Article Data

  • Views 733
  • Dowloads 117

Case Reports

Open Access Special Issue

A modified technique of laparoscopic radical trachelectomy combined with extracorporeal cervical amputation through a mini-laparotomy

  • Zen Watanabe1
  • Hideki Tokunaga1,*,
  • Masumi Ishibashi1
  • Shogo Shigeta1
  • Keita Tsuji1
  • Tomoyuki Nagai1
  • Masahito Tachibana1
  • Muneaki Shimada1
  • Nobuo Yaegashi1

1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1, Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8574 Miyagi, Japan

DOI: 10.31083/j.ejgo.2021.01.2278 Vol.42,Issue 1,February 2021 pp.183-188

Submitted: 20 October 2020 Accepted: 16 December 2020

Published: 15 February 2021

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecologic Oncology)

*Corresponding Author(s): Hideki Tokunaga E-mail:


Radical trachelectomy is an optional fertility-sparing treatment for early-stage cervical cancer, and recently, the minimally invasive approach (MIA) has become a major trend in radical trachelectomy. MIA radical trachelectomy requires a more careful surgical technique to avoid tumor spillage and exposure of the cancerous tissue under carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum to reduce the risk of recurrence. We present a case of a 33-year-old nulliparous woman with stage IB1 cervical cancer who underwent MIA radical trachelectomy through a combination of laparoscopic surgery and mini-laparotomy, mainly to prevent postoperative complications and tumor spread during cervical amputation. A Papanicolaou test suggested the diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix without any symptoms such as atypical bleeding. The subsequent biopsy revealed squamous cell carcinoma with stromal invasion of the cervix. Cervical amputation was performed extracorporeally through a small incision in the lower abdomen. There were no perioperative complications. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 13. The final pathological evaluation revealed residual microinvasive cancer of the endocervical canal with clear margins, no lymphovascular space involvement, and 27 negative lymphatic nodes. The joint of the neo-cervix and vagina had healed completely without erosion or stenosis of the cervical canal, and no problems occurred during sexual intercourse. No cancer recurrence or menstrual disorders have been reported in the short postoperative period of 6 months. The surgical technique of laparoscopic radical trachelectomy combined with extracorporeal cervical amputation may be an acceptable alternative to reduce the risk of recurrence by preventing intraperitoneal tumor spillage.


Cervical cancer; Radical trachelectomy; Minimally invasive approach; Fertility preservation; Mini-laparotomy; Cervical amputation; Extracorporeal

Cite and Share

Zen Watanabe,Hideki Tokunaga,Masumi Ishibashi,Shogo Shigeta,Keita Tsuji,Tomoyuki Nagai,Masahito Tachibana,Muneaki Shimada,Nobuo Yaegashi. A modified technique of laparoscopic radical trachelectomy combined with extracorporeal cervical amputation through a mini-laparotomy. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2021. 42(1);183-188.


[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] Utada M, Chernyavskiy P, Lee WJ, Franceschi S, Sauvaget C, de Gonzalez AB, et al. Increasing risk of uterine cervical cancer among young Japanese women: comparison of incidence trends in Japan, South Korea and Japanese-Americans between 1985 and 2012. International Journal of Cancer. 2019; 144: 2144-2152.

[3] Ushijima K. Current status of gynecologic cancer in Japan. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2009; 20: 67-71.

[4] Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2018; 68: 7-30.

[5] Cui RR, Chen L, Tergas AI, Hou JY, St Clair CM, Neugut AI, et al. Trends in use and survival associated with fertility-sparing trachzlectomy for young women with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019; 131: 1085-1094.

[6] Dargent D. Pregnancies following radical trachelectomy for invasive cervical cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 1994; 52: 105.

[7] Marchiole P, Benchaib M, Buenerd A, Lazlo E, Dargent D, Mathevet P. Oncological safety of laparoscopic-assisted vaginal radical trachelectomy (LARVT or Dargent’s operation): a comparative study with laparoscopic-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy (LARVH). Gynecologic Oncology. 2007; 106: 132-141.

[8] Matsuo K, Chen L, Mandelbaum RS, Melamed A, Roman LD, Wright JD. Trachelectomy for reproductive-aged women with early-stage cervical cancer: minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019; 220: 469.e1-469.e13.

[9] Park DA, Yun JE, Kim SW, Lee SH. Surgical and clinical safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2017; 43: 994-1002.

[10] Zhao Y, Hang B, Xiong G, Zhang X. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. 2017; 27: 1132-1144.

