Gynecologic oncology · 2019
Intraperitoneal ports placed at the time of bowel resection for treatment of ovarian cancer: Complications and surgical outcomes.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Kay Allison H, Urban Renata R, Gray Heidi J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To determine if intraperitoneal (IP) ports placed concurrently with bowel resection during surgical treatment of ovarian cancer is associated with more complications than those ports placed without concurrent bowel resection.
METHODS: The medical records of all patients who had an IP port placed at our institution between 2005 and 2016 were reviewed. Two groups were analyzed: IP ports placed with bowel resection (IP-BR) and those without (IP).
RESULTS: Of 306 patient charts reviewed, 31% had a surgery with IP port placement and concurrent bowel resection (IP-BR). Demographics were similar except for mean BMI (25.6 IP-BR vs 27.4 IP, p = 0.007). More IP-BR patients had stage IIIC disease (83.3% IP-BR vs 56.9% IP, p ≤0.01). Patients were cytoreduced to R0 in 48.7% IP-BR vs 56.4% IP (p = 0.253). For adjuvant treatment, IV chemotherapy was administered before IP chemotherapy in 90.4% IP-BR (median 2 cycles), and 50.3% IP, (median 2 cycles, p < 0.01). Ultimately 80.2% IP-BR (median 4 cycles) and 77.8% IP (median 5 cycles) received IP chemotherapy (p = 0.65). Rates of total IP port complications were similar (19.2% IP-BR vs 23.2% IP, p = 0.397), including IP port infections (0% IP-BR vs 0.7% IP, p = 0.5). Eleven percent of IP-BR patients had a bowel complication (e.g. obstruction or perforation) while IP port was in situ vs 2.7% IP (p = 0.01). Only 2.7% IP-BR and 6% IP discontinued IP chemotherapy due to IP port complication (p = 0.3).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have IP ports placed concurrently with a bowel resection do not appear to have more complications, nor lower rates of IP chemotherapy administration.
METHODS: The medical records of all patients who had an IP port placed at our institution between 2005 and 2016 were reviewed. Two groups were analyzed: IP ports placed with bowel resection (IP-BR) and those without (IP).
RESULTS: Of 306 patient charts reviewed, 31% had a surgery with IP port placement and concurrent bowel resection (IP-BR). Demographics were similar except for mean BMI (25.6 IP-BR vs 27.4 IP, p = 0.007). More IP-BR patients had stage IIIC disease (83.3% IP-BR vs 56.9% IP, p ≤0.01). Patients were cytoreduced to R0 in 48.7% IP-BR vs 56.4% IP (p = 0.253). For adjuvant treatment, IV chemotherapy was administered before IP chemotherapy in 90.4% IP-BR (median 2 cycles), and 50.3% IP, (median 2 cycles, p < 0.01). Ultimately 80.2% IP-BR (median 4 cycles) and 77.8% IP (median 5 cycles) received IP chemotherapy (p = 0.65). Rates of total IP port complications were similar (19.2% IP-BR vs 23.2% IP, p = 0.397), including IP port infections (0% IP-BR vs 0.7% IP, p = 0.5). Eleven percent of IP-BR patients had a bowel complication (e.g. obstruction or perforation) while IP port was in situ vs 2.7% IP (p = 0.01). Only 2.7% IP-BR and 6% IP discontinued IP chemotherapy due to IP port complication (p = 0.3).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have IP ports placed concurrently with a bowel resection do not appear to have more complications, nor lower rates of IP chemotherapy administration.