Clough K B, Ladonne J M, Nos C, Renolleau C, Validire P, Durand J C
Department of Surgery, Department of Pathology, Institut Curie, 26 rue d'Ulm, Paris, 75005, France.
Gynecol Oncol. 1999 Mar;72(3):411-7. doi: 10.1006/gyno.1998.5272.
The objective of this study was to evaluate, for patients with ovarian cancer, the feasibility, reliability, and complications of a laparoscopic second look and to compare them with those of a second look by laparotomy.
Twenty patients treated by initial surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for ovarian carcinoma underwent a laparoscopic second look, immediately followed by a comparative laparotomy. All were in complete remission after chemotherapy. Both operations were performed according to a predefined checklist, identical for both surgical techniques and for each patient: after liberation of adhesions, an exhaustive intraperitoneal inspection was performed, with systematic peritoneal cytology and biopsies. Each patient therefore was her own control for the two techniques.
The positive predictive value of laparoscopy for the diagnosis of residual disease was 100% (6 of 6 cases), while the negative predictive value was 86% (2 false-negative cases out of 14). Because of the presence of postoperative adhesions, the rate of complete intraperitoneal investigation was 95% for laparotomy versus 41% for laparoscopy. The complication rate of laparoscopy requiring laparotomy was 5.3%.
After treatment of ovarian cancer, a laparoscopic second look appears to be less reliable than one performed by laparotomy. The presence of severe postoperative adhesions is the main obstacle to an exhaustive, reliable, and safe laparoscopic second look.
