STUDY OBJECTIVE: Growing evidence supports the safety of a laparoscopic approach for patients affected by apparent early-stage ovarian cancer. However, no well-designed studies comparing laparoscopic and open surgical staging are available. In the present investigation we aimed to provide a balanced long-term comparison between these 2 approaches. DESIGN: Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: Tertiary center. PATIENTS: Data of consecutive patients affected by early-stage ovarian cancer who had laparoscopic staging were matched 1:1 with a cohort of patients undergoing open surgical staging. The matching was conducted by a propensity-score comparison. INTERVENTION: Laparoscopic and open surgical staging. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifty patient pairs (100 patients: 50 undergoing laparoscopic staging vs 50 undergoing open surgical staging) were included. Demographic and baseline oncologic characteristics were balanced between groups (p > .2). We observed that patients undergoing laparoscopic staging experienced longer operative time (207.2 [71.6] minutes vs 180.7 [47.0] minutes; p = .04), lower blood loss (150 [52.7] mL vs 339.8 [225.9] mL; p < .001), and shorter length of hospital stay (4.0 [2.6] days vs 6.1 [1.6] days; p < .001) compared with patients undergoing open surgical staging. No conversion to open surgery occurred. Complication rate was similar between groups. No difference in survival outcomes were observed, after a mean (SD) follow-up of 49.5 (64) and 52.6 (31.7) months after laparoscopic and open surgical staging, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the implementation of minimally invasive staging does not influence survival outcomes of patients affected by early-stage ovarian cancer. Laparoscopic staging improved patient outcomes, reducing length of hospital stay. Further large prospective studies are warranted.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Growing evidence supports the safety of a laparoscopic approach for patients affected by apparent early-stage ovarian cancer. However, no well-designed studies comparing laparoscopic and open surgical staging are available. In the present investigation we aimed to provide a balanced long-term comparison between these 2 approaches. DESIGN: Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: Tertiary center. PATIENTS: Data of consecutive patients affected by early-stage ovarian cancer who had laparoscopic staging were matched 1:1 with a cohort of patients undergoing open surgical staging. The matching was conducted by a propensity-score comparison. INTERVENTION: Laparoscopic and open surgical staging. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifty patient pairs (100 patients: 50 undergoing laparoscopic staging vs 50 undergoing open surgical staging) were included. Demographic and baseline oncologic characteristics were balanced between groups (p > .2). We observed that patients undergoing laparoscopic staging experienced longer operative time (207.2 [71.6] minutes vs 180.7 [47.0] minutes; p = .04), lower blood loss (150 [52.7] mL vs 339.8 [225.9] mL; p < .001), and shorter length of hospital stay (4.0 [2.6] days vs 6.1 [1.6] days; p < .001) compared with patients undergoing open surgical staging. No conversion to open surgery occurred. Complication rate was similar between groups. No difference in survival outcomes were observed, after a mean (SD) follow-up of 49.5 (64) and 52.6 (31.7) months after laparoscopic and open surgical staging, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the implementation of minimally invasive staging does not influence survival outcomes of patients affected by early-stage ovarian cancer. Laparoscopic staging improved patient outcomes, reducing length of hospital stay. Further large prospective studies are warranted.
Authors: Koji Matsuo; Erica J Chang; Shinya Matsuzaki; Rachel S Mandelbaum; Kazuhide Matsushima; Brendan H Grubbs; Maximilian Klar; Lynda D Roman; Anil K Sood; Jason D Wright Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-05-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Anne Knisely; Charlotte R Gamble; Caryn M St Clair; June Y Hou; Fady Khoury-Collado; Allison A Gockley; Jason D Wright; Alexander Melamed Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2020-11-14 Impact factor: 4.314