scholarly journals Survival rates of patients who undergo minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer with cervical involvement

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (10) ◽  
pp. 2204-2208
Author(s):  
Sang Il Kim ◽  
Dong Choon Park ◽  
Sung Jong Lee ◽  
Min Jong Song ◽  
Chan Joo Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Cervical Involvement

Utilization of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Endometrial Cancer Care

2016 ◽  
Vol 127 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda N. Fader ◽  
R. Matsuno Weise ◽  
Abdulrahman K. Sinno ◽  
Edward J. Tanner ◽  
Bijan J. Borah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Cancer Care

scholarly journals Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecologic Oncology: An Updated Survey of Members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 1121-1127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lesley B. Conrad ◽  
Pedro T. Ramirez ◽  
William Burke ◽  
R. Wendel Naumann ◽  
Kari L. Ring ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Robotic Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Single Port ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Pelvic Lymphadenectomy ◽  
Single Port Laparoscopy

ObjectivesTo evaluate the current patterns of use of minimally invasive surgical procedures, including traditional, robotic-assisted, and single-port laparoscopy, by Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) members and to compare the results to those of our 2004 and 2007 surveys.MethodsThe Society of Gynecologic Oncology members were surveyed through an online or mailed-paper survey. Data were analyzed and compared with results of our prior surveys.ResultsFour hundred six (32%) of 1279 SGO members responded. Eighty-three percent of respondents (n = 337) performed traditional laparoscopic surgery (compared with 84% in 2004 and 91% in 2007). Ninety-seven percent of respondents performed robotic surgery (compared with 27% in 2007). When respondents were asked to indicate procedures that they performed with the robot but not with traditional laparoscopy, 75% indicated radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer. Overall, 70% of respondents indicated that hysterectomy and staging for uterine cancer was the procedure they most commonly performed with a minimally invasive approach. Only 17% of respondents who performed minimally invasive surgery performed single-port laparoscopy, and only 5% of respondents indicated that single-port laparoscopy has an important or very important role in the field.ConclusionsSince our prior surveys, we found a significant increase in the overall use and indications for robotic surgery. Radical hysterectomy or trachelectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer and total hysterectomy and staging for endometrial cancer were procedures found to be significantly more appropriate for the robotic platform in comparison to traditional laparoscopy. The indications for laparoscopy have expanded beyond endometrial cancer staging to include surgical management of early-stage cervical and ovarian cancers, but the use of single-port laparoscopy remains limited.

Endometriumkarzinom: Wie Uterusmanipulatoren das Outcome in der minimal-invasiven Chirurgie beeinflussen

2021 ◽  
pp. 180-181
Author(s):  
Ingolf Juhasz-Boess ◽  
Patrick Molnar
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
International Federation ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Uterine Manipulator ◽  
Gynecology And Obstetrics ◽  
Pattern Of Recurrence

<b>Background:</b> There are limited data available to indicate whether oncological outcomes might be influenced by the uterine manipulator, which is used at the time of hysterectomy for minimally invasive surgery in patients with endometrial cancer. The current evidence derives from retrospective studies with limited sample sizes. Without substantial evidence to support its use, surgeons are required to make decisions about its use based only on their personal choice and surgical experience. <b>Objective:</b> To evaluate the use of the uterine manipulator on oncological outcomes after minimally invasive surgery, for apparent early-stage endometrial cancer. <b>Study design:</b> We performed a retrospective multicentric study to assess the oncological safety of uterine manipulator use in patients with apparent early-stage endometrial cancer, treated with minimally invasive surgery. The type of manipulator, surgical staging, histology, lymphovascular space invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, adjuvant treatment, recurrence, and pattern of recurrence were evaluated. The primary objective was to determine the relapse rate. The secondary objective was to determine recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and the pattern of recurrence. <b>Results:</b> A total of 2661 women from 15 centers were included; 1756 patients underwent hysterectomy with a uterine manipulator and 905 without it. Both groups were balanced with respect to histology, tumor grade, myometrial invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, and adjuvant therapy. The rate of recurrence was 11.69% in the uterine manipulator group and 7.4% in the no-manipulator group (P&#x3c;.001). The use of the uterine manipulator was associated with a higher risk of recurrence (hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.27–4.20; P = .006). The use of uterine manipulator in uterus-confined endometrial cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] I-II) was associated with lower disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.57–0.97; P = .027) and higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.07–2.83; P = .026). No differences were found regarding the pattern of recurrence between both groups (chi-square statistic, 1.74; P = .63). <b>Conclusion:</b> In this study, the use of a uterine manipulator was associated with a worse oncological outcome in patients with uterus-confined endometrial cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics I-II) who underwent minimally invasive surgery. Prospective trials are essential to confirm these results.

Evaluating unplanned readmission and prolonged length of stay following minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 156 (1) ◽  
pp. 162-168
Author(s):  
Adrian Kohut ◽  
Mary Cathryn Earnhardt ◽  
Nicholas G. Cuccolo ◽  
Chi-Son Kim ◽  
Mihae Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Unplanned Readmission ◽  
Prolonged Length

Long-term oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery in high-risk endometrial cancer

2016 ◽  
Vol 65 ◽  
pp. 185-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Koskas ◽  
Marta Jozwiak ◽  
Marie Fournier ◽  
Ignace Vergote ◽  
Hans Trum ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Oncological Safety

scholarly journals Minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer: Does operative start time impact surgical and oncologic outcomes?

2014 ◽  
Vol 134 (2) ◽  
pp. 248-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrina N. Slaughter ◽  
Michael Frumovitz ◽  
Kathleen M. Schmeler ◽  
Alpa M. Nick ◽  
Nicole D. Fleming ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Start Time
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document