Comparison of Laparoscopy and Laparotomy in the Surgical Management of Early-Stage Ovarian Cancer

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 352-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mubiao Liu ◽  
Lei Li ◽  
Yuanli He ◽  
Dongxian Peng ◽  
Xuefeng Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Wound Healing ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Gastrointestinal Function ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Tumor Rupture ◽  
Early Stage Ovarian Cancer

ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to investigate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopy in the treatment of early-stage ovarian cancer (EOC).MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent laparoscopy (35 patients) or laparotomy (40 patients) for the comprehensive surgical staging of EOC in Zhujiang Hospital during the period of 2002 to 2010 and compared the 2 surgical approaches in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, number of dissected lymph nodes, tumor rupture rate, length of hospital stay, time of gastrointestinal function recovery, wound healing condition, complication rate, upstaging rate, rate of postoperative chemotherapy, and postoperative follow-up condition.ResultsThe laparoscopy group had significantly shorter hospital stay and time of first postoperative flatus and had significantly lower rate of poor wound healing than the laparotomy group. The 2 groups did not show significant differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, number of dissected lymph nodes, tumor rupture rate, complication rate, upstaging rate, and rate of postoperative chemotherapy.ConclusionsLaparoscopy is safe and effective for the comprehensive surgical staging of EOC and has the advantages of shorter hospital stay, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, and good wound healing.

scholarly journals Our experience with laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A case series

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manash Ranjan Sahoo ◽  
Satyajit Samal ◽  
Jyotirmay Nayak
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Total Gastrectomy ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy ◽  
Oral Feeding ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss

Background: Though laparoscopic distal gastrectomy has become a standard procedure for treatment of gastric cancer, laparoscopic total gastrectomy has not been widely accepted as it requires more dexterity and lack of evidence about its feasibility and safety. Methods: Here retrospectively we review a series of 12 cases of gastric cancer undergone laparoscopic total gastrectomy with D1 or D2 lymphadenectomy over a period of 7 years at a tertiary care hospital. The patient demographic characteristics were reviewed and the outcomes after surgery was analyzed in terms of extent of lymphadenectomy, mean operative time, mean intraoperative blood loss median number of lymph nodes harvested, median time for postoperative ambulation, median time for postoperative oral feeding, median time of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications and mortality. Results: All patients had total gastrectomy entirely through laparoscopic method. Mean operative time was 282 minutes, mean intraoperative blood loss was 120 ml, median time for ambulation and oral feeding was 3 days and 6 days respectively. Median time of hospital stay was 16 days and 2 patients had complications as pancreatic fistula and port site abscess. No mortality was observed. Conclusion: With zero mortality and accepted rate of complications, laparoscopic total gastrectomy appears to be technically feasible and safe for management of gastric cancer. But more studies have to be conducted with comparison to other standard gastrectomies and long term follow up to be done to establish its standardized application.

scholarly journals Laparoscopic Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy (LSPDP) versus Open Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy (OSPDP): A Comparative Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Huang ◽  
Dipesh Kumar Yadav ◽  
Chaojie Xiong ◽  
Ye Sheng ◽  
Xinhua’ Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Pancreatic Fistula ◽  
Distal Pancreatectomy ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Malignant Tumors ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Spleen Preserving

Objective. To compare outcomes between laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) and open spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (OSPDP) for treatment of benign and low-grade malignant tumors of the pancreas and evaluate feasibility and safety of LSPDP. Methods. The clinical data of 53 cases of LSPDP and 44 cases of OSPDP performed between January 2008 and August 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical outcomes between the two groups were compared. Results. There was no significant difference in preoperative data between the two groups. However, the LSPDP group had statistically significant shorter operative time (145.3±55.9 versus 184.7±33.5, P=0.03) and lesser intraoperative blood loss (150.6±180.8 versus 253.5±76.2, P=0.03) than that of the OSPDP group. Moreover, the LSPDP group also had statistically significant earlier passing of first flatus (2.2±1.4 versus 3.1±1.9, P=0.01), earlier diet intake (2.3±1.8 versus 3.4±2.0, P=0.01), and shorter hospital stay (6.2±7.2 versus 8.8±9.3, 0.04) than that of the OSPDP group. However, postoperative pancreatic fistula (P=0.64) and total postoperative complications (P=0.59) were not significantly different between the groups. The rate of pancreatic fistula and total postoperative complications occurred in 62.5% and 64.5%, respectively, in LSPDP group and, similarly, 70% and 70.0%, respectively, in OSPDP group. Conclusion. This study confirms that LSPDP is safe, feasible, and superior to OSPDP in terms of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and postoperative recovery. Hence, it is worth popularizing LSPDP for benign and low-grade malignant tumors of the pancreas.

scholarly journals A comparative study between harmonic scalpel hemostasis and conventional hemostasis in total thyroidectomy

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 954
Author(s):  
Waleed Yusif El Sherpiny
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Thyroid Surgery ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Harmonic Scalpel ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Conventional Technique ◽  
Endocrine Surgery ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Conventional Thyroidectomy

