Surgical endoscopy · 2025
Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open cytoreductive surgery: a propensity score matching analysis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Aulicino Matteo, Ferracci Federica, Abatini Carlo, Lodoli Claudio, Di Giorgio Andrea, Attalla El Halabieh Miriam, D'Annibale Giorgio, Orsini Cecilia, Barberis Lorenzo, Gallotta Valerio, Pacelli Fabio, Santullo Francesco
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a complex and lengthy surgical procedure involving multi-visceral resection, characterized by a steep and non-standardized learning curve. Therefore, laparoscopic surgery has faced significant challenges in being adopted for cytoreduction of peritoneal metastases. However, advancements in laparoscopic techniques have gradually allowed the adoption, in a limited and selected patient population, of laparoscopy as a less invasive approach, while still enabling maximal tumor debulking. The aim of this study is to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic CRS (L-CRS) and open cytoreductive surgery (O-CRS) with or without HIPEC, using propensity score matching analysis.
METHODS: This retrospective, single-center study analyzed data from 364 patients who underwent CRS + HIPEC for a primary peritoneal tumor or with peritoneal carcinomatosis from various origins between January 2016 and December 2023. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis included the surgical technique (Open-CRS vs. Laparoscopic-CRS) as the dependent variable and baseline characteristics as covariates in a logistic regression model. The two postmatching groups, O-CRS and L-CRS, were compared regarding intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in operative time (L-CRS/HIPEC: 372 min vs. O-CRS/HIPEC: 457 min; p = 0.754). Complete cytoreduction (CC-0) was achieved in all patients in both groups. L-CRS/HIPEC patients showed faster oral intake (2 days vs. 3 days; p = 0.035), the earlier passage of first flatus (3 days vs. 5 days; p = 0.043), shorter hospital stay (5 days vs. 7 days; p = 0.047), and quicker recovery to chemotherapy (29 days vs. 43 days; p = 0.024).
CONCLUSION: L-CRS offers selected patients a faster clinical recovery, shorter hospital stay, and quicker return to systemic chemotherapy. Nonetheless, prospective randomized trials are necessary to establish robust selection criteria and to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes.
METHODS: This retrospective, single-center study analyzed data from 364 patients who underwent CRS + HIPEC for a primary peritoneal tumor or with peritoneal carcinomatosis from various origins between January 2016 and December 2023. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis included the surgical technique (Open-CRS vs. Laparoscopic-CRS) as the dependent variable and baseline characteristics as covariates in a logistic regression model. The two postmatching groups, O-CRS and L-CRS, were compared regarding intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in operative time (L-CRS/HIPEC: 372 min vs. O-CRS/HIPEC: 457 min; p = 0.754). Complete cytoreduction (CC-0) was achieved in all patients in both groups. L-CRS/HIPEC patients showed faster oral intake (2 days vs. 3 days; p = 0.035), the earlier passage of first flatus (3 days vs. 5 days; p = 0.043), shorter hospital stay (5 days vs. 7 days; p = 0.047), and quicker recovery to chemotherapy (29 days vs. 43 days; p = 0.024).
CONCLUSION: L-CRS offers selected patients a faster clinical recovery, shorter hospital stay, and quicker return to systemic chemotherapy. Nonetheless, prospective randomized trials are necessary to establish robust selection criteria and to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes.