet Global Health. 2020; 8: e191–e203.

[2] European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), & European Society of Pathology (ESP). ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. 2023. Available at: https://www.esgo.org (Accessed: 18 October 2025).

[3] National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: cervical cancer (Version 4). 2019. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/guidelines (Accessed: 17 October 2025).

[4] Restaino S, Pellecchia G, Arcieri M, Bogani G, Taliento C, Greco P, et al.; Gynecologic Oncology Group. Management for cervical cancer patients: a comparison of the guidelines from the international scientific societies (ESGO-NCCN-ASCO-AIOM-FIGO-BGCS-SEOM-ESMO-JSGO). Cancers. 2024; 16: 2541.

[5] Maggino T, Landoni F, Sartori E, Zola P, Zanagnolo V, Pasinetti B, et al. Patterns of local and distant failure in cervical cancer patients treated with radical surgery. Cancer. 2006; 106: 927–933.

[6] Höckel M, Horn LC, Hentschel B, Höckel S, Naumann G. Total mesometrial resection: high resolution nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy based on developmentally defined surgical anatomy. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 2003; 13: 791–803.

[7] Höckel M, Horn LC, Manthey N, Braumann UD, Wolf U, Teichmann G, et al. Resection of the embryologically defined uterovaginal (Müllerian) compartment and pelvic control in patients with cervical cancer: a prospective analysis. The Lancet Oncology. 2009; 10: 683–692.

[8] Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2018; 379: 1895–1904.

[9] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151: 264.

[10] Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, Denny LA, Grenman S, Karunaratne K, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2019; 145: 129–135.

[11] Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Annals of Surgery. 2004; 240: 205–213.

[12] Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2014. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (Accessed: 17 October 2025).

[13] Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2009; 105: 103–104.

[14] Buderath P, Stukan M, Ruhwedel W, Strutas D, Feisel-Schwickardi G, Wimberger P, et al. Total mesometrial resection (TMMR) for cervical cancer FIGO IB–IIA: first results from the multicentric TMMR register study. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2022; 33: e9.

[15] Chiantera V, Vizzielli G, Lucidi A, Gallotta V, Petrillo M, Legge F, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer as total mesometrial resection (L-TMMR): a multicentric experience. Gynecologic Oncology. 2015; 139: 47–51.

[16] Falconer H, Norberg-Hardie A, Salehi S, Alfonzo E, Weydandt L, Dornhöfer N, et al. Oncologic outcomes after total mesometrial resection (TMMR) or treatment according to current international guidelines in FIGO (2009) stages IB1–IIB cervical cancer: an observational cohort study. EClinicalMedicine. 2024; 73: 102696.

[17] Höckel M, Wolf B, Schmidt K, Mende M, Aktas B, Kimmig R, et al. Surgical resection based on ontogenetic cancer field theory for cervical cancer: mature results from a single-centre, prospective, observational, cohort study. The Lancet Oncology. 2019; 20: 1316–1326.

[18] Kimmig R, Wimberger P, Buderath P, Aktas B, Iannaccone A, Heubner M. Definition of compartment-based radical surgery in uterine cancer: radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer as ‘total mesometrial resection (TMMR)’ by M Höckel translated to robotic surgery (rTMMR). World Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2013; 11: 211.

[19] Nasser S, Almuheimid J, Plett H, Sehouli J, Muallem MZ. Feasibility and safety of laparoscopic total mesometrial resection in early-stage cervical cancer. Anticancer Research. 2016; 36: 4903–4907.

[20] Vizzielli G, Lucidi A, Gallotta V, Petrillo M, Dessole M, Fagotti A, et al. Robotic total mesometrial resection versus laparoscopic total mesometrial resection in early cervical cancer: a case-control study. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2016; 23: 804–809.

[21] Schauta F. Extended Vaginal Total Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer. Josef Safár: Wien; Leipzig. 1908.

[22] Wertheim E. The Extended Abdominal Operation for Carcinoma of the Cervix Uteri (Based on 500 Cases). Wien: Berlin. 1911.

[23] Ronsini C, Köhler C, De Franciscis P, La Verde M, Mosca L, Solazzo MC, et al. Laparo-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy as a safe option for minimal invasive surgery in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecologic Oncology. 2022; 166: 188–195.

[24] Kwon BS, Roh HJ, Lee S, Yang J, Song YJ, Lee SH, et al. Comparison of long-term survival of total abdominal radical hysterectomy and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: Korean multicenter, retrospective analysis. Gynecologic Oncology. 2020; 159: 642–648.

[25] Sedlis A, Bundy BN, Rotman MZ, Lentz SS, Muderspach LI, Zaino RJ. A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecologic Oncology. 1999; 73: 177–183.

[26] Ronsini C, Solazzo MC, Braca E, Andreoli G, Vastarella MG, Cianci S, et al. Locally advanced cervical cancer: neoadjuvant treatment versus standard radio-chemotherapy—an updated meta-analysis. Cancers. 2024; 16: 2542.