Background: Thyroidectomy is the most commonly performed procedure in endocrine surgery. Since the thyroid gland is highly vascular, therefore, rapid and absolute hemostasis is extremely required. Conventional thyroidectomy is commonly used with acceptable outcomes, however, it is time‑consuming and resulted in significant intraoperative blood loss with the possible risk of postoperative hemorrhage, injury to parathyroid glands and laryngeal nerves. The advent of focus harmonic devices was encouraging for improving safety, effectiveness, and reduction of operative time, especially in thyroid surgery. Aim of this study: The purpose of this study was to analyze the effectiveness and surgical outcomes of using ultrasonic harmonic scalpel for thyroid surgery compared to conventional techniques.Methods: This was a prospective, randomized study in which 60 patients with various types of goiters presented for thyroidectomy. The patients were divided into two comparable groups. Group A (30 patients) included patients who had focus harmonic thyroidectomy and Group B (30 patients) included patients who underwent conventional thyroidectomy.Results: Focus harmonic thyroidectomy showed a significant reduction in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, volume of postoperative fluid drainage and meantime for hospital stay compared with conventional thyroidectomy. There were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative hypocalcemia, seroma, hematoma, wound infection and laryngeal nerve injury between both groups.Conclusions: Focus harmonic thyroidectomy was a safe, effective, faster, and appealing alternative to conventional technique since it reduced the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage and hospital stay with comparable postoperative complications. 

scholarly journals Outcomes of Trachelectomy vs. Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Guo ◽  
Qingwei Hu ◽  
Zaixing Deng ◽  
Xiaotian Jin
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Radical Trachelectomy ◽  
Risk Of Recurrence ◽  
Early Stage Cervical Cancer

Objective: To provide updated evidence on comparative efficacy for clinical outcomes of radical trachelectomy and radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google scholar databases. Studies were done in patients with early-stage cervical cancer that compared the outcomes between radical trachelectomy (RT) and hysterectomy (RH) were considered for inclusion in the review. The outcomes of interest were operative time, the volume of blood loss, need for blood transfusion, any complications, length of hospital stay, risk of recurrence, and survival. The strength of association was presented in the form of pooled relative risk (RR), hazards risk (HR), and weighted mean difference (WMD). Statistical analysis was done using STATA version 16.0.Results: A total of 12 articles were included in the meta-analysis. The majority were retrospective cohort-based studies. Compared to RH, the operative time (in min) was comparatively higher in RT (WMD 23.43, 95% CI: 5.63, 41.24). Patients undergoing RT had blood loss (in ml) similar to those undergoing RT (WMD −81.34, 95% CI: −170.36, 7.68). There were no significant differences in the risk of intra-operative (RR 1.61, 95% CI: 0.49, 5.28) and post-operative complications (RR 1.13, 95% CI: 0.54, 2.40) between the two groups. Patients in the RT group had lesser duration of post-operative hospital stay (in days) (WMD −1.65, 95% CI: −3.22, −0.09). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of recurrence (HR 1.21, 95% CI: 0.68, 2.18), 5-year overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.02), and recurrence-free survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.96, 1.01) between the two groups.Conclusion: Among the patients with early-stage cervical cancer, RT is similar to RH in safety and clinical outcomes. Future studies with a randomized design and larger sample sizes are needed to further substantiate these findings.

scholarly journals Harmonic Scalpel versus Conventional Haemostasis in Neck Dissection: A Prospective Randomized Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuele Ferri ◽  
Enrico Armato ◽  
Giacomo Spinato ◽  
Marcello Lunghi ◽  
Giancarlo Tirelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Neck Dissection ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Harmonic Scalpel ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Bipolar Diathermy ◽  
Classic Technique

Purpose.The aim of this prospective randomized trial was to compare operative factors, postoperative outcomes, and surgical complications of neck dissection (ND) when using the harmonic scalpel (HS) versus conventional haemostasis (CH) (classic technique of tying and knots, resorbable ligature, and bipolar diathermy).Materials and methods.Sixty-one patients who underwent ND with primary head and neck cancer (HNSCC) resection were enrolled in this study and were randomized into two homogeneous groups: CH (conventional haemostasis with classic technique of tying and knots, resorbable ligature, and bipolar diathermy) and HS (haemostasis with harmonic scalpel). Outcomes of the study included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, drainage volume, postoperative pain, hospital stay, and incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications.Results.The use of the HS reduced significantly the operating time, the intraoperative blood loss, the postoperative pain, and the volume of drainage. No significant difference was observed in mean hospital stay and perioperative, and postoperative complications.Conclusion.The HS is a reliable and safe tool for reducing intraoperative blood loss, operative time, volume of drainage and postoperative pain in patients undergoing ND for HNSCC. Multicenter randomized studies need to be done to confirm the advantages of this technique and to evaluate the cost-benefit ratio.

scholarly journals 723 Neuroendoscopy versus Craniotomy in Basal Ganglia Haemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
T K Tan ◽  
J Merola ◽  
M Zaben ◽  
W Gray ◽  
P Leach
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Basal Ganglia ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Endoscopic Approach ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss

