What is the role of reassessment laparoscopy in the management of gynecologic cancers in 1995?

One hundred fifty-four patients with a diagnosis of ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma underwent 181 reassessment procedures to detect persistent or recurrent disease between January 1, 1989 and December 31, 1994 at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. One hundred four laparoscopic procedures were performed. Eleven of these procedures were converted to laparotomy due to severe adhesions. Therefore, a total of 88 reassessment laparotomies were performed during the study period. Fifty-seven of 93 laparoscopies and 69 of 88 laparotomies were done as second-look procedures. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to patient age, tumor histology, degree of primary cytoreduction, and tumor stage or grade. Significant differences were found between laparoscopy and laparotomy groups in the following outcome variables evaluated: estimated blood loss (33.9 ml vs 164.9 ml, P = 0.0001), operative time (81.3 min vs 130.4 min, P = 0.0001), days of hospitalization (0.3 days vs 6.8 days, P = 0.0001), and direct cost/case ($2765 vs $5420, P = 0.0001). Despite obtaining 50% fewer biopsies with laparoscopy than laparotomy, the ability to detect disease was similar between these two groups: 47.3% vs 55.7% for all procedures and 52.6% vs 53.6% in the patients undergoing second-look procedures. Major complications in the laparoscopy group included transverse colon perforation (1), small bowel perforation (2), enterocutaneous fistula (1), and a retroperitoneal hematoma (1). Major complications in the laparotomy group included cystotomy (1), left ureteral injury (1), enterotomy (2), and SBO (4). Laparoscopy, when technically feasible, appears equally as effective as laparotomy in detecting persistent or recurrent malignant disease with less blood loss, less days spent in the hospital, less financial burden, and no increase in patient morbidity.