Comparison of the rate and inlfuence factors of intraoperative and postoperative complications of cervical cancer treated by laparoscopic radical hysterectomy / 中国内镜杂志

Objective Through comparative study of the rate and influence factors of intraoperative and postoperative complications of cervical cancer after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy which to guide the clinical practice of this kind of surgery in the future. Methods The clinical data of 314 patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy from January 2013 to December 2015, the complication rate was observed, and the inlfuencing factors were analyzed by the method of multiple factor analysis. Result The number of intraoperative complications were 20 cases, accounting for 6.37%, the number of postoperative complications were 80 cases, accounting for 25.48%. Intraoperative complications influence factors including FIGO, surgery time, doctors surgery experience [OR

Comparative analysis of the complications of laparoscopic and abdominal cervical cancer surgery / 中国内镜杂志

Objective Compare the complications between laparoscopic and abdominal cervical cancer surgery, and investigate the safety of laparoscopic cervical cancer surgery and complications classified by Clavien-Dindo classification, then analyze the risk factors. Method Clinical data of 215 cases of cervical cancer received surgery from March 2011 to October 2014 was collected, which include intraoperative, postoperative and postoperative fol﹣low-up data. All the cases were divided into two groups: LRH group (n= 116) and ARH group (n= 88), then ana﹣lyze and compare the difference of intraoperative, postoperative complications and postoperative follow-up data be﹣tween the two groups, assess the safety of the two groups, and statistically concluded related independent risk factors. Results The complications of 204 patients were classified into 4 grades. The criticality and morbidity of intraopera﹣tive and postoperative complications have no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). Logistic re﹣gression analysis show that over criticality grade Ⅱ of LRH intraoperative complication related to operating time, over criticality grade Ⅱ of ARH intraoperative complication related to aged over 50 yr, over criticality grade Ⅱ of ARH intraoperative complication related to BMI> 25. Conclusions Through the analysis of laparoscopic operation and the criticality of complications, the safety of the two groups were no difference. The patients with high risk fac﹣tors should be evaluated comprehensively. And strictly grasp the contraindication and indication.

Learning curve analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for gynecologic oncologists without open counterpart experience

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the learning curve of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for gynecologic oncologists who underwent residency- and fellowship-training on laparoscopic surgery without previous experience in performing abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 84 patients with FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage IB cervical cancer who underwent LRH (Piver type III) between April 2006 and March 2014. The patients were divided into two groups (surgeon A group, 42 patients; surgeon B group, 42 patients) according to the surgeon with or without ARH experience. Clinico-pathologic data were analyzed between the 2 groups. Operating times were analyzed using the cumulative sum technique. RESULTS: The operating time in surgeon A started at 5 to 10 standard deviations of mean operating time and afterward steeply decreased with operative experience (Pearson correlation coefficient=-0.508, P=0.001). Surgeon B, however, showed a gentle slope of learning curve within 2 standard deviations of mean operating time (Pearson correlation coefficient=-0.225, P=0.152). Approximately 18 cases for both surgeons were required to achieve surgical proficiency for LRH. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor size (>4 cm) was significantly associated with increased operating time (P=0.027; odds ratio, 4.667; 95% confidence interval, 1.187 to 18.352). CONCLUSION: After completing the residency- and fellowship-training course on gynecologic laparoscopy, gynecologic oncologists, even without ARH experience, might reach an acceptable level of surgical proficiency in LRH after approximately 20 cases and showed a gentle slope of learning curve, taking less effort to initially perform LRH.

Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with FIGO stage IB1 cervical cancer / 대한산부인과내시경학회지

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety, morbidity, and recurrence rate of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) with lymphadenectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy (ARH) for IB1 cervical cancer. METHODS: We conducted retrospective analysis of 91 consecutive patients with FIGO stage IB1 cervical cancer who underwent laparoscopic or abdominal radical hysterectomy with pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy between 2006 and 2009. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients undergoing LRH and 59 patients undergoing ARH. There was no difference in demographic data between the two groups. Mean estimated blood loss was 567.9 mL with ARH group compared with 429 mL with LRH group (p=0.001). Mean operating time was 242.0 minutes for ARH group compared with 249.5 minutes for LRH group (p=0.597). Return of bowel motility was observed earlier after LRH (p=0.013). A mean 22.8 pelvic lymph nodes were obtained during ARH compared with 21.6 during LRH (p=0.573). The median duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter for LRH (p=0.016) group. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups when the recurrence rate was compared. Progression-free survival rates were 94.9% in ARH group and 94.4% in LRH group respectively (p=0.9317). With a median follow up of 17.9 months, all the patients are alive with no disease-related deaths. CONCLUSION: LRH is a safe and effective therapeutic procedure for management of Ib1 cervical cancer with reducing blood loss, postoperative morbidity, and postoperative hospital stay and oncologic results of this procedure are comparable to ARH with the limitation of a short follow-up period. Further randomized studies are necessary to evaluate long-term clinical outcome.