Intrauterine manipulator use in minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer linked to lower disease-free survival

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between intrauterine manipulator use and survival outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer because the oncologic effects of intrauterine manipulator use remain controversial. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive systematic review of the literature published up to December 31, 2024, was conducted with the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Two independent investigators screened comparative studies, including prospective or retrospective studies and randomized controlled trials, examining oncologic outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy with or without an intrauterine manipulator. Studies with insufficient outcome data, including those involving patients who underwent open abdominal hysterectomy and those published in languages other than English, were excluded. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Data extraction and synthesis were performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Random-effects analysis was used for data pooling. The primary outcomes were disease-free survival and overall survival. Confounding factors affecting prognosis and risk of bias were also evaluated. Between 2013 and 2024, 12 eligible studies, including 10 retrospective studies and two randomized controlled trials, enrolled 6,029 patients who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy with an intrauterine manipulator and 4,776 patients without one. In the unadjusted pooled analysis, disease-free survival was lower in patients who underwent surgery with an intrauterine manipulator than in those without (nine studies, hazard ratio 1.18, 95% CI, 1.01-1.38, P =.04). Albeit statistically nonsignificant, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality comparing intrauterine manipulator use with nonuse was 1.27 (six studies, 95% CI, 0.99-1.62, P =.06). Only a limited number of studies (4 of 12 studies, 33.3%) examined survival outcomes after adjustment for factors such as adjuvant treatment and tumor histology. Most studies (7 of 12, 58.3%) had a moderate risk of bias, and five (41.6%) had a serious risk of bias. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that intrauterine manipulator use during minimally invasive hysterectomy may be associated with decreased disease-free survival in patients with endometrial cancer; however, the association with overall survival is marginal and did not reach statistical significance. Considering that most studies included in this meta-analysis were retrospective, did not adjust for prognostic factors such as postoperative treatment, and were of low to moderate quality, the associations found in this study warrant further investigation in future prospective trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42023428140.