Abstract Aim Basal ganglia haemorrhage (BGH) is the most common type of intracerebral bleed with high morbidity and mortality rate. The efficacy between craniotomy and endoscopic approach in BGH is still debatable and advancement in minimally invasive technique has made endoscopic approach the preferred option. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the outcomes of craniotomy and endoscopic approach in BGH. Method Databases of PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from its inception until December 2020. All randomized clinical trials and observational studies comparing craniotomy versus endoscopic approach in BGH were included. Results Twelve studies enrolling 1297 patients (craniotomy:675, endoscopy:632) were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Endoscopic approach was associated with significantly lower postoperative mortality (OR:0.35, P < 0.00001), higher haematoma evacuation rate (MD:4.95, P = 0.0002), shorter operative time (MD:-117.03, P < 0.00001), lesser intraoperative blood loss (MD:-328.47, P < 0.00001), higher postoperative Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) (MD:1.14, P = 0.01), higher postoperative Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) (MD:0.44, P = 0.05), shorter length of hospital stay (MD:-2.90, P < 0.00001), lower complication rate (OR:0.30, P = 0.0004), lower infection rate (OR:0.29, P < 0.00001) and lower modified Rankin Scale (mRS) (MD:-0.57, P = 0.004) compared to craniotomy. No significant difference was detected in reoperation, intracranial infection, re-bleeding. Conclusions The best available evidence suggest that endoscopic approach has better outcomes in mortality rate, operative time, haematoma evacuation rate, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, mRS, postoperative GCS and GOS compared with craniotomy in the management of BGH. However, there is a need for high quality randomised controlled trials with large sample size for definite conclusions.

Comparisons of Surgical Outcomes, Complications, and Costs Between Laparotomy and Laparoscopy in Early-Stage Ovarian Cancer

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Lee ◽  
Sang Wun Kim ◽  
Jiheum Paek ◽  
San Hui Lee ◽  
Ga Won Yim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Laparoscopy Group ◽  
Operation Costs ◽  
Operative Complications ◽  
Laparotomy Group ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Early Stage Ovarian Cancer

Objectives:The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes, complications, and costs between laparoscopic staging and laparotomic staging for early-stage ovarian cancer.Methods:We evaluated 113 patients who underwent laparoscopy (n = 26) or laparotomy (n = 87) for staging. We retrospectively analyzed patients' demographics and operative variables, including operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph node count, hospital stay, complications, postoperative pain, and return to normal activity. In addition, costs for laparoscopy and laparotomy groups were also compared.Results:The mean operation time was longer in laparoscopy group compared to laparotomy group (227.6 minutes vs 184.6 minutes, P = 0.016). The laparoscopy group had less intraoperative blood loss, less transfusion requirement, shorter postoperative hospital stay, earlier general diet intake, shorter time to adjuvant chemotherapy, and lower postoperative pain score after 6, 24, and 48 hours compared with the laparotomy group. The mean number of lymph node retrievals was comparable between the groups. The incidence of operative complications was lower in the laparoscopy group (7.7%) relative to the laparotomy group (23.0%). The total average cost for staging completed via laparotomy was $1237 and that via laparoscopy was $1998, with significant difference.Conclusions:Complete surgical staging by laparoscopy was achieved in all cases with comparable operative time and less operative complications compared with laparotomy for selected patients with early-stage ovarian cancer. However, the operation costs for laparoscopy were significantly higher than the operation costs for laparotomic staging surgery.

Laparoscopically Assisted Radical Vaginal Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 1497-1502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sichen Zhang ◽  
Shaowei Wang ◽  
Aiming Lv ◽  
Shuai Huang
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Vaginal Hysterectomy ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Rectal Injury ◽  
Early Stage Cervical Cancer

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes and recurrence of laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) to abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer.MethodsA search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library search trial (central) databases was conducted from database inception through December 2015. We included studies comparing surgical approaches with radical hysterectomy (LARVH vs ARH) in women with stages IA1 to IIB cervical cancer. Outcomes included blood loss, operative time, number of lymph nodes retrieved, intraoperative complications, hospital stay, and prognosis.ResultSeven studies were included (4 prospective cohort studies and 3 case control studies) enrolling 794 women; 349 women were treated by LARVH, and 445 were treated by ARH. Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy was associated with less blood loss (weight mean difference [WMD], −237.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], −453.42 to −21.47), wound-related complications (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05–0.61), shorter hospital stay (WMD, −2.01; 95% CI, −2.52 to −1.51), and longer operative time (WMD, 48.95; 95% CI, 42.08 to 55.82) versus ARH. Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy was comparable with ARH in number of lymph nodes retrieved, urinary-related complications, rectal injury, lymphedema, and all prognosis indicators.ConclusionsThe evidence suggests that LARVH is superior to ARH with lower blood loss, less wound-related complications, and shorter hospital stay. Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and ARH seem equivalent in number of lymph nodes retrieved, urinary-related complications, rectal injury, lymphedema, and prognosis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document