Laparoscopy or Laparotomy for the Management of Endometrial Cancer

Akdeniz University School of Medicine, Antalya, Turkey.
JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons / Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons (Impact Factor: 0.91). 02/2005; 9(4):442-6.
Source: PubMed


The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopy in the management of early stage endometrial cancer.
Fifty-two patients with endometrial cancer who underwent surgical staging consisting of total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection, and cytology between 1998 to 2002 were included in the study. Laparotomy and laparoscopy were randomly offered to patients upon admittance.
Of 52 patients, 26 underwent laparotomy and the remaining 26 underwent laparoscopic staging surgery. No significant difference existed between the demographic characteristics of the 2 groups. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 18.2 in the laparoscopic group and 21.1 in the laparotomic group (P>0.05). Pelvic lymph node metastases were detected in 7.7% of the patients in the laparoscopy group and 15.4% in the laparotomy group, and the difference was not significant. Adjuvant radiotherapy was applied later to 42.3% of the laparoscopy group and 38.5% of the laparotomy group. Operative morbidity was higher in the laparotomy group mainly because of postoperative wound infection, and the patients in the laparotomy group had a longer hospital stay.
Laparoscopic surgery is a method that can be applied as well as laparotomy in the management of endometrial cancer. Lymph node number and detection of lymph node metastasis did not differ significantly in laparotomic and laparoscopic approaches. Wound infections were more frequent in laparotomies.

10 Reads
  • Source
    • "At this moment, there are eight RCTs [4–12] available comparing laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy in (potential) endometrial carcinoma patients. Four RCTs [4–7] have been summarized in a systematic review in 2008 [13] and four further RCTs are available since then [8–12]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This report is on recovery and long-term outcomes in a small-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) after total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy in (potential) endometrial carcinoma patients. An RCT was performed among women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial carcinoma scheduled for hysterectomy in a teaching hospital in The Netherlands. Women were randomised to total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy both with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and were followed until 5 years after the intervention. Patients completed the RAND 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (RAND-36), Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) and Recovery Index-10 (RI-10) until 12 weeks after surgery. Main outcome measure was quality of life and recovery in the first 12 weeks after surgery. A linear mixed model was used for statistical analysis while accounting for baseline values where applicable. Seventeen women were included, of whom 11 allocated to the laparoscopic arm and 6 to the abdominal arm. Laparoscopic hysterectomy performed better on all scales and subscales used in the study. A statistically significant treatment effect, favouring laparoscopic hysterectomy, was found in the total RAND-36 (difference between groups 142 units, 95% confidence interval 46; 236). Clinical follow-up was completed after median 60 months, but this study was too small for conclusions regarding the safety and survival. Laparoscopic hysterectomy results in better postoperative quality of life in the first 12 weeks after surgery when compared with abdominal hysterectomy.
    Gynecological Surgery 11/2011; 8(4):427-434. DOI:10.1007/s10397-011-0668-6
  • Source
    • "The laparoscopy-related benefits observed in women with benign indications could, therefore, be reduced or different in these patients. A few randomized studies evaluating different aspects of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in patients with endometrial cancer have been published [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. In a recent review by Hauspy et al., comparing laparoscopic approach with open surgery in endometrial cancer patients, the same benefits of laparoscopy were observed as for women with benign indication, and, based on currently available data, they recommend that women with endometrial cancer should be offered minimally invasive surgery as part of their treatment whenever possible [14]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Laparoscopic hysterectomy has proved to be a safe alternative to open surgery in women with benign indications. Few studies compare laparotomy and laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology, and the objective of this study was to analyze the feasibility and development of laparoscopic surgery in endometrial cancer patients. Material and Methods. Records from all women having a hysterectomy due to premalignant or malignant endometrial changes during the years 2002-2009 were examined retrospectively. Results. A total of 521 hysterectomies were performed during the study period. Laparoscopy was performed in about 20% of the cases in the first two years, increasing to 83% in the last year of the period. Moreover, the laparoscopic technique was increasingly applied in older women, more obese women and in women with high-risk preoperative diagnosis, without increasing the complication rate. Conclusions. As for benign indications, laparoscopic hysterectomy in endometrial cancer patients should be preferred whenever possible.
    Obstetrics and Gynecology International 07/2011; 2011:829425. DOI:10.1155/2011/829425
  • Source
    • "Gehrig et al. demonstrated significantly reduced robotic operative times (189 min) compared to laparoscopic procedures (215 min) in obese patients while still accomplishing complete staging in 92% of the robotic patients and 84% of laparoscopic cohort [26], however length of time in the operating room was not defined. Even more compelling, other authors reporting equivalent laparoscopic times (range: 135– 192 min) did not perform comprehensive surgical staging and these patients had lower mean BMIs (range: 25–30 kg/m 2 ) [15] [16] [17] [18]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare outcomes between robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy in patients with endometrial cancer. A cohort study was performed by prospectively identifying all patients with clinical stage I or occult stage II endometrial cancer who underwent robotic hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy from 2006-2008 and retrospectively comparing data using the same surgeons' laparoscopic hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy cases from 1998-2005, prior to our robotic experience. Patient demographics, operative times, complications, conversion rates, pathologic results, and length of stay were analyzed. 181 patients (105 robotic and 76 laparoscopic) met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference between the two groups in median age, uterine weight, bilateral pelvic or aortic lymph node counts, or complication rates in patients whose surgeries were completed minimally invasively. Despite a higher BMI (34 vs. 29, P<0.001), the estimated blood loss (100 vs. 250 mL, P<0.001), transfusion rate (3% vs. 18%, RR 0.18, 95%CI 0.05-0.64, P=0.002), laparotomy conversion rate (12% vs. 26%, RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.25-0.89, P=0.017), and length of stay (median: 1 vs. 2 nights, P<0.001) were lower in the robotic patients compared to the laparoscopic cohort. The odds ratio of conversion to laparotomy based on BMI for robotics compared to laparoscopy is 0.20 (95% CI 0.08-0.56, P=0.002). The mean skin to skin time (242 vs. 287 min, P<0.001) and total room time (305 vs. 336 min, P<0.001) was shorter for the robotic cohort. Robotic hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial carcinoma can be accomplished in heavier patients and results in shorter operating times and hospital length of stay, a lower transfusion rate, and less frequent conversion to laparotomy when compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy.
    Gynecologic Oncology 04/2009; 113(1):36-41. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.005 · 3.77 Impact Factor
Show more

Preview (2 Sources)

10 Reads
Available from