Dataset Information

Comparison of single-port laparoscopy and laparotomy in early ovarian cancer surgical staging.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

s The aims of this study were to assess the feasibility of single-port laparoscopic surgical staging (SPLS) in early ovarian cancer and to compare the surgical outcomes of SPLS with those of staging laparotomy.

Methods

Between January 2014 and December 2018, 40 patients underwent SPLS and 41 patients underwent staging laparotomy at Yonsei Cancer Center. The patients were diagnosed with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I ovarian cancer. Variables such as patient age, body mass index (BMI), tumor size, FIGO stage, and perioperative surgical outcomes and survival outcomes of SPLS and laparotomy were compared.

Results

The total operation time was similar between the 2 groups (SPLS: 201.4 vs. laparotomy: 203.0 minutes, P=0.806). The median tumor diameters in the SPLS and laparotomy groups were 11.0 (2.5-28 cm) and 15.4 (6-40 cm), respectively (P=0.001). The SPLS group had lower tumor spillage rate (5.0% vs. 19.5%, P=0.047), less intraoperative blood loss (102.0 vs. 371.5 mL, P<0.001), less postoperative pain, and shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 vs. 9.5 days, P<0.001). The intraoperative major complication rate was similar between groups (2.5% vs. 4.9%, P=0.571). There was no significant difference in progression-free survival between the 2 groups (P=0.945). There were no deaths in either group.

Conclusion

SPLS is feasible in early ovarian cancer and has better perioperative surgical outcomes, in some aspects, than staging laparotomy without compromising survival outcomes. SPLS could be performed in patients suspected to have early ovarian cancer.

SUBMITTER: Cho KH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7834751 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of single-port laparoscopy and laparotomy in early ovarian cancer surgical staging.

Cho Kyu Hee KH Lee Yeon Ju YJ Eoh Kyung Jin KJ Lee Yong Jae YJ Lee Jung-Yun JY Nam Eun Ji EJ Kim Sunghoon S Kim Young Tae YT Kim Sang Wun SW

Obstetrics & gynecology science 20201207 1

<h4>Objective</h4>s The aims of this study were to assess the feasibility of single-port laparoscopic surgical staging (SPLS) in early ovarian cancer and to compare the surgical outcomes of SPLS with those of staging laparotomy.<h4>Methods</h4>Between January 2014 and December 2018, 40 patients underwent SPLS and 41 patients underwent staging laparotomy at Yonsei Cancer Center. The patients were diagnosed with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I ovarian cancer. V ...[more]

