Objective: To assess the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy (RH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer using propensity score–matched analysis. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1244 patients who underwent RH with pelvic lymphadenectomy at Chiang Mai University Hospital between 2003 and 2019. Of these, 82 patients received a laparoscopic approach (LAP) and 1162 underwent open radical hysterectomy. Propensity-score matching was performed in a 1:4 ratio using a caliper of 0.2 standard deviations to achieve balance between groups. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed with Kaplan–Meier curves and the log-rank test. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on tumor size (≤ 2 cm vs. > 2 cm). In addition, multivariable Cox proportional hazards models incorporating all relevant clinical and pathological variables were applied to the overall cohort to assess independent predictors of OS and PFS. Results: After matching, 72 LAP RH cases were compared with 279 open RH cases, showing well-balanced baseline features. At 5 years, OS was nearly the same between the LAP and the open groups (95.8% vs. 95.5%; p = 0.95), and PFS was also similar (92.3% vs. 93.8%; p = 0.85). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that LAP RH did not result in a survival disadvantage for tumors ≤ 2 cm or > 2 cm. In multivariable Cox analysis, surgical approach was not an independent predictor of (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.40–1.71, p = 0.61) or PFS (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44–2.84, p = 0.82). Conclusions: In our single-center cohort analyzed using propensity score matching, LAP RH showed long-term oncological outcomes comparable to those of open RH. These results support LAP RH as a safe surgical option for selected patients with early-stage cervical cancer within our setting, where procedures were performed by experienced surgeons following standardized techniques. Further evaluation in diverse clinical contexts is still needed.
Phianpiset et al. (2025) studied this question.