Literature DB >> 27628475

Operative and anesthetic outcomes in endometrial cancer staging via three minimally invasive methods.

Nicole D Fleming1, Allison E Axtell2, Scott E Lentz3.   

Abstract

The aim of this work is to compare operative and anesthetic outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive endometrial cancer staging, with lymphadenectomy performed via transperitoneal, extraperitoneal, or robotic-assisted methods. Sixty-six consecutive patients (24 transperitoneal, 19 extraperitoneal, and 23 robotic) were identified who underwent laparoscopic-assisted endometrial cancer staging with pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Patients were divided into three groups based on method of para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Anesthetic and surgical times were longest in the extraperitoneal group. Patients undergoing robotic surgery had the shortest hospital stay and lowest conversion rate to laparotomy. Patients undergoing robotic lymphadenectomy had more pelvic and para-aortic nodes removed compared with the transperitoneal method. There was no difference in number of para-aortic nodes removed in the robotic versus extraperitoneal methods. The extraperitoneal group had highest peak end-tidal CO2 levels and highest narcotic requirements, while patients in the robotic group had highest peak inflation pressures and lowest pain scores. There were no differences in complication rates amongst the three groups. Robotic-assisted staging is superior to other minimally invasive methods in terms of most operative outcomes. Extraperitoneal lymphadenectomy is equivalent to robotic surgery where number of aortic nodes is concerned, but is associated with higher end-tidal CO2 levels and narcotic requirements. Peak inflation pressures were highest in the robotic group, with no apparent adverse consequences.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anesthetic outcomes; Endometrial carcinoma; Extraperitoneal laparoscopy; Lymphadenectomy

Year:  2011        PMID: 27628475     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-011-0319-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  18 in total

Review 1.  Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: a systematic review.

Authors:  Giorgia Gaia; Robert W Holloway; Luigi Santoro; Sarfraz Ahmad; Elena Di Silverio; Arsenio Spinillo
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Robotic extraperitoneal aortic lymphadenectomy: Development of a technique.

Authors:  Javier F Magrina; Rosanne Kho; Regina P Montero; Paul M Magtibay; Wojciech Pawlina
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-01-21       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at a minimally invasive surgical center.

Authors:  Joel Cardenas-Goicoechea; Sarah Adams; Suneel B Bhat; Thomas C Randall
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2010-02-07       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Analgesic and antiemetic needs following minimally invasive vs open staging for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Nicole D Fleming; Laura J Havrilesky; Fidel A Valea; Terrence K Allen; Gloria Broadwater; Amy Bland; Ashraf S Habib
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Prospective evaluation of surgical staging of advanced cervical cancer via a laparoscopic extraperitoneal approach.

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

6.  Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques.

Authors:  Maria C Bell; Jenny Torgerson; Usha Seshadri-Kreaden; Allison Wierda Suttle; Sharon Hunt
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 5.482

7.  What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman?

Authors:  Paola A Gehrig; Leigh A Cantrell; Aaron Shafer; Lisa N Abaid; Alberto Mendivil; John F Boggess
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-08-09       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 8.  Robotics and gynecologic oncology: review of the literature.

Authors:  Jennifer E Cho; Farr R Nezhat
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2009 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.137

9.  Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2.

Authors:  Joan L Walker; Marion R Piedmonte; Nick M Spirtos; Scott M Eisenkop; John B Schlaerth; Robert S Mannel; Gregory Spiegel; Richard Barakat; Michael L Pearl; Sudarshan K Sharma
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-10-05       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Safety, feasibility, and costs of outpatient laparoscopic extraperitoneal aortic nodal dissection for locally advanced cervical carcinoma.

Authors:  Todd Tillmanns; M Patrick Lowe
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2007-05-16       Impact factor: 5.482

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Laparoscopic simple prostatectomy versus robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials.

Authors:  Kun-Peng Li; Si-Yu Chen; Li Yang
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2022-10-22

2.  Surgical Outcomes of Transperitoneal Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy Compared With Extraperitoneal Approach in Gynecologic Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Kun-Peng Li; Xian-Zhong Deng; Tao Wu
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2021-12-21

Review 3.  A comparison of operative outcomes between standard and robotic laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Thomas Ind; Alex Laios; Matthew Hacking; Marielle Nobbenhuis
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 2.547

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.