Literature DB >> 32920558

Percutaneous-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Prospective Comparison.

Emanuele Perrone1, Cristiano Rossitto2, Francesco Fanfani2, Stefano Cianci3, Anna Fagotti2, Stefano Uccella4, Giuseppe Vizzielli2, Carmine Vascone5, Stefano Restaino2, Camilla Fedele2, Farrah Layla Saleh6, Giovanni Scambia2, Salvatore Gueli Alletti2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of percutaneous approach, we prospectively compared our experience in percutaneous-assisted hysterectomy (PSS-H) with that in a series of laparoscopic hysterectomies (LPS-Hs).
METHODS: In this multicentric cohort study, from May 2015 to October 2017, 160 patients affected by benign and malignant gynecological conditions were considered eligible for minimally invasive surgery (MIS): 80 patients received PSS-H and 80 LPS-H. In each group, 30 cases of low-/intermediate-risk endometrial cancer were enrolled. For both groups, we documented preoperative outcomes, postoperative pain, and cosmetic outcomes.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were noted in baseline characteristics or operative time. We observed significant differences in estimated blood loss: median of 50 cc (PSS-H) and 100 cc (LPS-H) (p = 0.0001). In LPS-H, we reported 4 (5.0%) intraoperative complications and 1 (1.3%) in PSS-H. Thirty-day complications were 4 (5%) in PSS-H and 11 (13.8%) in LPS-H (p = 0.058). No significative differences were found in visual analog scale score, despite a relevant disparity in cosmetic outcome (p = 0.0001). For oncological cases, the 2 techniques had comparable intra- and postoperative outcomes and oncological accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we reported that PSS-H is comparable to LPS-H for intra- and perioperative outcomes and postoperative pain, while PSS-H seems to be superior in cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction. PSS-H may represent a valid alternative in ultra-MIS for benign gynecological conditions and low-/intermediate-risk endometrial cancer.
© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gynecological surgery; Hysterectomy; Minimally invasive surgery; New technology; Percutaneous approach; Personalized surgical treatment

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32920558     DOI: 10.1159/000509877

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Obstet Invest        ISSN: 0378-7346            Impact factor:   2.031


  3 in total

1.  Predictive features of borderline ovarian tumor recurrence in patients with childbearing potential undergoing conservative treatment.

Authors:  Vito Andrea Capozzi; Stefano Cianci; Elisa Scarpelli; Luciano Monfardini; Alessadra Cianciolo; Giuseppe Barresi; Marcello Ceccaroni; Giulio Sozzi; Vincenzo Dario Mandato; Stefano Uccella; Massimo Franchi; Vito Chinatera; Roberto Berretta
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-06-07

Review 2.  Ultra-minimally invasive surgery in gynecological patients: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Marco La Verde; Gaetano Riemma; Alessandro Tropea; Antonio Biondi; Stefano Cianci
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2022-04-02

3.  A Multicentric Randomized Trial to Evaluate the ROle of Uterine MANipulator on Laparoscopic/Robotic HYsterectomy for the Treatment of Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: The ROMANHY Trial.

Authors:  Salvatore Gueli Alletti; Emanuele Perrone; Camilla Fedele; Stefano Cianci; Tina Pasciuto; Vito Chiantera; Stefano Uccella; Alfredo Ercoli; Giuseppe Vizzielli; Anna Fagotti; Valerio Gallotta; Francesco Cosentino; Barbara Costantini; Stefano Restaino; Giorgia Monterossi; Andrea Rosati; Luigi Carlo Turco; Vito Andrea Capozzi; Francesco Fanfani; Giovanni Scambia
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-09-10       Impact factor: 6.244

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.