OBJECTIVE: To determine whether delayed laparotomy after attempted laparoscopic excision of an ovarian mass later found to be malignant has an impact on the stage of disease. METHODS: A questionnaire regarding laparoscopic management of ovarian masses later found to be malignant was mailed to all gynecologic departments in Austria. Of the 70 cases reported, laparotomy was performed after laparoscopy in 48 cases. In 24 of these cases, laparotomy was performed within 17 days of laparoscopy, whereas 24 cases involved a delay of more than 17 days. Twenty-two patients in whom laparotomy was performed immediately after laparoscopy were used as controls. RESULTS: In patients with borderline tumors who underwent laparotomy more than 17 days after laparoscopy, the odds ratio (OR) for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIB-IV disease was 5.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40, infinity), compared with patients undergoing immediate laparotomy (multivariate analysis). Patients with invasive ovarian cancer who underwent laparotomy more than 17 days after laparoscopy had an OR of 9.2 (CI 0.92, 481) for stage IIB-IV disease compared with patients undergoing immediate laparotomy (multivariate analysis). In patients with borderline tumors, multivariate analysis showed that the timing of laparotomy is an independent prognostic factor for the stage of disease. In invasive ovarian cancer, none of the factors evaluated by multivariate analysis was found to be an independent prognostic factor for the distribution of disease stage. A delay between laparoscopy and laparotomy may affect adversely the distribution of disease stage. CONCLUSION: The timing of subsequent laparotomy was found to be a factor predictive of the distribution of disease stage.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether delayed laparotomy after attempted laparoscopic excision of an ovarian mass later found to be malignant has an impact on the stage of disease. METHODS: A questionnaire regarding laparoscopic management of ovarian masses later found to be malignant was mailed to all gynecologic departments in Austria. Of the 70 cases reported, laparotomy was performed after laparoscopy in 48 cases. In 24 of these cases, laparotomy was performed within 17 days of laparoscopy, whereas 24 cases involved a delay of more than 17 days. Twenty-two patients in whom laparotomy was performed immediately after laparoscopy were used as controls. RESULTS: In patients with borderline tumors who underwent laparotomy more than 17 days after laparoscopy, the odds ratio (OR) for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIB-IV disease was 5.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40, infinity), compared with patients undergoing immediate laparotomy (multivariate analysis). Patients with invasive ovarian cancer who underwent laparotomy more than 17 days after laparoscopy had an OR of 9.2 (CI 0.92, 481) for stage IIB-IV disease compared with patients undergoing immediate laparotomy (multivariate analysis). In patients with borderline tumors, multivariate analysis showed that the timing of laparotomy is an independent prognostic factor for the stage of disease. In invasive ovarian cancer, none of the factors evaluated by multivariate analysis was found to be an independent prognostic factor for the distribution of disease stage. A delay between laparoscopy and laparotomy may affect adversely the distribution of disease stage. CONCLUSION: The timing of subsequent laparotomy was found to be a factor predictive of the distribution of disease stage.
Authors: C Bensaid; M A Le Frère Belda; U Metzger; F Larousserie; D Clément; G Chatellier; F Lécuru Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2006-06-26 Impact factor: 4.584