Comparison of Laparoscopy and Laparotomy in the Management of Early-stage Ovarian Cancer.

IF 1.4 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy-GMIT Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.4103/gmit.gmit_99_22
Nuria Ginjaume Garcia, Cristina Soler Moreno, Natalia Teixeira, Pia Español Lloret, Rocío Luna Guibourg, Ramon Rovira Negre
{"title":"Comparison of Laparoscopy and Laparotomy in the Management of Early-stage Ovarian Cancer.","authors":"Nuria Ginjaume Garcia,&nbsp;Cristina Soler Moreno,&nbsp;Natalia Teixeira,&nbsp;Pia Español Lloret,&nbsp;Rocío Luna Guibourg,&nbsp;Ramon Rovira Negre","doi":"10.4103/gmit.gmit_99_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery for early-stage ovarian cancer (EOC) by comparing the surgical and survival outcomes between laparoscopy and laparotomy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This was a retrospective, single-center observational study that included all patients who underwent surgical staging for EOC by laparoscopy or laparotomy between 2010 and 2019.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-nine patients were included; of which 20 underwent laparoscopy, 26 laparotomy, and three conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding operative time, number of lymph nodes dissected, or intraoperative tumor rupture rate, while estimated blood loss and transfusion requirements were lower in the laparoscopy group. The complication rate tended to be higher in the laparotomy group. Patients in the laparoscopy group had a faster recovery, with earlier urinary catheter and abdominal drain removal, shorter hospital stay, and a trend toward earlier tolerance of oral diet and mobilization. At a mean follow-up of 45.7 months, 14 patients had disease recurrence, with no differences in the mean progression-free survival between the two groups (36 months for laparoscopy vs. 35.5 months for laparotomy, <i>P</i> = 0.22).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Laparoscopic surgery performed by a trained gynecological oncologist is a safe and effective surgical approach for comprehensive staging of EOC, with the additional benefits of a faster recovery compared to laparotomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":45272,"journal":{"name":"Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy-GMIT","volume":"12 2","pages":"83-89"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a1/1c/GMIT-12-83.PMC10321349.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy-GMIT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/gmit.gmit_99_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery for early-stage ovarian cancer (EOC) by comparing the surgical and survival outcomes between laparoscopy and laparotomy.

Materials and methods: This was a retrospective, single-center observational study that included all patients who underwent surgical staging for EOC by laparoscopy or laparotomy between 2010 and 2019.

Results: Forty-nine patients were included; of which 20 underwent laparoscopy, 26 laparotomy, and three conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding operative time, number of lymph nodes dissected, or intraoperative tumor rupture rate, while estimated blood loss and transfusion requirements were lower in the laparoscopy group. The complication rate tended to be higher in the laparotomy group. Patients in the laparoscopy group had a faster recovery, with earlier urinary catheter and abdominal drain removal, shorter hospital stay, and a trend toward earlier tolerance of oral diet and mobilization. At a mean follow-up of 45.7 months, 14 patients had disease recurrence, with no differences in the mean progression-free survival between the two groups (36 months for laparoscopy vs. 35.5 months for laparotomy, P = 0.22).

Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery performed by a trained gynecological oncologist is a safe and effective surgical approach for comprehensive staging of EOC, with the additional benefits of a faster recovery compared to laparotomy.

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
腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗早期卵巢癌的比较。
目的:本研究的目的是通过比较腹腔镜手术和开腹手术治疗早期卵巢癌(EOC)的手术效果和生存率来评估微创手术的可行性。材料和方法:这是一项回顾性、单中心观察性研究,纳入了2010年至2019年期间通过腹腔镜或开腹手术对EOC进行手术分期的所有患者。结果:纳入49例患者;其中腹腔镜20例,开腹26例,由腹腔镜转为开腹3例。两组在手术时间、淋巴结清扫数、术中肿瘤破裂率方面无显著差异,而腹腔镜组的估计出血量和输血需水量更低。剖腹手术组并发症发生率较高。腹腔镜组患者恢复更快,更早拔除导尿管和腹腔引流管,住院时间更短,并且有更早耐受口服饮食和活动的趋势。在平均45.7个月的随访中,14例患者出现疾病复发,两组患者的平均无进展生存期无差异(腹腔镜组36个月vs开腹组35.5个月,P = 0.22)。结论:由训练有素的妇科肿瘤学家进行腹腔镜手术是一种安全有效的手术方法,用于EOC的全面分期,与剖腹手术相比,恢复速度更快。
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
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
98
审稿时长
52 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Novel Technique of Laparoscopic Transabdominal Cerclage after a Mersilene Tape Erosion in a Prior Laparoscopic Radical Trachelectomy and Transvaginal Cerclage Patient. Comment on "Evaluation of the success of hysteroscopic uterine septum resection". Hysteroscopic Uterine Septum Resection: Is it a Successful Treatment for Infertile Patients? Laparoscopic Excision of Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy: An Optimum Management Option. Laparoscopic Posterior Pelvic Exenteration with Radical Vulvectomy for Intestinal-type Vulvar Adenocarcinoma.
×
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