OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparotomy for endometrial cancer. METHODS: A total of 104 consecutive patients were non-randomly assigned to either laparoscopic surgery or laparotomy. All patients underwent comprehensive surgical staging procedures including total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy. The safety, morbidity, and survival rates of the two groups were compared, and the data was retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients received laparoscopic surgery and 70 underwent laparotomy. Operation time for the laparoscopic procedure was 227.0+/-28.8 minutes, which showed significant difference from the 208.1+/-46.4 minutes (p=0.032) of the laparotomy group. The estimated blood loss of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery was 230.3+/-92.4 mL. This was significantly less than that of the laparotomy group (301.9+/-156.3 mL, p=0.015). The laparoscopic group had an average of 20.8 pelvic and 9.1 para-aortic nodes retrieved, as compared to 17.2 pelvic and 8.5 para-aortic nodes retrieved in the laparotomy group. There was no significant difference (p=0.062, p=0.554). The mean hospitalization duration was significantly greater in the laparotomy group than the laparoscopic group (23.3 and 16.4 days, p<0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications was 15.7% and 11.8% in the laparotomy and laparoscopic groups respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in the survival rate. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgical staging operation is a safe and effective therapeutic procedure for management of endometrial cancer with an acceptable morbidity compared to the laparotomic approach, and is characterized by far less blood loss and shorter postoperative hospitalization.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparotomy for endometrial cancer. METHODS: A total of 104 consecutive patients were non-randomly assigned to either laparoscopic surgery or laparotomy. All patients underwent comprehensive surgical staging procedures including total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy. The safety, morbidity, and survival rates of the two groups were compared, and the data was retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients received laparoscopic surgery and 70 underwent laparotomy. Operation time for the laparoscopic procedure was 227.0+/-28.8 minutes, which showed significant difference from the 208.1+/-46.4 minutes (p=0.032) of the laparotomy group. The estimated blood loss of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery was 230.3+/-92.4 mL. This was significantly less than that of the laparotomy group (301.9+/-156.3 mL, p=0.015). The laparoscopic group had an average of 20.8 pelvic and 9.1 para-aortic nodes retrieved, as compared to 17.2 pelvic and 8.5 para-aortic nodes retrieved in the laparotomy group. There was no significant difference (p=0.062, p=0.554). The mean hospitalization duration was significantly greater in the laparotomy group than the laparoscopic group (23.3 and 16.4 days, p<0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications was 15.7% and 11.8% in the laparotomy and laparoscopic groups respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in the survival rate. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgical staging operation is a safe and effective therapeutic procedure for management of endometrial cancer with an acceptable morbidity compared to the laparotomic approach, and is characterized by far less blood loss and shorter postoperative hospitalization.
Authors: Richard R Barakat; Gali Lev; Amanda J Hummer; Yukio Sonoda; Dennis S Chi; Kaled M Alektiar; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-01-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Alessandro Stecco; Francesco Buemi; Alessia Cassarà; Roberta Matheoud; Gian Mauro Sacchetti; Alberto Arnulfo; Marco Brambilla; Alessandro Carriero Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: C William Helm; Cibi Arumugam; Mary E Gordinier; Daniel S Metzinger; Jianmin Pan; Shesh N Rai Journal: J Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-09-28 Impact factor: 4.401