Literature DB >> 24699300

Laparoscopic versus open abdominal management of cervical cancer: long-term results from a propensity-matched analysis.

Giorgio Bogani1, Antonella Cromi2, Stefano Uccella2, Maurizio Serati2, Jvan Casarin2, Ciro Pinelli2, Fabio Ghezzi2.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative and long-term outcomes related to laparoscopic and open abdominal surgical management of cervical cancer.
DESIGN: Propensity-matched comparison of prospectively collected data (Canadian Task Force classification II-1).
SETTING: University teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Sixty-five propensity-matched patient pairs (130 patients) undergoing either laparoscopy or open abdominal surgical procedures to treat cervical cancer. INTERVENTION: Radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy was performed via the laparoscopic (LRH) or open abdominal approach (RAH). MEASUREMENT AND MAIN
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the study populations were similar. In the LRH group the procedure was converted to open surgery in 2 patients (2%). Compared with the RAH group, patients undergoing LRH experienced less blood loss (200 vs 500 mL; p < .001), a lower transfusion rate (6% vs 22%; p = .02), similar operative time (245 vs 259.5 minutes; p = .26), and shorter length of hospital stay (4 vs 8 days; p < .001). No between-group differences in intraoperative complications were recorded (p = 1.0); however, a trend toward a lower postoperative complication rate (Accordion system grade ≥ 3) was observed for LRH compared with RAH (4 patients [6%]) vs 12 patients [18%]; p = .06). Five-year disease-free survival (p = .6, log-rank test) and overall survival (p = .31, log-rank test) did not differ statistically between women undergoing LRH or RAH.
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy ensures the same results as open surgery insofar as radicality and long-term survival. Use of the laparoscopic approach is associated with improved short-term results, minimizing the occurrence of severe postoperative complications.
Copyright © 2014 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical cancer; Laparoscopy; Radical hysterectomy; Recurrence; Survival

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24699300     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.03.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol        ISSN: 1553-4650            Impact factor:   4.137


  26 in total

1.  Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Roni Nitecki; Pedro T Ramirez; Michael Frumovitz; Kate J Krause; Ana I Tergas; Jason D Wright; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Alexander Melamed
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 31.777

2.  Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: When Adoption of a Novel Treatment Precedes Prospective, Randomized Evidence.

Authors:  Alexander Melamed; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Pedro T Ramirez
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-09-27       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Current and Future Status of Laparoscopy in Gynecologic Oncology.

Authors:  S Rimbach; K Neis; E Solomayer; U Ulrich; D Wallwiener
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.915

4.  Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Inconsistent Outcomes from Matched or Weighted Cohorts.

Authors:  Lu Wu; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Katiuscha Merath; J Madison Hyer; Anghela Z Paredes; Rittal Mehta; Kota Sahara; Fabio Bagante; Eliza W Beal; Feng Shen; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-04-22       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for low-risk cervical cancer: a multicentre retrospective study.

Authors:  Zhiqiang Li; Chunlin Chen; Ping Liu; Anwei Lu; Hongwei Zhao; Xuemei Zhan; Hui Duan; Pengfei Li; Weidong Zhao; Jilong Yao; Donglin Li; Haixia Jiang; Mubiao Liu; Xiaonong Bin; Jinghe Lang
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-08-18       Impact factor: 2.344

6.  Accordion: A Useful and Workable Classification of Complications After Breast Reconstructive Surgery.

Authors:  Justyna Jończyk; Jerzy Jankau
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 0.558

7.  Does a pre-operative conization improve disease-free survival in early-stage cervical cancer?

Authors:  Louise Benoit; Meriem Koual; Huyen-Thu Nguyen-Xuan; Vincent Balaya; Claude Nos; Rosa Montero-Macías; Anne-Sophie Bats
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 2.344

8.  Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Alexander Melamed; Daniel J Margul; Ling Chen; Nancy L Keating; Marcela G Del Carmen; Junhua Yang; Brandon-Luke L Seagle; Amy Alexander; Emma L Barber; Laurel W Rice; Jason D Wright; Masha Kocherginsky; Shohreh Shahabi; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Total Laparoscopic Versus Laparotomic Radical Hysterectomy and Lymphadenectomy in Cervical Cancer: An Observational Study of 13-Year Experience.

Authors:  Meizhu Xiao; Zhenyu Zhang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.889

10.  Survival Outcomes in Patients With 2018 FIGO Stage IA2-IIA2 Cervical Cancer Treated With Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy: A Propensity Score-Weighting Analysis.

Authors:  Wancheng Zhao; Yunyun Xiao; Wei Zhao; Qing Yang; Fangfang Bi
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.