Literature DB >> 29269126

Single-Institution Propensity-Matched Study to Evaluate the Psychological Effect of Minimally Invasive Interval Debulking Surgery Versus Standard Laparotomic Treatment: From Body to Mind and Back.

Salvatore Gueli Alletti1, Giuseppe Vizzielli2, Letizia Lafuenti2, Barbara Costantini2, Anna Fagotti3, Camilla Fedele3, Stefano Cianci2, Emanuele Perrone3, Valerio Gallotta2, Cristiano Rossitto2, Giovanni Scambia3.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To further investigate the psycho-oncologic effect of minimally invasive surgery comparing patients submitted to minimally invasive interval debulking surgery (MI-IDS) with a balanced population treated by standard laparotomy (L-IDS).
DESIGN: Single-institution propensity-matched study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).
SETTING: Division of Gynecologic Oncology, "Policlinico A. Gemelli" Foundation, Rome, Italy. PATIENTS: The investigational arm included 30 patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with MI-IDS, whereas the control arm included a consecutive series of 30 patients with advanced ovarian cancer submitted to L-IDS. For every patient preoperative data were collected to assess the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Perioperative data were also recorded.
INTERVENTIONS: A General Well-Being Schedule (GWBS) and a clinical assessment of body uneasiness, the Body Uneasiness Test, were administered by a psycho-oncologist immediately before IDS and within 30 days after surgery to evaluate the psychological burden in both groups. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN
RESULTS: Both groups were matched as closely as possible. No statistical differences were registered in terms of surgical procedures and residual tumor. A significantly longer median operative time in patients was counterbalanced by more favorable estimated blood loss and median length of stay and time to chemotherapy. No statistically significant differences were registered in terms of postoperative complications. Starting from a substantially homogenous psychological condition, psychometric evaluation underlined statistically significant differences in favor of MI-IDS. The mean GWBS score was 64.17 ± 11.77 in patients and 54.15 ± 14.76 in control subjects, with a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (p = .004).
CONCLUSION: MI-IDS seems to play an important role in the quality of life and oncologic outcomes. Even if presented data testified a further evolutionary step in oncologic patient care, more experience with larger groups of patients is desirable to deeply investigate and assess our results.
Copyright © 2017 American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Interval debulking surgery; MISSION; Minimally invasive surgery; Ovarian cancer; Psychological effect

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29269126     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.12.007

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


  16 in total

1.  Robotic Single-Port Platform in General, Urologic, and Gynecologic Surgeries: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  S Cianci; A Rosati; V Rumolo; S Gueli Alletti; V Gallotta; L C Turco; G Corrado; G Vizzielli; A Fagotti; F Fanfani; G Scambia; S Uccella
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  A novel HIPEC technique using hybrid CO2 recirculation system: intra-abdominal diffusion test in a porcine model.

Authors:  Stefano Cianci; Giuseppe Vizzielli; Anna Fagotti; Fabio Pacelli; Andrea Di Giorgio; Alessandro Tropea; Antonio Biondi; Giovanni Scambia
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2018-06-25

Review 3.  Laparotomy vs. minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer recurrence: a systematic review.

Authors:  Stefano Uccella; Massimo P Franchi; Stefano Cianci; Pier Carlo Zorzato; Francesca Bertoli; Salvatore Gueli Alletti; Fabio Ghezzi; Giovanni Scambia
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2020-08

Review 4.  The robotic single-port platform for gynecologic surgery: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Vito Andrea Capozzi; Giulia Armano; Andrea Rosati; Alessandro Tropea; Antonio Biondi
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2020-05-29

5.  Management of postoperative chylous ascites after surgery for ovarian cancer: a single-institution experience.

Authors:  Giuseppe Scaletta; Lorena Quagliozzi; Stefano Cianci; Virginia Vargiu; Maria Cristina Mele; Giovanni Scambia; Anna Fagotti
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2019-04-20

Review 6.  Surgery vs. chemotherapy for ovarian cancer recurrence: what is the best treatment option.

Authors:  Vito Andrea Capozzi; Andrea Rosati; Luigi Carlo Turco; Giulio Sozzi; Matteo Riccò; Benito Chiofalo; Giuseppe Vizzielli
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2020-08

Review 7.  Secondary and tertiary ovarian cancer recurrence: what is the best management?

Authors:  Simone Garzon; Antonio Simone Laganà; Jvan Casarin; Ricciarda Raffaelli; Antonella Cromi; Massimo Franchi; Fabio Barra; Ibrahim Alkatout; Simone Ferrero; Fabio Ghezzi
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2020-08

Review 8.  Role of ultrasound in the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Andrea Rosati; Salvatore Gueli Alletti; Vito Andrea Capozzi; Mariateresa Mirandola; Virginia Vargiu; Camilla Fedele; Stefano Uccella; Carmine Vascone
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2020-08

9.  Comparison of safety and efficacy between laparoscopic myomectomy and traditional laparotomy for patients with uterine fibroids and their effect on pregnancy rate after surgery.

Authors:  Xueqiao Kan; Xiaoxia Shen; Li Feng; Yuqing Hu; Jiadong Yu; Xiaoju Yang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 2.447

10.  Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for ovarian cancer recurrence: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Stefano Cianci; Gaetano Riemma; Carlo Ronsini; Pasquale De Franciscis; Marco Torella; Antonio Schiattarella; Marco La Verde; Nicola Colacurci
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2020-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.