ABSTRACT
Resumen El cáncer de ovario ocupa el tercer lugar en frecuencia entre los cánceres ginecológicos en Argentina. Existe un déficit de información de esta enfermedad en nuestro país respecto al tratamiento y evolución oncológica de las pacientes. El objetivo de nuestro trabajo fue evaluar los resultados perioperatorios y oncológicos, en pacientes con tumor epitelial de ovario con estadios avanzados. Presentamos una cohorte retrospectiva en la que se evaluó la supervivencia libre de enfermedad y la supervivencia global en pacientes con tumores epiteliales de ovario tratadas en el Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires entre junio del 2009 a junio del 2017. De 170 pacientes incluidas en el estudio, 72 (42.4%) fueron tratadas con una cirugía de citorreducción primaria (CCP), mientras que 98 (57.6%) recibieron neoadyuvancia y luego cirugía del intervalo (CI). La tasa de citorreducción óptima fue de 75% y de 79% respectivamente. No se encontraron diferencias en los resultados perioperatorios, ni en las complicaciones graves entre ambos grupos. La mediana de SLE en el grupo de CCP fue de 2.5 años (IC 95% 1.6-3.1) mientras que en el grupo de CI fue de 1.4 (IC 95% 1.2-1.7) p < 0.001. La mediana de supervivencia global fue de 5.8 años en CCP, y de 3.5 años en CI. En pacientes adecuadamente seleccionadas la CCP presenta mejores resultados oncológicos a la neoadyuvancia y CI. La selección correcta de las pacientes para tratamiento primario es fundamental para definir la conducta terapéutica.
Abstract Ovarian cancer represents the third gynecological cancer in frequency in Argentina. There is a lack of information on this pathology in our country regarding the treatment and evolution of patients who suffer it. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perioperative and oncological results in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian tumor. We present a retrospective cohort in which we evaluated disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with epithelial ovarian tumor treated at the Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires between June 2009 and June 2017. Of 170 patients included in the study, 72 (42.4%) received primary debulking surgery (CCP), while 98 (57.6%) received neoadjuvant therapy and interval surgery (CI). The optimal cyto-reduction rate was 75% and 79% respectively. No differences were found in perioperative outcomes, or in severe complications between the two groups. The median disease-free survival in the CCP group was 2.5 years (95% CI 1.6-3.1) while in the CI group it was 1.4 (95% CI 1.2-1.7) p < 0.001. The median overall survival was 5.8 years in CPP, and 3.5 years in CI. Faced with a meticulous selection by a group of experts, patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with CCP present better oncological results than those who received neoadjuvant therapy and CI.
Subject(s)
Humans , Female , Ovarian Neoplasms/pathology , Ovarian Neoplasms/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Neoadjuvant Therapy , Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial/pathology , Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial/therapy , Hospitals , Neoplasm StagingABSTRACT
@#Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of mitral valvuloplasty via minimally invasive approach with those of mitral valvuloplasty via traditional median sternotomy. Methods A total of 1 221 patients undergoing mitral valvuloplasty from January 2015 to August 2018 in Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital were analyzed retrospectively, including 721 males and 500 females, with an average age of 47.2±15.1 years. According to the different surgical methods, they were divided into a study group (n=654), who received mitral valvuloplasty via the totally thoracoscopic approach, and a control group (n=567), who received mitral valvuloplasty via traditional median sternotomy. Clinical data, surgical results, and perioperative outcomes of the two groups were compared. Results There was no significant difference in preoperative general data between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared with the control group, the study group had longer cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamping time (146.7±42.4 min vs. 122.7±30.6 min, 96.2±32.7 min vs. 78.3±23.8 min, both P=0.000), and shorter total operation time (227.4±55.3 min vs. 238.1±56.4 min, P=0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of secondary cross-clamping and mitral valve replacement between the two groups (3.7% vs. 2.6%, P=0.312; 1.7% vs. 1.4%, P=0.690). The blood transfusion rate and the incidence of respiratory tract infection and postoperative poor wound healing were lower (13.0% vs. 24.5%, 2.1%vs. 18.0%, 1.5% vs. 5.3%, all P=0.000) and the postoperative hospital stay was shorter (6.2±4.4 d vs. 11.5±8.8 d, P=0.000) in the study group. There was no significant difference in hospitalization expense between the two groups (95 847.9±31 322.0 yuan vs. 99 673.1±47 930.3 yuan, P=0.149). Within 30 d after surgery, 1 patient died in the study group and 4 patients died in the control group. Before discharge, there were 4 and 5 patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation in the study group and the control group, respectively. Conclusion Compared with mitral valvuloplasty via traditional median sternotomy, minimally invasive mitral valvuloplasty is superior in shortening operation time and postoperative hospital stay, lowering blood transfusion rate, and reducing postoperative complications, which can achieve better clinical outcomes.