Fagotti Anna, Ghezzi Fabio, Boruta David M, Scambia Giovanni, Escobar Pedro, Fader Amanda N, Malzoni Mario, Fanfani Francesco
Division of Minimally Invasive Gynaecological Surgery, St. Maria Hospital, University of Perugia, Terni, Italy.
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 Nov-Dec;21(6):1005-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.04.008. Epub 2014 Apr 24.
To compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy (LESS-RH) and minilaparoscopic radical hysterectomy (mLPS-RH).
Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).
Seven institutions in Italy.
Forty-six patents with early cervical cancer (FIGO stage IA2-IB1/IIA1) were included in the study. Nineteen patients (41.3%) underwent LESS-RH, and 27 (58.7%) underwent mLPS-RH. Pelvic lymph node dissection was performed in all patients.
In the LESS-RH group, all surgical procedures were performed through a single umbilical multichannel port. In the mLPS-RH group, the procedure was completed using a 5-mm umbilical optical trocar and 3 additional 3-mm ancillary trocars, placed suprapubically and in the left and right lower abdominal regions.
There was no difference in clinicopathologic characteristics at the time of diagnosis between the LESS-RH and mLPS-RH groups. Median operative time was 270 minutes (range, 149-380 minutes) for LESS-RH, and was 180 minutes (range, 90-240 minutes) for mLPS-RH (p = .001). No further differences were detected between the 2 groups insofar as type of radical hysterectomy, number of lymph nodes removed, or perioperative outcomes. In the LESS-RH group, conversion to laparotomy was necessary in 1 patient (5.3%) because of external iliac vein injury, and in another patient, conversion to standard laparoscopy was required because of truncal obesity. In the mLPS-RH group, no conversions were observed; however, a repeat operation was performed to repair a ureteral injury. The percentage of patients discharged 1 day after surgery was significantly higher in the LESS-RH group (57.9%) compared with the mLPS-RH group (25.0%) (p = .03). After a median follow-up of 27 months (range, 9-73 months), only 1 patient, who had undergone mLPS-RH, experienced pelvic recurrence and died of the disease.
Both LESS-RH and mLPS-RH are feasible ultra-minimally invasive approaches for performance of radical hysterectomy plus pelvic lymph node dissection. Further technical improvements are required to enable wider use of these techniques for more complex procedures.
比较腹腔镜单孔根治性子宫切除术(LESS-RH)和迷你腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术(mLPS-RH)的围手术期结局。
回顾性研究(加拿大工作组分类II-2)。
意大利的七家机构。
46例早期宫颈癌患者(国际妇产科联盟(FIGO)分期IA2-IB1/IIA1)纳入本研究。19例患者(41.3%)接受了LESS-RH,27例(58.7%)接受了mLPS-RH。所有患者均行盆腔淋巴结清扫术。
LESS-RH组,所有手术操作均通过单个脐部多通道端口进行。mLPS-RH组,手术通过一个5毫米脐部光学套管针和另外3个3毫米辅助套管针完成,这些套管针分别置于耻骨上及左、右下腹部区域。
LESS-RH组和mLPS-RH组诊断时的临床病理特征无差异。LESS-RH组的中位手术时间为270分钟(范围149-380分钟),mLPS-RH组为180分钟(范围90-240分钟)(p = 0.001)。在根治性子宫切除术类型、切除淋巴结数量或围手术期结局方面,两组未发现进一步差异。LESS-RH组中,1例患者(5.3%)因髂外静脉损伤需转为开腹手术,另1例患者因躯干肥胖需转为标准腹腔镜手术。mLPS-RH组未观察到转为其他手术方式的情况;然而,有1例患者因输尿管损伤进行了再次手术修复。LESS-RH组术后1天出院的患者百分比(57.9%)显著高于mLPS-RH组(25.0%)(p = 0.03)。中位随访27个月(范围9-73个月)后,仅1例接受mLPS-RH的患者出现盆腔复发并死于该疾病。
LESS-RH和mLPS-RH都是可行的超微创方法,用于实施根治性子宫切除术加盆腔淋巴结清扫术。需要进一步的技术改进,以使这些技术能更广泛地应用于更复杂的手术。