Adjuvant hysterectomy following primary chemoradiation for stage IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancer: A comparison of complications for open versus minimally invasive surgery

2019 ◽  
Vol 154 ◽  
pp. 202
Author(s):  
H. Miller ◽  
M.S. Hom ◽  
A. Castaneda ◽  
K. Matsuo ◽  
L.D. Roman ◽  
...  
2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 1121-1127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lesley B. Conrad ◽  
Pedro T. Ramirez ◽  
William Burke ◽  
R. Wendel Naumann ◽  
Kari L. Ring ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo evaluate the current patterns of use of minimally invasive surgical procedures, including traditional, robotic-assisted, and single-port laparoscopy, by Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) members and to compare the results to those of our 2004 and 2007 surveys.MethodsThe Society of Gynecologic Oncology members were surveyed through an online or mailed-paper survey. Data were analyzed and compared with results of our prior surveys.ResultsFour hundred six (32%) of 1279 SGO members responded. Eighty-three percent of respondents (n = 337) performed traditional laparoscopic surgery (compared with 84% in 2004 and 91% in 2007). Ninety-seven percent of respondents performed robotic surgery (compared with 27% in 2007). When respondents were asked to indicate procedures that they performed with the robot but not with traditional laparoscopy, 75% indicated radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer. Overall, 70% of respondents indicated that hysterectomy and staging for uterine cancer was the procedure they most commonly performed with a minimally invasive approach. Only 17% of respondents who performed minimally invasive surgery performed single-port laparoscopy, and only 5% of respondents indicated that single-port laparoscopy has an important or very important role in the field.ConclusionsSince our prior surveys, we found a significant increase in the overall use and indications for robotic surgery. Radical hysterectomy or trachelectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer and total hysterectomy and staging for endometrial cancer were procedures found to be significantly more appropriate for the robotic platform in comparison to traditional laparoscopy. The indications for laparoscopy have expanded beyond endometrial cancer staging to include surgical management of early-stage cervical and ovarian cancers, but the use of single-port laparoscopy remains limited.


2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mihaela Madalina Gavrilescu ◽  
Ana-Maria Todosi ◽  
Nicolae Ioanid Viorel Scripcariu

2017 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 924-938.e3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oluwaseun O. Akinduro ◽  
Panagiotis Kerezoudis ◽  
Mohammed Ali Alvi ◽  
Jang W. Yoon ◽  
Jamachi Eluchie ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. 1269-1277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Chiva ◽  
Vanna Zanagnolo ◽  
Denis Querleu ◽  
Nerea Martin-Calvo ◽  
Juan Arévalo-Serrano ◽  
...  

BackgroundMinimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer has demonstrated in recent publications worse outcomes than open surgery. The primary objective of the SUCCOR study, a European, multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study was to evaluate disease-free survival in patients with stage IB1 (FIGO 2009) cervical cancer undergoing open vs minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. As a secondary objective, we aimed to investigate the association between protective surgical maneuvers and the risk of relapse.MethodsWe obtained data from 1272 patients that underwent a radical hysterectomy by open or minimally invasive surgery for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) from January 2013 to December 2014. After applying all the inclusion-exclusion criteria, we used an inverse probability weighting to construct a weighted cohort of 693 patients to compare outcomes (minimally invasive surgery vs open). The first endpoint compared disease-free survival at 4.5 years in both groups. Secondary endpoints compared overall survival among groups and the impact of the use of a uterine manipulator and protective closure of the colpotomy over the tumor in the minimally invasive surgery group.ResultsMean age was 48.3 years (range; 23–83) while the mean BMI was 25.7 kg/m2 (range; 15–49). The risk of recurrence for patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery was twice as high as that in the open surgery group (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.35 to 3.15; P=0.001). Similarly, the risk of death was 2.42-times higher than in the open surgery group (HR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.30 to 4.60, P=0.005). Patients that underwent minimally invasive surgery using a uterine manipulator had a 2.76-times higher hazard of relapse (HR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.75 to 4.33; P<0.001) and those without the use of a uterine manipulator had similar disease-free-survival to the open surgery group (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.79 to 3.15; P=0.20). Moreover, patients that underwent minimally invasive surgery with protective vaginal closure had similar rates of relapse to those who underwent open surgery (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.15 to 2.59; P<0.52).ConclusionsMinimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer increased the risk of relapse and death compared with open surgery. In this study, avoiding the uterine manipulator and using maneuvers to avoid tumor spread at the time of colpotomy in minimally invasive surgery was associated with similar outcomes to open surgery. Further prospective studies are warranted.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document