Search

Objective To compare disease-free survival between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer. Methods We conducted a multicentric, propensity-matched study of patients with high-risk endometrial cancer who underwent hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and staging between January 1999 and June 2016 at two centers. High-risk endometrial cancer included grade 3 endometrioid, serous, clear cell, undifferentiated carcinoma or carcinosarcoma with any myometrial invasion. Patients were categorized a priori into two groups based on surgical approach, propensity scores were calculated based on potential confounders and groups were matched 1:1 using nearest neighbor technique. Cox hazard regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves evaluated the association of surgical technique with survival. Results Of 626 eligible patients, 263 (42%) underwent minimally invasive surgery and 363 (58%) underwent open surgery. In the matched cohort, there were no differences in disease-free survival rates at 5 years between open (53.4% [95% CI 45.6-60.5%]) and minimally invasive surgery (54.6% [95% CI 46.6-61.8]; P=.82). Minimally invasive surgery was not associated with worse disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.63-1.16; P=.30), overall survival (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73-1.48, P=.81), or recurrence rate (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.69-1.44; P=.99) compared with open surgery. Use of uterine manipulator was not associated with worse disease-free survival (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.65-1.58, P=.96), overall survival (HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.71-1.96, P=.53), or recurrence rate (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.67-1.87; P=.66). Conclusion There was no difference in oncologic outcomes comparing minimally invasive and open surgery among patients with high-risk endometrial cancer.

A 48-year-old woman presented in February 2020 with 2 weeks of vulvar pain and swelling on the right labium minus with associated intermittent tenderness. Past medical history was significant for hypertension. Past surgical history was significant for three conizations and a bilateral

ObjectiveOpen surgery has become the standard approach for radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion-IIA1). Our primary objective was to compare the length of stay in patients undergoing open radical hysterectomy before and after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program.MethodsThis was a single center, retrospective, before-and-after intervention study including patients who underwent open radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer from January 2009 to December 2020. Two groups were identified based on the time of ERAS implementation: pre-ERAS group included patients who were operated on between January 2009 and October 2014; post-ERAS group included patients who underwent surgery between November 2014 and December 2020.ResultsA total of 81 patients were included, of whom 29 patients were in the pre-ERAS group and 52 patients in the post-ERAS group. Both groups had similar clinical characteristics with no differences in terms of median age (42 years (interquartile range (IQR) 35–53) in pre-ERAS group vs 41 years (IQR 35–49) in post-ERAS group; p=0.47) and body mass index (26.1 kg/m2 (IQR 24.6–29.7) in pre-ERAS group vs 27.1 kg/m2 (IQR 23.5–33.5) in post-ERAS group; p=0.44). Patients in the post-ERAS group were discharged from the hospital earlier compared with those in the pre-ERAS group (median 3 days (IQR 2–3) vs 4 (IQR 3–4), pConclusionsPatients undergoing open radical hysterectomy on an ERAS pathway have a shorter length of hospital stay without increasing overall complications or readmissions rates.

In ovarian cancer, modified posterior pelvic exenteration and end-to-end colorectal anastomosis are usually necessary to achieve optimal cytoreduction. Anastomotic leak ranges from 1.7% to 6.8%, and is the main life-threatening scenario after colorectal anastomosis. It has been associated with an

The objective of the present study was to define and validate an anastomotic leak prognostic score based on previously described and reported anastomotic leak risk factors (OVA-LEAK: https://n9.cl/ova-leakscore) and to establish if the use of OVA-LEAK score is better than clinical criteria (surgeon's choice) selecting anastomosis to be protected with a diverting ileostomy.This is a retrospective, multicentre cohort study that included patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery for primary advanced or relapsed ovarian cancer with colorectal resection and anastomosis between January 2011 and June 2021. Data from patients already included in the previous predictive model were not considered in the present analysis. To validate the performance of our logistic regression model, we used the OVA-LEAK formula (Annex I: https://n9.cl/ova-leakscore) for estimating leakage probabilities in a new independent cohort. Then, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed and area under the curve (AUC) was used to measure the performance of the model. Additionally, the Brier score was also estimated. 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each of the estimated performance measures were also calculated.848 out of 1159 recruited patients were finally included in the multivariable logistic regression model validation. The AUC of the new cohort was 0.63 for predicting anastomotic leak. Considering a cut-off point of 22.1% to be 'positive' (to get a leak) this would provide a sensitivity of 0.45, specificity of 0.80, positive predictive value of 0.09 and negative predictive value of 0.97 for anastomotic leak. If we consider this cut-off point to select patients at risk of leak for bowel diversion, up to 22.5% of the sampled patients would undergo a diverting ileostomy and 47% (18/40) of the anastomotic leaks would be 'protected' with the stoma. Nevertheless, if we consider only the 'clinical criteria' for performing or not a diverting ileostomy, only 12.5% (5/40) of the leaks would be 'protected' with a stoma, with a rate of diverting ileostomy of up to 24.3%.Compared with subjective clinical criteria, the use of a predictive model for anastomotic leak improves the selection of patients who would benefit from a diverting ileostomy without increasing the rate of stoma use.

Radical trachelectomy is the ‘cornerstone’ of fertility-sparing surgery in patients with early-stage cervical cancer wishing to preserve fertility. Growing evidence has demonstrated the oncologic safety and subsequent favorable pregnancy outcomes in well-selected cases. In the absence of prospective trials, the decision on the appropriate surgical approach (vaginal, open, or minimally invasive surgery) should be based on local resources and surgeons’ preferences. Radical trachelectomy has the potential to preserve fertility in a large proportion of women with early-stage cervical cancer. However, prematurity and premature rupture of membranes are common obstetric complications after radical trachelectomy for cervical cancer. A multidisciplinary approach is crucial to optimize the balance between oncologic and obstetric outcomes. The purpose of this review is to provide an updated overview of the technical, oncologic, and obstetric aspects of radical trachelectomy.