盆腔切除妇科重建的功能和手术结果综述

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY Surgical Oncology-Oxford Pub Date : 2023-11-22 DOI:10.1016/j.suronc.2023.101996
{"title":"盆腔切除妇科重建的功能和手术结果综述","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.suronc.2023.101996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Radical surgical excision may be the only curative option for patients with advanced pelvic malignancy, but concerns surrounding the functional outcomes and survivorship of patients undergoing exenterative surgery remain. This is especially important in the context of vulvovaginal resection, where patients are often younger and surgery can have a profoundly negative impact on quality of life, body image and overall wellbeing. Reconstructive procedures are an important means of mitigating these adverse effects but outcomes are poorly described.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>To define the outcomes associated with gynaecological reconstructive procedures following pelvic exenterative surgery and to compare them with the outcomes of those patients who did not undergo reconstruction.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>An international, multicentre retrospective investigation comparing the outcomes of reconstruction with no reconstruction. The protocol was prospectively registered (NCT05074069).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>334 patients were included. 77 patients had a neovagina reconstructed, 139 patients underwent flap reconstruction and 118 were not reconstructed. Patients who underwent reconstruction had a longer operative time and hospital stay with an increased risk of minor perineal complications. Reconstruction did not confer an increased risk of surgical reintervention, and overall complication rates were equivalent. Procedure-specific major morbidity was 5.2 % and 11.5 % for neovaginal and flap reconstruction, respectively. 66 % of patients undergoing neovaginal reconstruction experienced no long term morbidity. 7 % developed neovaginal stenosis and 12 % suffered disease recurrence.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Neovaginal reconstruction is safe in carefully selected patients and offers specific advantages over alternative techniques, with few patients requiring reoperation. Primary closure does not increase perineal morbidity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51185,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Oncology-Oxford","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960740423000968/pdfft?md5=59c9449d8493d8d6e2faf003a0f68d5b&pid=1-s2.0-S0960740423000968-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A review of functional and surgical outcomes of gynaecological reconstruction in the context of pelvic exenteration\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.suronc.2023.101996\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Radical surgical excision may be the only curative option for patients with advanced pelvic malignancy, but concerns surrounding the functional outcomes and survivorship of patients undergoing exenterative surgery remain. This is especially important in the context of vulvovaginal resection, where patients are often younger and surgery can have a profoundly negative impact on quality of life, body image and overall wellbeing. Reconstructive procedures are an important means of mitigating these adverse effects but outcomes are poorly described.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>To define the outcomes associated with gynaecological reconstructive procedures following pelvic exenterative surgery and to compare them with the outcomes of those patients who did not undergo reconstruction.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>An international, multicentre retrospective investigation comparing the outcomes of reconstruction with no reconstruction. The protocol was prospectively registered (NCT05074069).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>334 patients were included. 77 patients had a neovagina reconstructed, 139 patients underwent flap reconstruction and 118 were not reconstructed. Patients who underwent reconstruction had a longer operative time and hospital stay with an increased risk of minor perineal complications. Reconstruction did not confer an increased risk of surgical reintervention, and overall complication rates were equivalent. Procedure-specific major morbidity was 5.2 % and 11.5 % for neovaginal and flap reconstruction, respectively. 66 % of patients undergoing neovaginal reconstruction experienced no long term morbidity. 7 % developed neovaginal stenosis and 12 % suffered disease recurrence.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Neovaginal reconstruction is safe in carefully selected patients and offers specific advantages over alternative techniques, with few patients requiring reoperation. Primary closure does not increase perineal morbidity.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51185,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Oncology-Oxford\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960740423000968/pdfft?md5=59c9449d8493d8d6e2faf003a0f68d5b&pid=1-s2.0-S0960740423000968-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Oncology-Oxford\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960740423000968\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Oncology-Oxford","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960740423000968","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:根治性手术切除可能是晚期盆腔恶性肿瘤患者唯一的治疗选择,但对切除手术患者的功能结局和生存率的担忧仍然存在。这在外阴阴道切除术的情况下尤为重要,因为患者通常较年轻,手术会对生活质量、身体形象和整体健康产生深远的负面影响。重建手术是减轻这些不良影响的重要手段,但结果描述不佳。目的探讨盆腔切除手术后妇科重建手术的相关结果,并将其与未进行重建的患者的结果进行比较。方法采用国际、多中心回顾性调查方法,比较重建与不重建的结果。该方案被前瞻性注册(NCT05074069)。结果共纳入334例患者。77例行阴道再造术,139例行皮瓣再造术,118例未行再造术。接受重建的患者手术时间和住院时间较长,轻微会阴并发症的风险增加。重建没有增加手术再干预的风险,总体并发症发生率相等。新阴道和皮瓣重建的手术特异性主要发病率分别为5.2% %和11. %。66 %接受新阴道重建术的患者无长期发病。7 %发生新阴道狭窄,12 %复发。结论新阴道重建术在精心挑选的患者中是安全的,与其他技术相比具有独特的优势,很少患者需要再次手术。初次闭合不会增加会阴发病率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A review of functional and surgical outcomes of gynaecological reconstruction in the context of pelvic exenteration

