Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

  • 제16권13호
  • /
  • Pages.5483-5488
  • /
  • 2015
  • /
  • 1513-7368(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2476-762X(eISSN)
아시아태평양암예방학회 (Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Perioperative and Oncologic Outcomes with Laparotomy, and Laparoscopic or Robotic Surgery for Women with Endometrial Cancer

  • Manchana, Tarinee (Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Puangsricharoen, Pimpitcha (Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Sirisabya, Nakarin (Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Worasethsin, Pongkasem (Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Vasuratna, Apichai (Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Termrungruanglert, Wichai (Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Tresukosol, Damrong (Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chulalongkorn University)
  • 발행 : 2015.08.03
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: To compare perioperative outcomes and oncologic outcomes in endometrial cancer patients treated with laparotomy, and laparoscopic or robotic surgery. Materials and Methods: Endometrial cancer patients who underwent primary surgery from January 2011 to December 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative outcomes, including estimated blood loss (EBL), operation time, number of lymph nodes retrieved, and intra and postoperative complications, were reviewed. Recovery time, disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared. Results: Of the total of 218 patients, 143 underwent laparotomy, 47 laparoscopy, and 28 robotic surgery. The laparotomy group had the highest EBL (300, 200, 200 ml, p<0.05) while the robotic group had the longest operative time (302 min) as compared with laparoscopy (180 min) and laparotomy (125 min) (p<0.05). Intra and postoperative complications were not different with any of the surgical approaches. No significant difference in number of lymph nodes retrieved was identified. The longest hospital stay was reported in the laparotomy group (four days) but there was no difference between the laparoscopy (three days) and robotic (three days) groups. Recovery was significantly faster in robotic group than laparotomy group (14 and 28 days, p =0.003). No significant difference in DFS and OS at 21 months of median follow up time was observed among the three groups. Conclusions: Minimally invasive surgery has more favorable outcomes, including lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and faster recovery time than laparotomy. It also has equivalent perioperative complications and short term oncologic outcomes. MIS is feasible as an alternative option to surgery of endometrial cancer.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Cardenas-Goicoechea J, Shepherd A, Momeni M, et al (2014). Survival analysis of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 210, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.10.878
  2. Chiou HY, Chiu LH, Chen CH, et al (2015). Comparing robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer management: A cohort study. Int J Surg, 13, 17-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.11.015
  3. Gala RB, Margulies R, Steinberg A, et al (2014). Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 21, 353-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2013.11.010
  4. Galaal K, Bryant A, Fisher AD, et al (2012). Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 9, 6655.
  5. Gaia G, Holloway RW, Santoro L, et al (2010). Roboticassisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: a systemic review. Obstet Gynecol, 116, 1422-31. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f74153
  6. Gehrig PA, Cantrell LA, Shafer A, et al (2008). What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? Gynecol Oncol, 111, 41-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.06.030
  7. GLOBOCAN 2012 (IARC) Section of Cancer Information. Available at http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_population.aspx.
  8. Kornblith AB, Huang HQ, Walker JL, et al (2009). Quality of life of patients with endometrial cancer undergoing laparoscopic surgical staging compared to laparotomy. J Clin Oncol, 27, 5337-42. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3529
  9. Manchana T, Sirisabya N, Vasuratna A, et al (2014). Feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for gynecologic cancers. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 5359-64. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.13.5359
  10. Martinek IE, Haldar K, Tozzi R (2010). Laparoscopic surgery for gynaecological cancers in obese women. Maturitas, 65, 320-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.12.011
  11. Pecorelli S (2009). Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynecol Obstet, 105, 103-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.012
  12. Ran L, Jin J, Xu Y, et al (2014). Comparison of robotic Surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis. PLoS One, 9, 108361. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108361
  13. Scalici J, Laughlin BB, Finan MA, et al (2015). The trend towards minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for endometrial cancer: An ACS-NSQIP evaluation of surgical outcomes. Gynecol Oncol, 136, 512-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.11.014
  14. Seamon LG, Bryant SA, Rheaume PS, et al (2009). Comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese patients: comparing robotics and laparotomy. Obstet Gynecol, 114, 16-21. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181aa96c7
  15. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A (2010) Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin, 64, 9-29.
  16. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, et al (2009). Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol, 27, 5331-6. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3248
  17. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, et al (2012). Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 study. J Clin Oncol, 30, 695-700. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8645
  18. Wang HL, Ren YF, Yang J, et al (2013). Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 2515-9. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.4.2515
  19. Yim GW, Kim YT (2012). Robotic surgery in gynecologic cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 24, 14-23. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e32834daebc

피인용 문헌

  1. Robot-assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis vol.142, pp.10, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-016-2180-x
  2. Evidence for the use of robotically assisted surgery in gynecologic cancers vol.28, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1097/CCO.0000000000000315
  3. A comparison of operative outcomes between standard and robotic laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis vol.13, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1851
  4. Minimally Invasive Surgery to Treat Gynecological Cancer vol.27, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000925
  5. A Comparison of Outcomes Between Open Hysterectomy and Robotic-Assisted Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer Using the National Cancer Database vol.27, pp.7, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000001034