The surgical management standards in gynecologic oncology that have been applied in the past decade assume increased usage of endoscopic methods in operative treatment of cervical malignancies with no adverse effects on long-term outcomes. However, the LACC study, in which it was primarily assumed that these theses would be confirmed, yielded conflicting results. These outcomes were presented in the spring of 2018 during the 49^th Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer in New Orleans and published in the same year. It occurred that the percentage of patients free from relapse at 2.5 years was significantly higher in the group treated with an open method compared with patients managed by endoscopic techniques. Moreover, the same year also brought other publications, which reported studies that included over 2,200 patients subjected to open and endoscopic procedures and which corroborated the conclusions drawn from the aforementioned LACC study. This article presents these investigations and draws attention to their potential weaknesses. Moreover, it also discusses comments and reviews that have appeared since the said results were published. This is a form of a specific debate on current guidelines concerning treatment of early invasive cervical cancer, taking into account oncological safety of these procedures and long-term patient outcomes.