Background

Radical surgical excision may be the only curative option for patients with advanced pelvic malignancy, but concerns surrounding the functional outcomes and survivorship of patients undergoing exenterative surgery remain. This is especially important in the context of vulvovaginal resection, where patients are often younger and surgery can have a profoundly negative impact on quality of life, body image and overall wellbeing. Reconstructive procedures are an important means of mitigating these adverse effects but outcomes are poorly described.

Aim

To define the outcomes associated with gynaecological reconstructive procedures following pelvic exenterative surgery and to compare them with the outcomes of those patients who did not undergo reconstruction.

Methods

An international, multicentre retrospective investigation comparing the outcomes of reconstruction with no reconstruction. The protocol was prospectively registered (NCT05074069).

Results

334 patients were included. 77 patients had a neovagina reconstructed, 139 patients underwent flap reconstruction and 118 were not reconstructed. Patients who underwent reconstruction had a longer operative time and hospital stay with an increased risk of minor perineal complications. Reconstruction did not confer an increased risk of surgical reintervention, and overall complication rates were equivalent. Procedure-specific major morbidity was 5.2 % and 11.5 % for neovaginal and flap reconstruction, respectively. 66 % of patients undergoing neovaginal reconstruction experienced no long term morbidity. 7 % developed neovaginal stenosis and 12 % suffered disease recurrence.

Conclusion

Neovaginal reconstruction is safe in carefully selected patients and offers specific advantages over alternative techniques, with few patients requiring reoperation. Primary closure does not increase perineal morbidity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Surgical Oncology-Oxford
Surgical Oncology-Oxford 医学-外科
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
169
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Surgical Oncology is a peer reviewed journal publishing review articles that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in surgical oncology and related fields of interest. Articles represent a spectrum of current technology in oncology research as well as those concerning clinical trials, surgical technique, methods of investigation and patient evaluation. Surgical Oncology publishes comprehensive Reviews that examine individual topics in considerable detail, in addition to editorials and commentaries which focus on selected papers. The journal also publishes special issues which explore topics of interest to surgical oncologists in great detail - outlining recent advancements and providing readers with the most up to date information.
期刊最新文献
Machine learning in cancer prognostication: Limitations and opportunities. Bilobed lateral artery perforator-based flap for partial breast reconstruction - Technique description and results from a ten-year cohort. Individualizing care for patients with gallbladder cancer Natural history of salivary gland secretory carcinoma: A REFCOR study. Tumor necrosis drives prognosis in osteosarcoma: No difference in chemotherapy response and survival between chondroblastic and osteoblastic osteosarcoma
×
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