Dataset Information

Differences in tumour growth, tumour cell proliferation and immune function after laparoscopy and laparotomy in an animal model.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Clinical and experimental studies have shown that laparoscopy preserves the immune response and can give better clinical results than laparotomy. However, the use of laparoscopy for the treatment of cancer patients is still controversial due to the risk of port-site and haematogenous metastases and increased tumour growth. The purpose of this experimental study was to assess tumour growth and the mechanism of differential tumour behaviour after laparoscopy and laparotomy. METHODS: Seventy-five young, male Wistar rats were randomly assigned to one of two experiments. Experiment 1: 45 animals were inoculated subcutaneously with Walker carcinosarcoma 256 cells and were subdivided into three groups of 15 rats. Control group la was submitted to anaesthesia only, group 1b received carbon dioxide (CO(2)) pneumoperitoneum,while group 1c received a laparotomy. Animals were sacrificed on postoperative day (POD) 7; tumours were excised and weighed to evaluate tumour growth. Nucleolar organiser regions identified by silver staining (AgNORs) were analysed to evaluate cell proliferation. Experiment 2: 30 rats were submitted to the same procedures as before, with ten animals in each group (2a, 2b, 2c), and a delayed-type hypersensitivity response (DTH) was used to evaluate the immune function. RESULTS: The average tumour mass was 1.76 g in group 1a, 2.81 g in group 1b and 4.21 g in group 1c (p < 0.05). The AgNOR expression results were similar in the three groups. The immune function was better preserved in the control group (2a: average inflammatory area on POD1 = 106 mm(2) and on POD2 = 128.18 mm(2)), than in the pneumoperitoneum group (2b: average inflammatory area on POD1 = 79.75 mm(2) and on POD2 = 126.93 mm(2)); the worst results were in the laparotomy group (2c: average inflammatory area on POD1 = 33.33 mm(2) and on POD2 = 61.32 mm(2)).There were significant differences between groups 2a and 2c and between 2b and 2c. CONCLUSION: Laparotomy stimulates a greater tumour growth than CO(2) pneumoperitoneum, but there is no difference in tumour cell proliferation. The cellular immune function is better preserved in animals submitted to CO pneumoperitoneum than in the laparotomized animals. These results suggest a relationship between a weaker immune response and a greater tumour growth.

SUBMITTER: Lopes AG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2020628 | biostudies-other | 2001

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:There has been recent progress in intraoperative fluid therapy. However, little is known about intraoperative fluid therapy in laparoscopic surgery. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there are differences in the basal fluid requirements during surgery between laparotomy and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.This retrospective cohort study analyzed the electronic medical records of 253 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy via either laparotomy (73 patients) or laparoscopy (180 patients) between June 2006 and March 2016. The volume of intraoperative fluid administered, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate were evaluated. The total volume of fluids was calculated as the sum of the volume of crystalloid plus the volume of colloid multiplied by 1.5 or 2.0.Patients who had laparotomy were older and had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classes. Anesthesia time was longer and estimated blood loss was larger in laparotomy. More colloid (1.8?mL/kg per h vs. 1.2?mL/kg per h, P?<?.001) and more total calculated fluid (1.5 times: 11.7?mL/kg per h vs. 10.6?mL/kg per h, P?=?.002; 2.0 times: 12.6?mL/kg per h vs. 11.2?mL/kg per h, P?=?.001) were infused in laparotomy. Crystalloid (9.0?mL/kg per h vs. 8.9?mL/kg per h, P?=?.203) did not show significant difference. Postoperative complications were more frequent (63% vs. 45%, P?=?.008), the hospital stay was longer (18 days vs. 13.4 days, P?<?.001), and readmission rate was higher (15% vs. 5.6%, P?=?.02) in laparotomy. By logistic regression analysis, we could find that operation type (laparotomy vs. laparoscopy, odds ratio 1.900, 95% confidence interval 1.072-3.368) and operation time (P?=?.004) had effect on complications.In patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy, basal fluid requirements were larger in laparotomy compared with laparoscopy. Operation time and estimated blood loss had effects on fluid administration. Postoperative complications were more frequent in laparotomy but we could not find relationships with infused colloid or total calculated fluid volumes. Operation type (laparotomy vs. laparoscopy) and operation time were the only related factors to postoperative complications.

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:We intended to compare the clinical effect of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy in ovarian cancer treatment. METHODS:The 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. RESULTS:A 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. CONCLUSIONS:Despite 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.

Dataset Information

Differences in tumour growth, tumour cell proliferation and immune function after laparoscopy and laparotomy in an animal model.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure