Sustainability of an enhanced recovery pathway after minimally invasive gynecologic oncology surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Same day discharge is safe after minimally invasive gynecology oncology surgery. Our quality improvement peri-operative program based on enhanced recovery after surgery principles led to an increase in same day discharge from 30% to 75% over a 12 month period. Twelve months after program implementation, we assessed the sustainability of same day discharge rates, determined post-operative complication rates, and evaluated factors affecting same day discharge rates. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of 100 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery at an academic cancer center from January to 2021 to December 2021. This cohort was compared with the active intervention cohort (n=102) from the implementation period (January 2020 to December 2020). Same day discharge rates and complications were compared. Multivariable analysis was performed to assess which factors remained associated with same day discharge post-intervention. RESULTS: Same day discharge post-intervention was 72% compared with 75% during active intervention (p=0.69). Both cohorts were similar in age (p=0.24) and body mass index (p=0.27), but the post-intervention cohort had longer operative times (p=0.001). There were no significant differences in 30-day complications, readmission, reoperation, or emergency room visits (p>0.05). There was a decrease in 30-day post-operative clinic visits from 18% to 5% in the post-intervention cohort (p=0.007), and unnecessary bowel prep use decreased from 35% to 14% (p<0.001). On multivariable analysis, start time (second case of the day) (OR 0.06; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35), and ward narcotic use (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42) remained associated with overnight admission. CONCLUSION: Same day discharge rate was sustained at 72%, 12 months after the implementation of a quality improvement program to optimize same day discharge rate after minimally invasive surgery, while maintaining low post-operative complications and reducing unplanned clinic visits. To maximize same day discharge, minimally invasive gynecologic oncology surgery should be prioritized as the first case of the day, and post-operative narcotic use should be limited.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for deep infiltrating endometriosis surgery: Experience of a French center.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the implementation of an ERAS programme for deep pelvic endometriosis (DPE) surgery in terms of length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications (POC) and rehospitalisation rate. METHODS: This was a comparative retrospective monocentric study in the Gynaecologic Department of the La Conception Hospital in Marseille, France. We compared a 'conventional' group, with classic perioperative management corresponding to patients undergoing DPE surgery between April 8, 2014 and January 23, 2018, and an 'ERAS' group after setting up the ERAS protocol from February 6, 2018 to March 6, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients with DPE surgery were included, with 39 in the conventional group and 53 in the ERAS group. The LOS decreased by 1.91 days (p < 0.001). During the 45 postoperative days, no difference was found in rehospitalised rate (p = 1). The POC rate was 15/39 (38.5 %) in the conventional group and 12/53 (22.6 %) in the ERAS group (p = 0.1). CONCLUSION: The implementation of an ERAS programme for DPE surgery is an effective strategy because it can reduce the LOS without increasing the POC rate.

Implementation of a surgical site infection prevention bundle in gynecologic oncology patients: An enhanced recovery after surgery initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes pre- and post-implementation of an evidence-informed surgical site infection prevention bundle (SSIPB) in gynecologic oncology patients within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) care pathway. METHODS: Patients undergoing laparotomy for a gynecologic oncology surgery between January-June 2017 (pre-SSIPB) and between January 2018-December 2020 (post-SSIPB) were compared using t-tests and chi-square. Patient characteristics, surgical factors, and ERAS process measures and outcomes were abstracted from the ERAS® Interactive Audit System (EIAS). The primary outcomes were incidence of surgical site infections (SSI) during post-operative hospital admission and at 30-days post-surgery. Secondary outcomes included total postoperative infections, length of stay, and any surgical complications. Multivariate models were used to adjust for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: Patient and surgical characteristics were similar in the pre- and post-implementation periods. Evaluation of implementation suggested that preoperative and intraoperative components of the intervention were most consistently used. Infectious complications within 30 days of surgery decreased from 42.1% to 24.4% after implementation of the SSIPB (p < 0.001), including reductions in wound infections (17.0% to 10.8%, p = 0.02), urinary tract infections (UTI) (12.7% to 4.5%, p < 0.001), and intra-abdominal abscesses (5.4% to 2.5%, p = 0.05). These reductions were associated with a decrease in median length of stay from 3 to 2 days (p = 0.001). In multivariate analysis, these SSI reductions remained statistically significant after adjustment for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: Implementation of SSIPB was associated with a reduction in SSIs and infectious complications, as well as a shorter length of stay in gynecologic oncology patients.

Prophylactic procedures associated with gynecological surgery for the management of superficial endometriosis and adhesions. Clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF)✰.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines from the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (CNGOF), based on the best currently available evidence, for the prophylactic procedures associated with gynecological surgery for benign disease such as superficial endometriosis lesions and adhesions. METHODS: The CNGOF has decided to adopt the AGREE II and GRADE systems for grading scientific evidence. Each recommendation for practice was allocated a grade that reflects the quality of evidence (QE) (clinical practice guidelines). RESULTS: Endometriosis and pelvic pain Superficial endometriosis can be entirely asymptomatic. Surgical treatment of asymptomatic superficial peritoneal endometriosis is not recommended in women of childbearing age for the prevention of pelvic pain, especially in case of proximity to noble organs (e.g., the ureters, rectum and sigmoid, and ovaries in nulligravida) as there is no evidence that the disease will progress to become symptomatic (low level of evidence). In case of accidental discovery of superficial endometriosis in women of childbearing age with pelvic pain, it is recommended that the lesions are excised, if surgically accessible. Removal of superficial endometriosis lesions in patients with painful symptoms improves quality of life and pain (low level of evidence). Endometriosis and infertility It appears that women with isolated superficial endometriosis diagnosed by laparoscopy with histological confirmation have a significantly higher incidence of primary infertility than patients without endometriosis. However, there is no data regarding the impact of treatment of these lesions on the fertility in these women or on the natural course of their disease (low level of evidence). It is recommended that excision is performed rather than monopolar coagulation of superficial endometriosis lesions in infertile women, as this results in a higher spontaneous pregnancy rate (low level of evidence). Adhesions and pelvic pain There is limited data in the literature regarding the benefit of performing systematic adhesiolysis during laparoscopy to prevent pelvic pain when incidental pelvic adhesions are discovered. For patients with pelvic pain, it is probably better not to perform adhesiolysis to prevent pelvic pain, although this can be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on the extent of the adhesions, the topography, and the type of surgery considered (low level of evidence). For asymptomatic patients, it is recommended not to perform adhesiolysis to prevent pelvic pain due to the lack of clear efficacy both short- or long-term and due to the increased risk of surgical injuries (low level of evidence). Adhesions and infertility There is limited data in the literature regarding the potential benefit of performing systematic adhesiolysis when there is an incidental discovery of pelvic adhesions during laparoscopy to prevent infertility. For infertile women, in the event of fortuitous discovery of adhesions at laparoscopy, it is probably better not to perform complex adhesiolysis. Only adhesiolysis of tubo-ovarian adhesions that are minimal or slight in terms of their extension and/or their nature may be useful to improve the chances of spontaneous pregnancy. However, it remains to be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on other potential causes of infertility (low level of evidence). For women without known infertility issues, it is probably better not to perform systematic adhesiolysis in order to improve their pregnancy chances, considering the balance between the unknown benefit and the risks of complications inherent to surgery (low level of evidence). CONCLUSION: Further investigations are needed in order to increase the quality of management regarding associated interventions such as the treatment of superficial endometriosis or adhesions performed during a gynecologic surgical procedure and, thereby, bolster these recommendations.

A survey of surgical team members' awareness and perceptions toward the implementation of the surgical safety checklist in gynecological and obstetrical operations.

