Surgical oncology · 2019
Port site resection after laparoscopy in advance ovarian cancer surgery: Time to abandon?
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lago Víctor, Gimenez Laura, Matute Luis, Padilla-Iserte Pablo, Cárdenas-Rebollo José Miguel, Gurrea Marta, Montero Beatriz, Montoliu Guillermina, Domingo Santiago
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The use of laparoscopy in the treatment and management of advanced ovarian cancer is increasing among the gynaecologic oncologists. The development of port site metastases after laparoscopy is a concern and a matter of debate due to theoretical iatrogenic disease spread. Port site resection (PSR) has been proposed as an option to avoid this scenario.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty-three patients with advanced ovarian cancer (FIGO III-IV) and with diagnostic laparoscopy were included and after cytoreductive surgery were classified into two groups: no port site resection (No-PSR) and port site resection (PSR). Based on the pathological results of all port site specimens, PSR was classified as positive port site metastasis (PSM+) and negative port site metastasis (PSM-).
RESULTS: In 82 cases, the laparoscopic port site access was resected in the debulking surgery. At the final specimen examination, 49% presented as PSM+. No statistical differences regarding survival were found, either between the No-PSR and PSR groups (p = 0.28) or between the PSM+ and PSM - groups (p = 0.92). A higher wound complication rate was found in the PSR group (17% vs. 34%; p = 0.047). The RR (Relative Risk) of wound events for PSR was 2.42 (95% CI 1.09-5.35; p = 0.0296).
CONCLUSIONS: To date, not only there is no data supporting PSR after laparoscopy in advanced ovarian cancer, but the role of PSM+ in prognosis also remains unclear. In patients in which laparoscopy is performed prior to the debulking procedure, the PSR may not be recommended in those cases of no macroscopic port site metastasis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty-three patients with advanced ovarian cancer (FIGO III-IV) and with diagnostic laparoscopy were included and after cytoreductive surgery were classified into two groups: no port site resection (No-PSR) and port site resection (PSR). Based on the pathological results of all port site specimens, PSR was classified as positive port site metastasis (PSM+) and negative port site metastasis (PSM-).
RESULTS: In 82 cases, the laparoscopic port site access was resected in the debulking surgery. At the final specimen examination, 49% presented as PSM+. No statistical differences regarding survival were found, either between the No-PSR and PSR groups (p = 0.28) or between the PSM+ and PSM - groups (p = 0.92). A higher wound complication rate was found in the PSR group (17% vs. 34%; p = 0.047). The RR (Relative Risk) of wound events for PSR was 2.42 (95% CI 1.09-5.35; p = 0.0296).
CONCLUSIONS: To date, not only there is no data supporting PSR after laparoscopy in advanced ovarian cancer, but the role of PSM+ in prognosis also remains unclear. In patients in which laparoscopy is performed prior to the debulking procedure, the PSR may not be recommended in those cases of no macroscopic port site metastasis.