International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2014
Robotic technology for pelvic exenteration in cases of cervical cancer.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Iavazzo Christos, Gkegkes Ioannis D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer represents one of the most common types of neoplasia among women; the use of minimally invasive techniques in the treatment of cervical cancer is a challenge.
OBJECTIVES: To present evidence regarding robotic technology in the performance of pelvic exenteration in cases of cervical cancer.
SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed and Scopus databases were searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles examining the use of robotic technology for pelvic exenteration in cases of cervical cancer were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four studies were included.
MAIN RESULTS: Most cancers treated with robotic-assisted pelvic exenteration were squamous cell carcinomas of the cervix. The stage of primary cancer ranged from IB2 to IVA. In 7 of the 8 patients, anterior pelvic exenteration was performed; the other patient underwent total pelvic exenteration. Procedure duration ranged from 375 to 600 minutes; blood loss was 200-550 mL. Postoperative complications occurred in 2 of the 8 patients and included perineal abscess, Miami pouch fistula, and ureteral stenosis. Postoperative hospital stay ranged from 3 to 53 days, and postoperative follow-up ranged from 2 to 31 months.
CONCLUSIONS: The gold standard for pelvic exenteration remains the open surgical approach; however, the application of robotic technology could be an alternate choice associated with excellent results.
OBJECTIVES: To present evidence regarding robotic technology in the performance of pelvic exenteration in cases of cervical cancer.
SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed and Scopus databases were searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles examining the use of robotic technology for pelvic exenteration in cases of cervical cancer were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four studies were included.
MAIN RESULTS: Most cancers treated with robotic-assisted pelvic exenteration were squamous cell carcinomas of the cervix. The stage of primary cancer ranged from IB2 to IVA. In 7 of the 8 patients, anterior pelvic exenteration was performed; the other patient underwent total pelvic exenteration. Procedure duration ranged from 375 to 600 minutes; blood loss was 200-550 mL. Postoperative complications occurred in 2 of the 8 patients and included perineal abscess, Miami pouch fistula, and ureteral stenosis. Postoperative hospital stay ranged from 3 to 53 days, and postoperative follow-up ranged from 2 to 31 months.
CONCLUSIONS: The gold standard for pelvic exenteration remains the open surgical approach; however, the application of robotic technology could be an alternate choice associated with excellent results.