PMID: 33285046

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe intended to compare the clinical effect of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy in ovarian cancer treatment.MethodsThe included studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) was used to evaluate the study quality. Effect measures were presented with weighted mean difference (WMD)/odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and heterogeneity test was assessed using Q test and I2 statistics to determine the use of the random effects model or fixed effects model. Egger's test was used to assess the publication bias.ResultsA total of eight studies was included in this meta-analysis with a MINORS score of 16-18. In the random effects model, estimated blood loss (EBL) of robotic surgery was significantly less compared with laparotomy (WMD = - 521.7027, 95% CI - 809.7816; - 233.6238). In the fixed effects model, length of hospital stay (LHS) (WMD = - 5.2225, 95% CI - 6.1485; - 4.2965) and postoperative complication (PC) (OR = 0.4710, 95% CI 0.2537; 0.8747) of robotic surgery were significantly less, and overall survival (OS) rate (OR = 6.4355, 95% CI 1.6722; 24.7678, P = 0.0070) of robotic surgery was significantly higher compared with laparotomy. There was no difference in the effect size of all variables between robotic surgery and laparoscopy. Meanwhile, a publication bias (t = 6.8290, P = 0.002405) was only identified for PC in robotic surgery and laparotomy groups; no publication bias was identified for the other variables.ConclusionsDespite the above results, it failed to show oncological safety and recurrence by pathological stages or histologic types in this meta-analysis, and those confounding factors might affect the clinical outcome. Future meta-analyses with a larger number of eligible randomized controlled trial studies were needed to determine the most suitable treatment method for patients with different stages and types of ovarian cancer.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The aim of the study was to identify risk factors associated with laparotomy conversion during total laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. METHODS:This is a retrospective study examining endometrial cancer cases that underwent hysterectomy-based surgical staging initiated via conventional laparoscopic approach. Factors related to patient, tumor, and surgeon were examined to establish risk of laparotomy conversion using a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS:There were 251 cases identified including 30 cases (12.0%) of laparotomy conversion. The most common indication for laparotomy conversion was a large uterus (27.0%), followed by extensive adhesions (24.3%) and surgical complications (18.9%). Outcomes of cases resulting in laparotomy conversion include longer surgical time (333 vs 224 minutes, P < 0.001), larger blood loss (350 vs 100 mL, P < 0.001), longer hospital stay (4 vs 2 days, P < 0.001), and increased risk of hospital readmission (10% vs 1.4%, P = 0.024). In multivariate analysis, morbid obesity (odds ratio [OR], 4.51; P = 0.011), suboptimal pelvic examination or enlarged uterus during preoperative evaluation (OR, 3.55; P = 0.034), para-aortic lymphadenectomy (OR, 10.5; P = 0.001), uterine size 250 g or greater (OR, 3.49; P = 0.026), and extrauterine disease (OR, 4.68; P = 0.012) remained the independent predictors for laparotomy conversion. The following numbers of risk factors were significantly correlated with laparotomy-conversion rate: none, 1.1%; single risk factor, 5.3% (OR, 5.00; P = 0.15); double risk factors, 21.7% (OR, 24.9; P = 0.002); and triple or more risk factors, 50% (OR, 90.0; P < 0.001). Ultrasonographic 3-dimensional volumes of 496 cm in preoperative uterine size correlate with actual uterine weight of 250 g (Y = 61.5 + 0.38X, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Laparotomy conversion significantly impacts outcomes of patients with endometrial cancer. In this setting, our predictive model for laparotomy conversion will be useful to guide the surgical management of endometrial cancer.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the relative merits among robotic surgery, laparoscopy, and laparotomy for patients with endometrial cancer by conducting a meta-analysis.MethodsThe MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison between robotic surgery and laparoscopy or between robotic surgery and laparotomy for endometrial cancer were selected. The outcome measures included operating time (OT), number of complications, length of hospital stay (LOHS), estimated blood loss (EBL), number of transfusions, total lymph nodes harvested (TLNH), and number of conversions. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using either a fixed-effects or random-effects model.ResultsTwenty-two studies were included in the meta-analysis. These studies involved a total of 4420 patients, 3403 of whom underwent both robotic surgery and laparoscopy and 1017 of whom underwent both robotic surgery and laparotomy. The EBL (p?=?0.01) and number of conversions (p?=?0.0008) were significantly lower and the number of complications (p<0.0001) was significantly higher in robotic surgery than in laparoscopy. The OT, LOHS, number of transfusions, and TLNH showed no significant differences between robotic surgery and laparoscopy. The number of complications (p<0.00001), LOHS (p<0.00001), EBL (p<0.00001), and number of transfusions (p?=?0.03) were significantly lower and the OT (p<0.00001) was significantly longer in robotic surgery than in laparotomy. The TLNH showed no significant difference between robotic surgery and laparotomy.ConclusionsRobotic surgery is generally safer and more reliable than laparoscopy and laparotomy for patients with endometrial cancer. Robotic surgery is associated with significantly lower EBL than both laparoscopy and laparotomy; fewer conversions but more complications than laparoscopy; and shorter LOHS, fewer complications, and fewer transfusions but a longer OT than laparoscopy. Further studies are required.

Dataset Information

Comparison of single-port laparoscopy and laparotomy in early ovarian cancer surgical staging.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of single-port laparoscopy and laparotomy in early ovarian cancer surgical staging.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets