Literature DB >> 24407582

Laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic surgical staging for early-stage endometrial cancer.

Jeong-Yeol Park1, Dae-Yeon Kim, Dae-Shik Suh, Jong-Hyeok Kim, Joo-Hyun Nam.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgical staging for early-stage endometrial cancer with conventional laparoscopic surgical staging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prospective study group consisted of 37 consecutive patients who underwent LESS surgical staging including hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic lymph node dissection. The historical control group consisted of 74 consecutive patients who underwent 4-port laparoscopic surgical staging including hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic lymph node dissection. Surgical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: No patient in the LESS or conventional laparoscopic surgery group required an additional trocar or conversion to laparotomy. There were no intergroup differences in mean age, menopause status, body mass index, and previous history of abdominal surgery. Further, there were no inter-group differences in the number of total (LESS vs. conventional, 25.9 ± 10.6 vs. 24.6 ± 9.0, P = 0.497), pelvic (24.6 ± 0.497 vs. 23.3 ± 7.7, P = 0.459), and para-aortic (4.9 ± 2.5 vs. 6.9 ± 7.3, P = 0.494) lymph nodes retrieved; the operating time (183 ± 50 min vs. 173 ± 106, P = 0.388); estimated blood loss (194 ± 149 mL vs. 173 ± 106 mL, P = 0.394); number of patients requiring transfusion (5.4% vs. 8.1%, P = 0.717); postoperative hospital stay (5.0 ± 1.8 days vs. 5.1 ± 1.8 days, P = 0.911); intraoperative complications (2.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.333); and postoperative complications (0% vs. 1.4%, P > 0.999). The postoperative pain scores and analgesic requirements were significantly lower in the LESS surgical staging group.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgical staging was a feasible, safe, and efficacious procedure for surgical management of early-stage endometrial cancer. It was associated with less postoperative pain and analgesic requirements and was comparable to conventional laparoscopic surgical staging in perioperative outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24407582     DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer        ISSN: 1048-891X            Impact factor:   3.437


  10 in total

1.  Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety of transvaginal natural endoscopic surgery and transumbilical single port laparoscopy surgery for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Guna He; Lingyu Liu; Xiaomei Liu; Hui Guo; Lingling Chen; Rongzi Li
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2022-04-15       Impact factor: 3.940

2.  Staging lymphadenectomy in patients with localized high risk prostate cancer: comparison of the laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) technique with conventional multiport laparoscopy.

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

3.  Single-access laparoscopic approach in the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer: A single-institution experience and review of literature.

Authors:  Giacomo Corrado; Giuseppe Cutillo; Giulia Pomati; Emanuela Mancini; Ermelinda Baiocco; Lodovico Patrizi; Maria Saltari; Francesco Barletta; Fabiola Patani; Enrico Vizza
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2016 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.407

4.  Robotic single-site staging operation for early-stage endometrial cancer: initial experience at a single institution.

Authors:  Hyewon Chung; Tae-Kyu Jang; Seung Hyub Nam; Sang-Hoon Kwon; So-Jin Shin; Chi-Heum Cho
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Sci       Date:  2019-04-12

5.  Laparoscopic vs percutaneous hysterectomy in obese patients: a prospective evaluation.

Authors:  E Perrone; F Fanfani; C Rossitto; S Cianci; A Fagotti; S Restaino; C Fedele; G Scambia; S Gueli Alletti
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2020-03-27

6.  Two-port access for laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer using conventional laparoscopic instruments.

Authors:  Kuan-Ju Huang; Ying-Xuan Li; Bor-Ching Sheu; Wen-Chun Chang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Laparoscopic vs. robotic-assisted laparoscopy in endometrial cancer staging: large retrospective single-institution study.

Authors:  Emanuele Perrone; Ilaria Capasso; Tina Pasciuto; Alessandro Gioè; Salvatore Gueli Alletti; Stefano Restaino; Giovanni Scambia; Francesco Fanfani
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 4.401

8.  Chopstick technique versus cross technique in LESS hysterectomy (CCLEH study): a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Yuya Dou; Li Deng; Shuai Tang; Yuanyang Yao; Xiaolong Liang; Qunying Hu; Yanzhou Wang
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-08-20       Impact factor: 2.728

9.  Feasibility of reduced port surgery applying Higuchi's transverse incision.

Authors:  Kazu Ueda; Yoko Nagayoshi; Ayako Kawabata; Takafumi Kuroda; Yasushi Iida; Motoaki Saitou; Nozomu Yanaihara; Kouhei Sugimoto; Masaru Sakamoto; Aikou Okamoto
Journal:  Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther       Date:  2016-06-15

10.  Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zulipiyamu Tuoheti; Lili Han; Gulimire Mulati
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 1.817

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.