[11] Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, Keating NL, del Carmen MG, Yang J, et al. Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2018; 379: 1905-1914.

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

[13] Tokunaga H, Watanabe Y, Niikura H, Nagase S, Toyoshima M, Shiro R, et al. Outcomes of abdominal radical trachelectomy: results of a multicenter prospective cohort study in a Tohoku Gyne-cologic Cancer Unit. International Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015; 20: 776-780.

[14] Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2018; 143: 22-36.

[15] Querleu D, Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR. 2017 update on the querleumorrow classification of radical hysterectomy. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2017; 24: 3406-3412.

[16] Plante M. Vaginal radical trachelectomy: an update. Gynecologic Oncology. 2008; 111: S105-S110.

[17] Smith JR, Boyle DCM, Corless DJ, Ungar L, Lawson AD, Priore GD, et al. Abdominal radical trachelectomy: a new surgical technique for the conservative management of cervical carcinoma. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 1997; 104: 1196-1200.

[18] Pareja R, Rendón GJ, SanzLomana CM, Monzón O, Ramirez PT. Surgical, oncological, and obstetrical outcomes after abdominal radical trachelectomy-a systematic literature review. Gynecologic Oncology. 2013; 131: 77-82.

[19] Machida H, Iwata T, Okugawa K, Matsuo K, Saito T, Tanaka K, et al. Fertility-sparing trachelectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a proposal of an ideal candidate. Gynecologic Oncology. 2020; 156: 341- 348.

[20] Pomel C, Castaigne D, Atallah D, Lauratet B, Camatte S, Morice P. Laparoscopic (type III Piver like) radical trachelectomy. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2002;28:302.

[21] Persson J, Kannisto P, Bossmar T. Robot-assisted abdominal laparoscopic radical trachelectomy. Gynecologic Oncology. 2008; 111: 564-567.

[22] Salvo G, Ramirez P, Wu X, Leitao M, Mosgaard B, Falconer H, et al. 22 open vs. minimally invasive radical trachelectomy in early stage cervical cancer: international multicenter irta study results. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2019.

[23] Bentivegna E, Maulard A, Pautier P, Chargari C, Gouy S, Morice P. Fertility results and pregnancy outcomes after conservative treatment of cervical cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Fertility and Sterility. 2016; 106: 1195-1211.

[24] Köhler C, Hertel H, Herrmann J, Marnitz S, Mallmann P, Favero G, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with transvaginal closure of vaginal cuffa multicenter analysis. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2019; 29: 845-850.

[25] Kanao H, Matsuo K, Aoki Y, Tanigawa T, Nomura H, Okamoto S, et al. Feasibility and outcome of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with no-look no-touch technique for FIGO IB1 cervical cancer. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2019; 30: e71.

[26] Volz J, Köster S, Spacek Z, Paweletz N. The influence of pneumoperitoneum used in laparoscopic surgery on an intraabdominal tumor growth. Cancer. 1999; 86: 770-774.

[27] Lin F, Pan L, Li L, Li D, Mo L. Effects of a simulated CO2 pneumoperitoneum environment on the proliferation, apoptosis, and metastasis of cervical cancer cells in vitro. Medical Science Monitor. 2015; 20: 2497-2503.

[28] Kong T, Chang S, Piao X, Paek J, Lee Y, Lee EJ, et al. Patterns of recurrence and survival after abdominal versus laparoscopic/robotic radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2016; 42: 77-86.

[29] Rakowski JA, Tran TAN, Ahmad S, James JA, Brudie LA, Pernicone PJ, et al. Does a uterine manipulator affect cervical cancer pathology or identification of lymphovascular space involvement?Gynecologic Oncology. 2013; 127: 98-101.

[30] McFarland M, Craig E, Lioe TF, Dobbs SP, McCluggage WG. Artefactual displacement of cervical epithelium showing CIN III to fallopian tubes during laparoscopic hysterectomy with intrauterine balloon manipulator. Histopathology. 2015; 65: 139-141.

[31] Nick AM, Frumovitz MM, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, Ramirez PT. Fertility sparing surgery for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer: open vs. robotic radical trachelectomy. Gynecologic Oncology. 2012; 124: 276-280.

[32] Li X, Li J, Wu X. Incidence, risk factors and treatment of cervical stenosis after radical trachelectomy: a systematic review. European Journal of Cancer. 2015; 51: 1751-1759.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Submission Turnaround Time