ABSTRACT: The World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist was developed to improve communication in perioperative care, reduce mortality and complications of patients, and ensure the consistent use of procedures for safe surgery. Despite the increased awareness of the checklist, the implementation compliance is reported as low and the degree of completeness varies. This study aimed to explore the possible supportive factors for the effective implementation and to identify potential awareness and barriers to its implementation in gynecological and obstetrical operation.A survey using a cross-sectional design that included surgeons, anesthetists, and operating room nurses was performed. We used an online link to distribute the survey to all eligible surgical team members in our hospital. The survey contained various aspects of perceptions on the Surgical Safety Checklist and an open-ended question that allowed respondents to offer their opinions on the topic.The overall self-reported awareness of the checklist within each professional group was high. The awareness of surgeons was lower than that of operating room nurses, particularly in the Time-out section. Most participants believed that operating room nurses ranked the highest compliance to the protocols, while surgeons stayed the lowest. Active leadership with experienced operating room nurses, good training for surgical team members, and simplification of the checklist would be the positive factors for the effective implementation.Although there is a high acceptance and adequate self-reported awareness of the Surgical Safety Checklist, it is not always possible to implement it successfully. Our findings suggest that with experienced and effective leadership, barriers to implementation can be overcome. With positive perception and commitment, the Surgical Safety Checklist is easy to implement and it can make a profound improvement on the safety of surgical care. Moreover, a strategy of repetitive training and assessment on the part of the involved health care professionals may be necessary to further improve patients' safety during surgery.

Perioperative management for gynecologic minimally invasive surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article will review current guidelines regarding surgical protocols for elective and nonelective surgeries during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. RECENT FINDINGS: Perioperative management for surgical patients should be modified to promote the safety and wellbeing of patients and caregivers amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 testing should be performed preoperatively with subsequent preprocedure quarantine. Nonemergent or nonlife-threatening surgery should be postponed for COVID-19 positive patients. The consensus of surgical societies is to use a laparoscopic surgical approach for COVID-19 positive patients when appropriate and to avoid port venting at the end of procedures. For COVID-19 positive patients requiring an emergent procedure, the use of personal protective equipment is strongly recommended. SUMMARY: After over a year of the COVID-19 pandemic, effective protocols and precautions have been established to decrease the morbidity and mortality of patients undergoing surgery and to promote the safety of healthcare personnel. Continued investigations are necessary as cases of new, possibly more virulent, strains of the virus arise.

ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors.

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors, including imaging techniques, biomarkers and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.

Declaración de consenso de ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE sobre el diagnóstico preoperatorio de los tumores de ovario La Sociedad Europea de Oncología Ginecológica (ESGO), la Sociedad Internacional de Ecografía en Obstetricia y Ginecología (ISUOG), el Grupo Internacional de Análisis de Tumores de Ovario (IOTA) y la Sociedad Europea de Endoscopia Ginecológica (ESGE) elaboraron conjuntamente declaraciones de importancia para la práctica clínica y con base empírica sobre el diagnóstico preoperatorio de los tumores de ovario, a partir de imágenes, biomarcadores y modelos de predicción, entre otras técnicas. La ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE designó a un grupo internacional multidisciplinar, que incluye a personas expertas de la práctica clínica y la investigación que han demostrado liderazgo y experiencia en el diagnóstico preoperatorio de los tumores de ovario y en el tratamiento de las pacientes con cáncer de ovario (19 personas expertas de toda Europa). También se incluyó en el grupo a una representante de las pacientes. Para garantizar que las declaraciones tenían una base empírica, se revisó la literatura actual y se valoró de forma crítica. Se redactaron declaraciones preliminares basadas en la revisión de la literatura pertinente. La totalidad del grupo debatió durante una teleconferencia cada declaración preliminar y se llevó a cabo una primera ronda de votaciones. Las declaraciones se eliminaron cuando no se obtuvo el consenso entre los miembros del grupo. Los votantes tuvieron la oportunidad de aportar comentarios/sugerencias a la par que sus votos. Las declaraciones se revisaron en consecuencia. Se llevó a cabo otra ronda de votaciones según las mismas reglas para que todo el grupo pudiera evaluar la versión revisada de las declaraciones. El grupo logró un consenso sobre 18 declaraciones. Esta Declaración de Consenso presenta estas declaraciones de la ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE sobre el diagnóstico preoperatorio de los tumores de ovario y la evaluación de la carcinomatosis, junto con un resumen de la evidencia que apoya cada declaración.

Double Discrimination, the Pay Gap in Gynecologic Surgery, and Its Association With Quality of Care.

In this commentary, we describe historical and other influences that drive "double discrimination" in gynecologic surgery-lower pay in the area of surgery that boasts the largest proportion of female surgeons and is focused on female patients and explore how it results in potentially lower quality care. Insurers reimburse procedures for women at a lower rate than similar procedures for men, although there is no medically justifiable reason for this disparity. The wage gap created by lower reimbursement rates disproportionately affects female surgeons, who are disproportionately represented among gynecologic surgeons. This contributes to a large wage gap in surgery for women. Finally, poor reimbursement for gynecologic surgery pushes many obstetrics and gynecology surgeons to preferentially perform obstetric services, resulting in a high prevalence of low-volume gynecologic surgeons, a metric that is closely tied to higher complication rates. Creating equity in reimbursement for gynecologic surgery is one important and ethically required step forward to gender equity in medicine for patients and surgeons.

Guideline No. 413: Surgical Management of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women.

OBJECTIVE: To compare success and complication rates of apical suspension procedures for the surgical management of symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse. TARGET POPULATION: Women with symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse seeking surgical correction. OPTIONS: Interventions included abdominal apical reconstructive repairs (sacrocolpopexy, sacrohysteropexy, or uterosacral hysteropexy) via open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches; vaginal apical reconstructive repairs (vault suspensions or hysteropexy, sacrospinous, uterosacral, iliococcygeus, McCall's, or Manchester types); and vaginal obliterative procedures (with or without uterus in situ). Individual procedures or broad categories of procedures were compared: (1) vaginal versus abdominal routes for reconstruction, (2) abdominal procedures for reconstruction, (3) vaginal procedures for reconstruction, (4) hysterectomy and suspension versus hysteropexy for reconstruction, and (5) reconstructive versus obliterative options. OUTCOMES: The Urogynaecology Committee selected outcomes of interest: objective failure (obtained via validated pelvic organ prolapse [POP] quantification systems and defined as overall objective failure as well as failure rate by compartment); subjective failure (recurrence of bulge symptoms determined subjectively, with or without use of a validated questionnaire); reoperation for POP recurrence; complications of postoperative lower urinary tract symptoms (de novo or postoperative stress urinary incontinence; reoperation for persistent, recurrent, or de novo stress urinary incontinence; urge urinary incontinence; and voiding dysfunction); perioperatively recognized urinary tract injury (bladder or ureter); other complications (mesh exposure, defined as mesh being visible and exposed in the vagina, and non-sexual pelvic pain); and sexual function (de novo dyspareunia and sexual function score according to a validated questionnaire). BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: This guideline will benefit patients seeking surgical correction of apical POP by improving counselling on surgical treatment options and possible outcomes. It will also benefit surgical providers by improving their knowledge of various surgical approaches. Data presented could be used to develop frameworks and tools for shared decision-making. EVIDENCE: We searched Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase from 2002 to 2019. The search included multiple terms for apical POP surgical procedures, approaches, and complications. We excluded POP repairs using transvaginal mesh and studies that compared procedures without apical suspension. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective comparative studies. We limited language of publication to English and French and accessibility to full text. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. VALIDATION METHODS: The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and weak recommendations). INTENDED USERS: Gynaecologists, urologists, urogynaecologists, and other health care providers who assess, counsel, and care for women with POP. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: All statements refer to correction of apical vaginal prolapse in the short and medium term (up to 5 years), except when otherwise specified.

Complications and feasibility analysis of ambulatory surgery for gynecological diseases in China.

