EC Gynaecology

Introduction: The main question of the surgeon in the postoperative period is the possibilities of assessing the function of the lower urinary tract. Symptomatic assessment of urination disorders does not allow to diagnose since many symptoms are subjective and non-specific for a particular disease. Urodynamic study allows to assess the state of the urinary system and determine further tactics.

Materials and Methods: The study included 173 patients with morphologically verified cervical cancer IB1-IIB stages who underwent radical hysterectomy (RH). The main group consisted of 42 patients after RH type С1 using the water-jet technique. The comparison group A included 79 patients who underwent RH type С1 with the traditional technique. The comparison group B included 52 patients who accepted radical hysterectomy RH type C2. All patients underwent uroflowmetry at the preoperative and postoperative stages in order to exclude dysfunction of the lower urinary tract.

Results: In a comparative study of the parameters of uroflowmetry before surgery and 2 months after surgical treatment in patients of the main group, significant differences were obtained in such parameters as the average and maximum velocity of urine flow. In control group A, statistically significant differences were obtained in such parameters as the average urine flow rate, maximum urine flow rate, urine flow time, and the volume of residual urine. In control group B, all indicators had significant differences, with the exception of the volume of urine excreted.

Conclusion: Comparative results before surgery and 2 months after surgical treatment in the main group indicate the advantage of the water jet dissection technique as the most precise and nerve-sparing method.

 Keywords: Urodynamic Study; Uroflowmetry; Cervical Cancer; Water Jet Dissection; Nerve-Sparing Surgery

1. Kietpeerakool C., et al. “Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy compared to standard radical hysterectomy for women with early stage cervical cancer (stage Ia2 to IIa)”. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2 (2019): CD012828.
2. Komatsu H., et al. “A simplified procedure of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy”. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 48.3 (2022): 766-773.
3. Li L., et al. “Surgical, urinary, and survival outcomes of nerve-sparing versus traditional radical hysterectomy: a retrospective cohort study in China”. American Journal of Clinical Oncology10 (2019): 783-788.
4. Liu Q., et al. “Effect of laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy on bladder function recovery”. Journal of Investigative Surgery4 (2020): 381-386.
5. Cao TT., et al. “Urodynamic assessment of bladder storage function after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer”. Chinese Medical Journal19 (2020): 2274-2280.
6. Yoshikawa H. “Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: Kobayashi's method”. Journal of Surgery2 (2021): 70-76.
7. Wang S., et al. “Assessment of pelvic floor function and quality of life in patients treated for cervical cancer: a multicenter retrospective study”. The Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation4 (2021): 353-360.
8. Eicke M., et al. “Nerve injuries in urologic surgery”. in book Advanced Urologic Surgery. Third Edition. Edition. Hohenfellner R, Fitzpatrick J, McAninch J (2005): 488-493.
9. Cosma S., et al. “A simplified fascial model of pelvic anatomical surgery: going beyond parametrium-centered surgical anatomy”. Anatomical Science International1 (2021): 20-29.
10. Yang XF., et al. “The urogenital-hypogastric sheath: an anatomical observation on the relationship between the inferomedial extension of renal fascia and the hypogastric nerves”. The International Journal of Colorectal Disease11 (2014): 1417-1426.
11. Aoun F., et al. “Lower Urinary tract dysfunction in pelvic gynecologic cancer: the role of urodynamics”. Advances in Urology (2014): 303958.
12. Mukhtarulina SV., et al. “Reasons of urological complications in patients with invasive cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy”. Zhurnal imeni P.A. Gertsena = P.A Herzen Journal of Oncology 6.5 (2017): 100-102.
13. Benedetti-Panici P., et al. “Long-term bladder function in patients with locally advanced cervical carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and type 3-4 radical hysterectomy”. Cancer10 (2004): 2110-2117.
14. Kruppa J., et al. “Short and long-term urodynamic and quality of life assessment after nerve sparing radical hysterectomy: a prospective pilot study”. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 201 (2016): 131-134.
15. Li L., et al. “The urodynamics and survival outcomes of different methods of dissecting the inferior hypogastric plexus in laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy of type C: a randomized controlled study”. Annals of Surgical Oncology5 (2019): 1560-1568.
16. Chapple CR., et al. “Terminology report from the International Continence Society (ICS) working group on Underactive Bladder (UAB)”. Neurology and Urodynamics8 (2018): 2928-2931.
17. Romih VV. “Clinical urodynamics and neurology: from diagnosis to effective treatment and rehabilitation”. Eksperimentalnaya i Klinicheskaya Urologiya = Experimental and Clinical Urology 4 (2010): 92-98.
18. Arlandis S., et al. “European Association of Urology guidelines on the management of female non-neurogenic lower urinary tract symptoms. Part 2: underactive bladder, bladder outlet obstruction, and nocturia”. European Urology1 (2022): 60-70.