BACKGROUND: Extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PAL) is used to treat gynecological cancers. This laparoscopic approach was first described using a multiport technique, and more recently, a single-port technique was developed. Our aim was to experimentally compare both approaches-conventional laparoscopy (CL) and single-port laparoscopy (SPL)-via the extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach. METHODS: From November 2006 to July 2012, extraperitoneal PAL was performed by CL or SPL using the GelPOINT device (Applied Medical). The surgical outcomes of the 2 groups were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The study involved 69 patients; 36 underwent PAL with CL, and 33 patients underwent PAL with SPL. The mean operative times were 211.2 (range, 132-390) min and 159.6 (range, 120-255) min for the CL and SPL groups, respectively. The mean blood loss was not significantly different between the CL (52.5 mL; range, 0-100 mL) and SPL (40.5 mL; range, 0-100 mL, p = 0.62) groups. The average lymph node count was lower in the CL group (11.1; range, 4-29) compared to the SPL group (15; range, 3-19) (p = 0.03). However, this difference was not confirmed in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.16). The mean hospital stay was lower for the SPL group (2.2 days; range, 1-8 days) than the CL group (3.1 days; range, 1-5 days). In this case, the significant difference found in the univariate analysis (p = 0.02) was confirmed by the multivariate analysis (p = 0.0003). There were no conversions to open technique and no major complications. CONCLUSIONS: The SPL method appears to be a feasible approach, with surgical outcomes that are not statistically different from the CL method. The cosmetic aspect, the role of SPL in decreasing postoperative pain, and its impact on hospital stay must be confirmed prospectively in larger series.
BACKGROUND: Extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PAL) is used to treat gynecological cancers. This laparoscopic approach was first described using a multiport technique, and more recently, a single-port technique was developed. Our aim was to experimentally compare both approaches-conventional laparoscopy (CL) and single-port laparoscopy (SPL)-via the extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach. METHODS: From November 2006 to July 2012, extraperitoneal PAL was performed by CL or SPL using the GelPOINT device (Applied Medical). The surgical outcomes of the 2 groups were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The study involved 69 patients; 36 underwent PAL with CL, and 33 patients underwent PAL with SPL. The mean operative times were 211.2 (range, 132-390) min and 159.6 (range, 120-255) min for the CL and SPL groups, respectively. The mean blood loss was not significantly different between the CL (52.5 mL; range, 0-100 mL) and SPL (40.5 mL; range, 0-100 mL, p = 0.62) groups. The average lymph node count was lower in the CL group (11.1; range, 4-29) compared to the SPL group (15; range, 3-19) (p = 0.03). However, this difference was not confirmed in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.16). The mean hospital stay was lower for the SPL group (2.2 days; range, 1-8 days) than the CL group (3.1 days; range, 1-5 days). In this case, the significant difference found in the univariate analysis (p = 0.02) was confirmed by the multivariate analysis (p = 0.0003). There were no conversions to open technique and no major complications. CONCLUSIONS: The SPL method appears to be a feasible approach, with surgical outcomes that are not statistically different from the CL method. The cosmetic aspect, the role of SPL in decreasing postoperative pain, and its impact on hospital stay must be confirmed prospectively in larger series.
Authors: Eric Lambaudie; Francesco Cannone; Marie Bannier; Max Buttarelli; Gilles Houvenaeghel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Antonio Gil-Moreno; Berta Díaz-Feijoo; Asumpció Pérez-Benavente; José M del Campo; Jordi Xercavins; José M Martínez-Palones Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2008-06-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: John B Schlaerth; Nicola M Spirtos; Linda F Carson; Guy Boike; Thomas Adamec; Bette Stonebraker Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Y Sonoda; E Leblanc; D Querleu; B Castelain; T H Papageorgiou; E Lambaudie; F Narducci Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Frank Friedersdorff; Seven Johannes Aghdassi; Ahmed Magheli; Maximilian Richter; Carsten Stephan; Jonas Busch; Dirk Boehmer; Kurt Miller; T Florian Fuller Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2014-11-21 Impact factor: 2.264