ABSTRACT: The Chinese government is attaching great importance to the development of ambulatory surgery in order to optimize the healthcare system in China. The study aims to examine the complications and quality indicators of patients who underwent gynecological ambulatory surgery at a tertiary hospital in China.This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent ambulatory surgery between July and September 2019 at the Department of Gynecology of the First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University. The patients were followed by phone at 30 days after discharge. The postoperative complications, mortality, unplanned re-operation, delayed discharge, unplanned re-hospitalization, and patient satisfaction were collected. The patients who underwent conventional hysteroscopic resection of uterine lesions during the same period were collected as controls for the economics analysis.A total of 392 patients who underwent ambulatory gynecological surgery were included. Fifteen patients had postoperative complications, and the total complication rate was 3.8% (15/392). Eight (8/392, 2.0%) patients had delayed discharge. There were no unplanned re-operations and deaths. There were two (2/392, 0.5%) cases of unplanned re-hospitalization. At 30 days after discharge, two patients were dissatisfied, and 390 cases were satisfied, for an overall satisfaction rate of 99.5%. Compared with conventional hysteroscopic resection of uterine lesions, ambulatory hysteroscopic surgery had a shorter hospital stay and lower total costs (P < .05) but similar surgery-related costs.Ambulatory gynecological surgery is feasible in China, with an acceptable complication profile and obvious economic and social benefits. Nevertheless, hospital management shall be reinforced.

Outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in gynecologic oncology - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefit of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) on length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, 30-day readmission, and cost in gynecologic oncology. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science for all peer-reviewed cohort studies and controlled trials on ERAS involving gynecologic oncology patients. Abstracts, commentaries, non-controlled studies, and studies without specific data on gynecologic oncology patients were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed on the primary endpoint of LOS. Subgroup analyses were performed based on risk of bias of the studies included, number of ERAS elements, and ERAS compliance. Secondary endpoints were readmission rate, complications, and cost. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies (6703 patients) were included: 5 randomized controlled trials, and 26 cohort studies. Meta-analysis of 27 studies (6345 patients) demonstrated a decrease in LOS of 1.6 days (95% confidence interval, CI 1.2-2.1) with ERAS implementation. Meta-analysis of 21 studies (4974 patients) demonstrated a 32% reduction in complications (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.83) and a 20% reduction in readmission (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-0.99) for ERAS patients. There was no difference in 30-day postoperative mortality (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23-1.6) for ERAS patients compared to controls. No difference in the odds of complications or reduction in LOS was observed based on number of included ERAS elements or reported compliance with ERAS interventions. The mean cost savings for ERAS patients was $2129 USD (95% CI $712 - $3544). CONCLUSIONS: ERAS protocols decrease LOS, complications, and cost without increasing rates of readmission or mortality in gynecologic oncology surgery. This evidence supports implementation of ERAS as standard of care in gynecologic oncology.

Inaccuracies in News Media Reporting About the 2019 US Food and Drug Administration Ban on Transvaginal Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze inaccuracies in the news media reporting of the 2019 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ban on surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: We queried the NexisUni media database for English-language news articles about "transvaginal mesh" or "FDA" published before and after the ban. Content analysis was based on discussion of the ban, indications for surgical mesh, and assessment of bias. We characterized public interest in transvaginal mesh using Google Trends. RESULTS: Of 290 news articles reviewed, 42 articles were included for analysis. Public interest in transvaginal mesh increased 4-fold after the FDA announcement. While 15 articles (38%) accurately reported that mesh was used in both POP and incontinence repairs, a plurality (18, 43%) only described using mesh for POP. The majority (30, 71%) of articles did not specify that the FDA ban applied to only transvaginal repair of POP and not to incontinence. Despite multiple professional societies affirming the use of mesh for incontinence, only 2 (5%) articles cited these evidence-based recommendations. About half of the articles had an overtly biased tone; articles with an anti-mesh bias were significantly less likely to identify the mesh indications relevant to the ban (P <.01). CONCLUSION: Seventy percent of news reports about the 2019 FDA ban on transvaginal mesh for POP failed to distinguish between the clinical indications for mesh impacted by the ban. The findings raise concern about patient perceptions of and future access to mesh surgery, regardless of indication.

