Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2016
Necessity of appendectomy for mucinous borderline ovarian tumors. Systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Cosyns Stefan, De Sutter Philippe, Tournaye Herman, Polyzos Nikolaos P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The benefit of performing an appendectomy during the surgical treatment of a mucinous borderline ovarian tumor (mBOT) is still controversial, even though clinical guidelines recommend this procedure.
PURPOSE: Our aim was to systematically assess the available evidence on appendectomy in the case of diagnosis of mBOT.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted using electronic databases using the search terms: (borderline OR low malignant potential) AND (appendectomy OR appendix).
RESULTS: A total of 12 articles were retained after systematic review, including a total of 667 patients with borderline ovarian tumor. Appendectomy was performed in 232 of the patients presenting with a mBOT. Two (0.86 %) appendiceal carcinomas were confirmed on pathological examination. Both appendices were grossly abnormal at the time of surgery.
CONCLUSION: Our systematic review demonstrates that available evidence regarding the role of appendectomy in mBOT is fragmented and weak. Nevertheless, this review provides adequate evidence to highlight that appendiceal involvement in mBOTs appears to be extremely rare and microscopic appendiceal involvement is highly unlikely in apparently normal appendices. In spite of the diversity of the included studies, the lack of appendiceal involvement in all cases with apparently normal appendix is strikingly common. We can conclude that in the case of normal appearance of the appendix at the time of primary surgery, appendectomy is not mandatory. Furthermore, a patient with a normal appendiceal appearance during primary surgery with post-operative diagnosis of mBOT addition of a second look intervention seems unnecessary and even hazardous.
PURPOSE: Our aim was to systematically assess the available evidence on appendectomy in the case of diagnosis of mBOT.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted using electronic databases using the search terms: (borderline OR low malignant potential) AND (appendectomy OR appendix).
RESULTS: A total of 12 articles were retained after systematic review, including a total of 667 patients with borderline ovarian tumor. Appendectomy was performed in 232 of the patients presenting with a mBOT. Two (0.86 %) appendiceal carcinomas were confirmed on pathological examination. Both appendices were grossly abnormal at the time of surgery.
CONCLUSION: Our systematic review demonstrates that available evidence regarding the role of appendectomy in mBOT is fragmented and weak. Nevertheless, this review provides adequate evidence to highlight that appendiceal involvement in mBOTs appears to be extremely rare and microscopic appendiceal involvement is highly unlikely in apparently normal appendices. In spite of the diversity of the included studies, the lack of appendiceal involvement in all cases with apparently normal appendix is strikingly common. We can conclude that in the case of normal appearance of the appendix at the time of primary surgery, appendectomy is not mandatory. Furthermore, a patient with a normal appendiceal appearance during primary surgery with post-operative diagnosis of mBOT addition of a second look intervention seems unnecessary and even hazardous.