Laparoscopy and Laparotomy for Endometrioid Adenocarcinoma: Short- and Long-Term Outcomes’ Comparison

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL International Journal of Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2024-06-30 DOI:10.1155/2024/9013582
Lan Hong, Xiuzhen Wang, Shengtan Wang, Wei Li, Lang Zheng, Jun Liu, Haocheng Gao, Xiaohang Liu, Guifei Li, Lifan Shen, Hengzhi Zhuang, Genhai Zhu
{"title":"Laparoscopy and Laparotomy for Endometrioid Adenocarcinoma: Short- and Long-Term Outcomes’ Comparison","authors":"Lan Hong,&nbsp;Xiuzhen Wang,&nbsp;Shengtan Wang,&nbsp;Wei Li,&nbsp;Lang Zheng,&nbsp;Jun Liu,&nbsp;Haocheng Gao,&nbsp;Xiaohang Liu,&nbsp;Guifei Li,&nbsp;Lifan Shen,&nbsp;Hengzhi Zhuang,&nbsp;Genhai Zhu","doi":"10.1155/2024/9013582","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><i>Aims</i>. To analyze the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in treatment of endometrioid adenocarcinoma and examine the benefits of laparoscopy. <i>Methods</i>. From January 2012 to July 2020, 693 endometrioid adenocarcinoma patients undergoing laparoscopy versus laparotomy were retrospectively identified and enrolled in this study. Basic information for the patients, their perioperative indexes, and recurrence rates were reviewed to assess the therapeutic effect of these two approaches for endometrioid adenocarcinoma. <i>Results</i>. A total of 365 endometrioid adenocarcinoma patients underwent laparoscopy, and 328 patients underwent laparotomy. When compared with the laparotomic group, the laparoscopic group had longer operative times, lower intraoperative bleeding volumes, and shorter postoperative hospital stays. The rate of less-radical hysterectomy and radical hysterectomy performed in the laparoscopic group (59/365, 16.16%) was significantly lower than that in the laparotomic group (162/328, 49.39%). There was no statistically significant difference in the local recurrence rate between the two groups; however, the remote recurrence rate in the laparotomic group (15/308, 4.87%) was significantly higher than that in the laparoscopic group (3/351, 0.85%). A further subgroup analysis revealed a higher survival benefit both in I/II patients (314/314, 100%, vs. 7/242, 28.93%) and III/IV patients (35/37, 94.59%, vs. 51/66, 77.27%) in the laparoscopic group, when compared with the laparotomic group. <i>Conclusion</i>. Patients who received laparoscopic surgery had a faster surgical recovery and a lower postoperative recurrence rate in the short term than patients who received laparotomic surgery. Laparoscopic surgery is a safe and effective treatment for endometrioid adenocarcinoma.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/9013582","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/9013582","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims. To analyze the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in treatment of endometrioid adenocarcinoma and examine the benefits of laparoscopy. Methods. From January 2012 to July 2020, 693 endometrioid adenocarcinoma patients undergoing laparoscopy versus laparotomy were retrospectively identified and enrolled in this study. Basic information for the patients, their perioperative indexes, and recurrence rates were reviewed to assess the therapeutic effect of these two approaches for endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Results. A total of 365 endometrioid adenocarcinoma patients underwent laparoscopy, and 328 patients underwent laparotomy. When compared with the laparotomic group, the laparoscopic group had longer operative times, lower intraoperative bleeding volumes, and shorter postoperative hospital stays. The rate of less-radical hysterectomy and radical hysterectomy performed in the laparoscopic group (59/365, 16.16%) was significantly lower than that in the laparotomic group (162/328, 49.39%). There was no statistically significant difference in the local recurrence rate between the two groups; however, the remote recurrence rate in the laparotomic group (15/308, 4.87%) was significantly higher than that in the laparoscopic group (3/351, 0.85%). A further subgroup analysis revealed a higher survival benefit both in I/II patients (314/314, 100%, vs. 7/242, 28.93%) and III/IV patients (35/37, 94.59%, vs. 51/66, 77.27%) in the laparoscopic group, when compared with the laparotomic group. Conclusion. Patients who received laparoscopic surgery had a faster surgical recovery and a lower postoperative recurrence rate in the short term than patients who received laparotomic surgery. Laparoscopic surgery is a safe and effective treatment for endometrioid adenocarcinoma.

Abstract Image

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
腹腔镜和开腹手术治疗子宫内膜样腺癌:短期和长期疗效比较
目的分析腹腔镜手术与开腹手术治疗子宫内膜样腺癌的短期和长期疗效,并研究腹腔镜手术的益处。方法。从2012年1月至2020年7月,回顾性地确定了693名接受腹腔镜手术与开腹手术的子宫内膜样腺癌患者,并将其纳入本研究。研究人员回顾了患者的基本信息、围手术期指标和复发率,以评估这两种方法对子宫内膜样腺癌的治疗效果。结果共有 365 名子宫内膜样腺癌患者接受了腹腔镜手术,328 名患者接受了开腹手术。与开腹组相比,腹腔镜组的手术时间更长,术中出血量更少,术后住院时间更短。腹腔镜组进行的次根治性子宫切除术和根治性子宫切除术的比例(59/365,16.16%)明显低于开腹组(162/328,49.39%)。两组患者的局部复发率没有明显的统计学差异,但腹腔镜组的远处复发率(15/308,4.87%)明显高于腹腔镜组(3/351,0.85%)。进一步的亚组分析显示,与腹腔镜组相比,腹腔镜组 I/II 期患者(314/314,100%;7/242,28.93%)和 III/IV 期患者(35/37,94.59%;51/66,77.27%)的生存率更高。结论与接受开腹手术的患者相比,接受腹腔镜手术的患者手术恢复更快,术后短期复发率更低。腹腔镜手术是治疗子宫内膜样腺癌的一种安全有效的方法。
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
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
274
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal. IJCP publishes: Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] ''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed] Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] International scope IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.
期刊最新文献
A Cross-Sectional Study on Nurse-Parent Partnership in the Pediatric Intensive Care Units Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Reduces Pain and Improves Internal Rotation after Arthroscopic Capsular Release: A Randomized Clinical Trial Why Some People Did Not Want to be Vaccinated against COVID-19? Analysis of Some Psychological Factors Connected with a Decision about Vaccination Predicting the Risk of Fundus Lesions in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Nomogram Model Health Experts’ Perspectives on Barriers, Facilitators, and Needs for Improvement of Hospital Care in the Dying Phase
×
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