Suppr超能文献

新加坡早期宫颈癌全腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术与根治性腹式子宫切除术的手术及肿瘤学结局

Surgical and Oncological Outcome of Total Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy versus Radical Abdominal Hysterectomy in Early Cervical Cancer in Singapore.

作者信息

Lim Timothy Yong Kuei, Lin Krystal Koh Miao, Wong Wai Loong, Aggarwal Ieera Madan, Yam Philip Kwai Lam

机构信息

Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore.

Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore.

出版信息

Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2019 Apr-Jun;8(2):53-58. doi: 10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_43_18. Epub 2019 Apr 29.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The Wertheim's radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH) has been the traditional surgical approach for operable Stage IB cervical cancer in Singapore whereas total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) was introduced only in 2009. In this study, we aimed to compare the long-term surgical outcome between the two routes of surgery in our center.

METHODS

This is a prospective study performed in a single large tertiary institution in Singapore. Inclusion criteria included surgically fit patients with early cervical cancer and no radiological evidence of regional or distant metastases.

RESULTS

From November 2009 to December 2014, 51 TLRHs and 85 RAHs were performed. Median blood loss in the TLRH group was significantly lower than in the RAH group (300 vs. 500 mL; = 0.002) as was median hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; = 0.001). Operative time was significantly higher in the TLRH group (262 vs. 228 min; < 0.001). There was no significant difference in bladder recovery. Intraoperative complications were encountered in 2 (3.9%) TLRH patients and 1 (1.2%) RAH patient. Postoperative complications occurred in 3 (5.9%) TLRH patients and 8 (9.4%) RAH patients. With a median follow-up of 117 (range 1.6-314.6) weeks in the TLRH group and 143.3 (range 0.4-304.7) weeks in the RAH group, 9 (17.6%) TLRH patients and 7 (8.2%) RAH patients had recurrence. There was no significant difference in the overall 3-year survival between the TLRH group and the RAH group for tumor size ≤2 cm (100.0% vs. 97.0%; = 0.37). However, there was a trend toward lower survival for the TLRH group for tumor size >2 cm (61.9% vs. 85.4%; = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

The results of our study suggest that with appropriate patient selection, TLRH can be a safe and effective procedure for the management of early cervical cancer in Singapore, especially in women with small tumors ≤2 cm but should be used with caution in women with larger tumors.

摘要

引言

在新加坡,韦特海姆根治性腹式子宫切除术(RAH)一直是可手术的ⅠB期宫颈癌的传统手术方式,而全腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术(TLRH)直到2009年才被引入。在本研究中,我们旨在比较本中心这两种手术途径的长期手术效果。

方法

这是一项在新加坡一家大型三级医疗机构进行的前瞻性研究。纳入标准包括手术条件适合的早期宫颈癌患者,且无区域或远处转移的影像学证据。

结果

2009年11月至2014年12月,共进行了51例TLRH手术和85例RAH手术。TLRH组的术中失血量中位数显著低于RAH组(300 vs. 500 mL;P = 0.002),住院时间中位数也显著低于RAH组(5 vs. 6天;P = 0.001)。TLRH组的手术时间显著更长(262 vs. 228分钟;P < 0.001)。膀胱恢复情况无显著差异。2例(3.9%)TLRH患者和1例(1.2%)RAH患者发生术中并发症。3例(5.9%)TLRH患者和8例(9.4%)RAH患者发生术后并发症。TLRH组的中位随访时间为117(范围1.6 - 314.6)周,RAH组为143.3(范围0.4 - 304.7)周,9例(17.6%)TLRH患者和7例(8.2%)RAH患者出现复发。对于肿瘤大小≤2 cm的患者,TLRH组和RAH组的3年总生存率无显著差异(100.0% vs. 97.0%;P = 0.37)。然而,对于肿瘤大小>2 cm的患者,TLRH组有生存率较低的趋势(61.9% vs. 85.4%;P = 0.06)。

结论

我们的研究结果表明,经过适当的患者选择,TLRH对于新加坡早期宫颈癌的治疗可以是一种安全有效的手术方式,尤其是对于肿瘤较小(≤2 cm)的女性,但对于肿瘤较大的女性应谨慎使用。

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