Suppr超能文献

腹腔镜与开腹根治性子宫切除术联合盆腔淋巴结清扫术和/或腹主动脉旁淋巴结取样治疗巨块型早期宫颈癌的手术及病理结果

Surgical and Pathological Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy With Pelvic Lymphadenectomy and/or Para-aortic Lymph Node Sampling for Bulky Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.

作者信息

Zhu Tao, Chen Xi, Zhu Jianqing, Chen Yaqing, Yu Aijun, Chen Lu, Shou Huafeng, Wu Meijuan, Zhang Ping

机构信息

Departments of *Gynecological Oncology and †Histopathology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.

出版信息

Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 Jul;27(6):1222-1227. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000716.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility, morbidity, and recurrence rate of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) with those of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for bulky early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 112 patients with stage IB1 or IIA2 cervical cancer in which the tumor diameter was 3 cm or greater. All patients underwent LRH (n = 30) or ARH (n = 82) with pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or para-aortic lymph node sampling between May 2011 and November 2014. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the 2 surgical groups.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic approach consisted of 4 trocar insertions. Age, tumor diameter, and pelvic lymph nodes significantly differed between the 2 cohorts. Body mass index, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, histologic type and grade, deep stromal invasion, lymphovascular space invasion, positive margins, and adjuvant therapy were not significantly different between the 2 cohorts. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy exhibited favorable results compared with ARH in terms of operating time, blood loss, intestinal exhaust time, and length of hospital stay. In addition, recurrence was observed in 5 LRH patients (16.7%) and 9 ARH patients (11.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical outcomes of LRH with pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or para-aortic lymph node sampling exhibited a similar therapeutic efficacy to those of the ARH approach.

摘要

背景与目的

本研究旨在比较全腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术(LRH)与腹式根治性子宫切除术(ARH)治疗体积较大的早期宫颈癌的可行性、发病率及复发率。

方法

我们对112例IB1期或IIA2期宫颈癌患者进行了一项回顾性队列研究,这些患者的肿瘤直径为3 cm或更大。2011年5月至2014年11月期间,所有患者均接受了LRH(n = 30)或ARH(n = 82),并进行了盆腔淋巴结清扫和/或腹主动脉旁淋巴结取样。比较了两个手术组的围手术期结果。

结果

腹腔镜手术需插入4个套管针。两个队列之间的年龄、肿瘤直径和盆腔淋巴结有显著差异。两个队列之间的体重指数、国际妇产科联盟分期、组织学类型和分级、深部间质浸润、淋巴管间隙浸润、切缘阳性及辅助治疗无显著差异。与ARH相比,LRH在手术时间、失血量、肠道排气时间和住院时间方面表现出良好的结果。此外,5例LRH患者(16.7%)和9例ARH患者(11.7%)出现复发。

结论

LRH联合盆腔淋巴结清扫和/或腹主动脉旁淋巴结取样的手术效果与ARH方法相似。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验