Guideline No. 412: Laparoscopic Entry for Gynaecological Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits and risks of laparoscopic surgery and provide clinical direction on entry techniques, technologies, and their associated complications in gynaecological surgery. TARGET POPULATION: All patients, including pregnant women and women with obesity, undergoing laparoscopic surgery for various gynaecological indications. OPTIONS: The laparoscopic entry techniques and technologies reviewed in formulating this guideline included the closed (Veress needle-pneumoperitoneum-trocar) technique, direct trocar insertion, open (Hasson) technique, visual entry systems, and disposable shielded and radially expanding trocars. OUTCOMES: Implementation of this guideline should optimize decision-making in the selection of entry technique for laparoscopic surgery. EVIDENCE: We searched English-language articles from September 2005 to December 2019 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, and Cochrane Library using the following MeSH search terms alone or in combination: laparoscopic entry, laparoscopy access, pneumoperitoneum, Veress needle, open (Hasson), direct trocar, visual entry, shielded trocars, radially expanded trocars, and laparoscopic complications. VALIDATION METHODS: The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care approach (Appendix A). INTENDED AUDIENCE: Surgeons performing laparoscopic gynaecological surgery. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS.

Demonstration of Safe Entry Techniques for Laparoscopy.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate different techniques, and detail the considerations for obtaining primary laparoscopic access in gynecologic surgery. DESIGN: Video demonstration of the techniques with narrated discussion of each method. SETTING: The methods for primary entry in laparoscopy vary by location and technique [1,2]. There are inherent risks with any mode of primary entry, and the risks are also specific to each technique [3-6]. The choice for primary entry depends on the patient's anatomy, surgical history, pathology, and surgeon preference [1,2]. INTERVENTIONS: This video reviews considerations for choosing the safest entry point and tips for proper entry technique [4,7-10]. The entry sites reviewed include the umbilicus, left upper quadrant, right upper quadrant, and supraumbilical [11]. The entry technique can be either open (Hasson), closed (Veress), or by direct laparoscopic visualization [9,10,12-14]. CONCLUSION: No single laparoscopic entry technique is superior [3]. The safest and most successful entry method will vary by case characteristics and surgeon training.

Quality of advanced ovarian cancer surgery: A French assessment of ESGO quality indicators.

OBJECTIVES: In 2016, the European Society of Gynecology Oncology (ESGO) published indicators defining the quality of surgical management of advanced ovarian cancer. The objective of the study was to assess the quality of ovarian cancer patient management in regional centers authorized for gynecological cancer, based on the ESGO list of quality indicators. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective observational cohort study was conducted from January 1 to June 30, 2016. The following quality indicators 1 "rate of complete surgical resection", 4 "center participating in clinical trials in gynecologic oncology", 5 "treatment planned and reviewed at a multidisciplinary team meeting", 6 "required preoperative workup", 8 "minimum required elements in operative reports" and 9 "minimum required elements in pathology reports" were selected. RESULTS: 91 patients were evaluated in 16 centers. The required preoperative workup was incomplete in 25% of cases. Treatment was not planned at a multidisciplinary team meeting for 24%. An evaluation score of peritoneal involvement was included in 40% of the operative reports and the quality of surgical resection was reported in 72%. Primary surgery was most often performed in a peripheral hospital (48%), interval surgery in a private center (37%), and closure surgery in a regional cancer center (43%). No institution respected the six quality indicators evaluated. One regional cancer center respected five items and two private centers did not respect any. CONCLUSION: Whilst the ESGO quality indicators provide objective, validated and evaluable support which centers can use to improve quality of care, we observed heterogeneous practices amongst the centers evaluated.