Literature DB >> 28078775

Comparison of three surgical approaches for staging lymphadenectomy in high-risk endometrial cancer.

Katherine J Pulman1,2, Ebernella S Dason1, Lauren Philp1, Marcus Q Bernardini1,3, Sarah E Ferguson1,3, Stéphane Laframboise1,3, Eshetu G Atenafu4, Taymaa May1,3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare laparotomy, laparoscopy, and robotic surgical approaches to lymphadenectomy for high-risk endometrial cancer staging.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study enrolled patients who underwent surgery for pathologic high-risk endometrial carcinoma at the University Health Network, Toronto, Canada, between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2013. The primary outcome, the median number of nodes retrieved, was compared based on surgical technique. The secondary outcome was the detection of metastatic nodes.
RESULTS: A total of 176 patients who underwent surgery for high-risk endometrial cancer were included, of whom 147 (83.5%) had pelvic and 78 (44.3%) had para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Laparotomy, laparoscopy, and robotic approaches were applied for 69 (39.2%), 44 (25.0%), and 63 (35.8%) patients, respectively. Minimally-invasive staging was associated with an increased proportion of patients undergoing pelvic lymphadenectomy compared with laparotomy (P=0.005). The median number of nodes removed in the pelvis and para-aortic regions did not differ between surgical approaches. The detection of metastatic nodes was also similar between the groups. Increased blood loss (P<0.001) and longer hospital admission (P<0.001) were observed with laparotomy procedures.
CONCLUSION: All three techniques demonstrated adequate staging of high-risk endometrial carcinoma. Based on improved peri-operative outcomes, the use of minimally-invasive techniques is advocated where appropriate.
© 2016 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

Entities:  

Keywords:  High-risk endometrial cancer; Lymphadenectomy; Minimally invasive surgery; Surgical approach; Surgical staging

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28078775     DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12073

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet        ISSN: 0020-7292            Impact factor:   3.561


  4 in total

1.  ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Nicole Concin; Carien L Creutzberg; Ignace Vergote; David Cibula; Mansoor Raza Mirza; Simone Marnitz; Jonathan A Ledermann; Tjalling Bosse; Cyrus Chargari; Anna Fagotti; Christina Fotopoulou; Antonio González-Martín; Sigurd F Lax; Domenica Lorusso; Christian Marth; Philippe Morice; Remi A Nout; Dearbhaile E O'Donnell; Denis Querleu; Maria Rosaria Raspollini; Jalid Sehouli; Alina E Sturdza; Alexandra Taylor; Anneke M Westermann; Pauline Wimberger; Nicoletta Colombo; François Planchamp; Xavier Matias-Guiu
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 2.  Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology-The Future Is Here.

Authors:  Roy Lauterbach; Emad Matanes; Lior Lowenstein
Journal:  Rambam Maimonides Med J       Date:  2017-04-28

3.  Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis from ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in lymph node metastases and risk stratification of endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Dou Dou Liu; Jianfang Li; Xiaomao Li; Liangjun Xie; Luping Qin; Fangyu Peng; Mu Hua Cheng
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 4.401

4.  A Meta-Analysis of Robotic Surgery in Endometrial Cancer: Comparison with Laparoscopy and Laparotomy.

Authors:  Jia Wang; Xiaomao Li; Haotian Wu; Yu Zhang; Fei Wang
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 3.434

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.