AIM OF THE STUDY: To compare intraperitoneal tumor growth after CO2 laparoscopy (L), gasless laparoscopy (GL), midline laparotomy (ML), and general anesthesia (GA) as a control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized trial was carried out in nude rats. A carcinomatosis was obtained by intraperitoneal injection of either one of the two human ovarian cancer cell lines IGR-OV1 or NIH:OVCAR-3. Rats secondly underwent randomly different kind of procedures: CO2 L (8 mmHg, 60 min), GL (traction by a balloon for 60 min), ML (bowel removed and let on a mesh for 60 min), or GA. The rats were finally killed 10 or 35 days after surgery (respectively in IGR-OV1, or NIH:OVCAR-3 models). Tumor growth was assessed by the weight of the omental metastasis and MIB1 immunostaining. Peritoneal dissemination as well as abdominal wall metastases were assessed by pathological examination. Statistical analysis used the chi-square test (or Fisher exact test) and Bonferroni method for multiple comparison between groups. RESULTS: Fifteen rats were included in each group. Mean omental weight was significantly increased after surgery (3.1 to 5.6 g), when compared to control (2.4 g), but no significant difference was recorded between the three surgical accesses. MIB1 immunostaining was poor in the PNP group (37%), whereas it was higher after midline laparotomy (51%), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.07). Similarly, no significant variation was recorded in the NIH:OVCAR-3 model for omental weight or MIB1 staining. CO2 pneumoperitoneum significantly increased right diaphragmatic dome involvement in the NIH:OVCAR-3 model. Abdominal wall metastases were significantly more frequent after surgery when compared to the control group, but no significant difference could be demonstrated between surgical groups in each model. CONCLUSION: In these solid tumor models, CO2 pneumoperitoneum had no deleterious effect on tumor growth when compared to gasless laparoscopy or midline laparotomy.
AIM OF THE STUDY: To compare intraperitoneal tumor growth after CO2 laparoscopy (L), gasless laparoscopy (GL), midline laparotomy (ML), and general anesthesia (GA) as a control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized trial was carried out in nude rats. A carcinomatosis was obtained by intraperitoneal injection of either one of the two humanovarian cancer cell lines IGR-OV1 or NIH:OVCAR-3. Rats secondly underwent randomly different kind of procedures: CO2 L (8 mmHg, 60 min), GL (traction by a balloon for 60 min), ML (bowel removed and let on a mesh for 60 min), or GA. The rats were finally killed 10 or 35 days after surgery (respectively in IGR-OV1, or NIH:OVCAR-3 models). Tumor growth was assessed by the weight of the omental metastasis and MIB1 immunostaining. Peritoneal dissemination as well as abdominal wall metastases were assessed by pathological examination. Statistical analysis used the chi-square test (or Fisher exact test) and Bonferroni method for multiple comparison between groups. RESULTS: Fifteen rats were included in each group. Mean omental weight was significantly increased after surgery (3.1 to 5.6 g), when compared to control (2.4 g), but no significant difference was recorded between the three surgical accesses. MIB1 immunostaining was poor in the PNP group (37%), whereas it was higher after midline laparotomy (51%), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.07). Similarly, no significant variation was recorded in the NIH:OVCAR-3 model for omental weight or MIB1 staining. CO2 pneumoperitoneum significantly increased right diaphragmatic dome involvement in the NIH:OVCAR-3 model. Abdominal wall metastases were significantly more frequent after surgery when compared to the control group, but no significant difference could be demonstrated between surgical groups in each model. CONCLUSION: In these solid tumor models, CO2 pneumoperitoneum had no deleterious effect on tumor growth when compared to gasless laparoscopy or midline laparotomy.
Authors: J M Burns; B D Matthews; H S Pollinger; G Mostafa; C S Joels; C E Austin; K W Kercher; H J Norton; B T Heniford Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2005-01-10 Impact factor: 4.584