Shanmugam Subbiah, Thanikachalam Rajkiran, Murugan Arul
Department of Surgical Oncology, Government Royapettah Hospital, Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2020 Jan 23;9(1):29-33. doi: 10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_82_19. eCollection 2020 Jan-Mar.
The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic surgical staging of endometrial cancer with conventional open methods.
The retrospective data were collected from 90 endometrial cancer patients who were operated between 2013 and 2018 in our government institution. The safety and morbidity of the two groups were compared based on mean operative time, blood loss, intraoperative complications, postoperative complication, etc., and the results were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS statistics version 20. Clinical and pathologic factors were compared between two groups with Fisher's exact test and Student's t-test for data analysis. The survival data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Thirty-two patients underwent laparoscopic staging, 45 underwent laparotomy, and 13 cases lap converted to open surgery. The mean operative time for the laparoscopic procedure was lower than the open procedure ( = 0.001). The mean hospital stay of patients who underwent laparoscopic staging was around 7.1 days significantly less compared to the laparotomy group. Intraoperative blood loss of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery was significantly less than that of the laparotomy group ( = 0.015). There was no statistically significant difference in nodal retrieval between laparotomy and laparoscopy group ( = 0.172). The mean duration of hospitalization was statistically significantly greater in the laparotomy group than the laparoscopic group (13 and 7 days, < 0.001). Based on the Kaplan-Meier survival curve, there was no difference in survival rates between the groups. Median follow-up duration was 32 months.
Laparoscopic surgical staging is oncologically safe for the management of endometrial cancer with acceptable morbidity compared to the open approach with far less blood loss and shorter postoperative stay.
本研究旨在比较子宫内膜癌的腹腔镜手术分期与传统开放手术方法。
回顾性收集了2013年至2018年在我们政府机构接受手术的90例子宫内膜癌患者的数据。基于平均手术时间、失血量、术中并发症、术后并发症等比较两组的安全性和发病率,并对结果进行分析。使用IBM SPSS statistics 20版进行统计分析。两组之间的临床和病理因素采用Fisher精确检验和Student t检验进行数据分析。生存数据采用Kaplan-Meier生存曲线进行分析。P < 0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
32例患者接受了腹腔镜分期,45例接受了剖腹手术,13例中转开腹手术。腹腔镜手术的平均手术时间低于开放手术(P = 0.001)。接受腹腔镜分期的患者的平均住院时间约为7.1天,明显少于剖腹手术组。接受腹腔镜手术的患者术中失血量明显少于剖腹手术组(P = 0.015)。剖腹手术组和腹腔镜组之间的淋巴结清扫数量无统计学显著差异(P = 0.172)。剖腹手术组的平均住院时间在统计学上明显长于腹腔镜组(13天和7天,P < 0.001)。根据Kaplan-Meier生存曲线,两组之间的生存率没有差异。中位随访时间为32个月。
与开放手术相比,腹腔镜手术分期在治疗子宫内膜癌方面在肿瘤学上是安全的,发病率可接受,失血量少得多,术后住院时间短。