【Abstract】 Objective To explore the clinical effect of laparoscopic nerve sparing radical surgery (LNSRH) and traditional laparoscopic radical surgery (LRH) for cervical cancer. Methods From January 2004 to October 2017, PubMed, EMBASE, VIP database, Tsinghua Tongfang database, Cochrane Library, Chinese Doctoral Dissertation Fulltext Database, etc. were searched by computer. There were 11 articles about the clinical comparative study of laparoscopic nerve sparing cervical cancer radical surgery (LNSRH group) and traditional cervical cancer radical surgery (LRH group), involving 810 patients, including LNSRH 393 patients in group A and 417 patients in group LRH. The Review Manager 5.1 software was used for Meta analysis. Results The time of operation (SMD=1.41, 95% CI 0.36~2.46), the time of intestinal function recovery (SMD=-1.35, 95% CI -2.00~-0.70), the time of urinary catheter extubation (SMD=-1.21, 95% CI -1.62~-0.79, etc.) were significantly different between LNSRH group and LRH group (P＜0.05). There was no significant difference in bleeding volume (SMD=0.11, 95% CI -0.18~0.39), resection length of parauterine tissue (SMD=-0.14, 95% CI -0.30~-0.01), vaginal resection length (SMD=0.04, 95% CI -0.27~0.34), intraoperative complications (RR=0.97, 95% CI 0.41~2.27) between the two groups (P＞0.05). Conclusion Compared with LRH, LNSRH can effectively promote the recovery of bladder and intestinal function and improve the quality of life of patients without sacrificing the radical operation. However, the current study sample size is small, the longterm recurrence rate, survival rate and other studies are inadequate, and further study is needed.