Comparison of intraoperative and early postoperative results of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus laparotomic staging surgery for ovarian cancer

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY European journal of gynaecological oncology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.22514/ejgo.2023.087
{"title":"Comparison of intraoperative and early postoperative results of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus laparotomic staging surgery for ovarian cancer","authors":"","doi":"10.22514/ejgo.2023.087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Thus far, the traditional method of performing staging surgery in ovarian cancer has been laparotomy. Although randomized controlled trials are lacking, minimally invasive options are deemed safe and sufficient for staging and treatment of early-stage ovarian cancer. This study aims to compare the intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent staging surgery via laparoscopy or laparotomy because of ovarian cancer. This retrospective study was conducted among 37 patients undergoing staging surgery done via laparoscopy (Group 1) or laparotomy (Group 2) between February 2018 and May 2022 at a single center. Intraoperative and early postoperative results were collected. Regarding postoperative complications between the two groups, the formation of lymphoceles and hernias in Group 2 was significantly higher compared to Group 1 (p = 0.019 and p = 0.050, respectively). When these groups were compared regarding Clavien-Dindo classification, Grade 1 complications were high among the laparoscopy group. In contrast, Grade 2, 3A and 3B complications were significantly higher in the laparotomy group (p = 0.002). Regarding hospital stay during the postoperative period, the patients in Group 2 stayed significantly longer compared to Group 1 (p = 0.001). As an alternative to open surgery for diagnosing and staging ovarian cancer, the laparoscopic approach is reliable and can be applied safely to patients. However, more prospective randomized studies are needed to support the obtained data.","PeriodicalId":11903,"journal":{"name":"European journal of gynaecological oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of gynaecological oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22514/ejgo.2023.087","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Thus far, the traditional method of performing staging surgery in ovarian cancer has been laparotomy. Although randomized controlled trials are lacking, minimally invasive options are deemed safe and sufficient for staging and treatment of early-stage ovarian cancer. This study aims to compare the intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent staging surgery via laparoscopy or laparotomy because of ovarian cancer. This retrospective study was conducted among 37 patients undergoing staging surgery done via laparoscopy (Group 1) or laparotomy (Group 2) between February 2018 and May 2022 at a single center. Intraoperative and early postoperative results were collected. Regarding postoperative complications between the two groups, the formation of lymphoceles and hernias in Group 2 was significantly higher compared to Group 1 (p = 0.019 and p = 0.050, respectively). When these groups were compared regarding Clavien-Dindo classification, Grade 1 complications were high among the laparoscopy group. In contrast, Grade 2, 3A and 3B complications were significantly higher in the laparotomy group (p = 0.002). Regarding hospital stay during the postoperative period, the patients in Group 2 stayed significantly longer compared to Group 1 (p = 0.001). As an alternative to open surgery for diagnosing and staging ovarian cancer, the laparoscopic approach is reliable and can be applied safely to patients. However, more prospective randomized studies are needed to support the obtained data.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腹腔镜与剖腹分阶段卵巢癌手术患者术中及术后早期疗效比较
迄今为止,对卵巢癌进行分期手术的传统方法是剖腹手术。虽然缺乏随机对照试验,但对于早期卵巢癌的分期和治疗,微创选择被认为是安全且足够的。本研究旨在比较卵巢癌患者经腹腔镜或开腹分期手术的术中及术后早期预后。本回顾性研究于2018年2月至2022年5月在单一中心对37例通过腹腔镜(1组)或剖腹手术(2组)进行分期手术的患者进行。收集术中及术后早期结果。两组术后并发症方面,2组淋巴囊肿和疝的形成明显高于1组(p = 0.019, p = 0.050)。两组比较Clavien-Dindo分级,腹腔镜组1级并发症发生率较高。相比之下,剖腹手术组2级、3A级和3B级并发症发生率明显高于剖腹手术组(p = 0.002)。术后住院时间方面,2组患者的住院时间明显长于1组(p = 0.001)。作为开放手术诊断和分期卵巢癌的替代方法,腹腔镜方法是可靠的,可以安全地应用于患者。然而,需要更多的前瞻性随机研究来支持所获得的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
25.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: EJGO is dedicated to publishing editorial articles in the Distinguished Expert Series and original research papers, case reports, letters to the Editor, book reviews, and newsletters. The Journal was founded in 1980 the second gynaecologic oncology hyperspecialization Journal in the world. Its aim is the diffusion of scientific, clinical and practical progress, and knowledge in female neoplastic diseases in an interdisciplinary approach among gynaecologists, oncologists, radiotherapists, surgeons, chemotherapists, pathologists, epidemiologists, and so on.
期刊最新文献
Timing and duration of bevacizumab treatment and survival in patients with recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer: a multi-institution study. Vulvar cancer in young woman—case report Identification of an immune-related metabolic gene signature to predict possible prognosis in endometrial cancer and reveals immune landscape feature Evaluation of colposcopy and LEEP results performed in gynecology and gynecological oncology surgery services The infrequent large pelvi-perineal tumors as a surgical dilemma: en bloc resection and long-term results
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1