The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgical staging and debulking of apparent advanced stage ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers
OBJECTIVES: To describe our experience with laparoscopic primary or interval tumor debulking in patients with presumed advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancers. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective case series. Women with presumed advanced (FIGO stage IIC or greater) ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancers deemed appropriate candidates for laparoscopic debulking by the primary surgeon(s) were recruited. RESULTS: The study comprised 32 patients who underwent laparoscopic evaluation. Seventeen underwent total laparoscopic primary or interval cytoreduction, with 88.2% optimal cytoreduction. Eleven underwent diagnostic laparoscopy and conversion to laparotomy for cytoreduction, with 72.7% optimal cytoreduction. Four patients had biopsies, limited cytoreduction, or both. In the laparoscopy group, 9 patients have no evidence of disease (NED), 6 are alive with disease (AWD), and 2 have died of disease (DOD), with mean follow-up time of 19.7 months. In the laparotomy group, 3 patients are NED, 5 are AWD, and 3 are DOD, with mean follow-up of 25.8 months. Estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay were less for the laparoscopy group (P=0.008 and P=0.03), while operating time and complication rates were not different. Median time to recurrence was 31.7 months for the laparoscopy group and 21.5 months for the laparotomy group (P=0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy can be used for diagnosis, triage, and debulking of patients with advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and is technically feasible in a well-selected population
Laparoscopy and gynecologic oncology
Laparoscopy was used for a second-look assessment in ovarian cancer patients back in the 1970s. However, it is only with the advent of new developments in equipment in the late 1980s and early 1990s along with the vision of pioneers in laparoscopic surgery that has made operative laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology feasible. Laparoscopy has multiple benefits in the cancer patients, including image magnification to visualize metastatic or recurrent disease and improved dissection in challenging areas such as the paravesical and pararectal spaces. There is limited bleeding from small vessels because of the pressure from pneumoperitoneum, decreased hospital stay, and rapid recovery. Postoperative chemotherapy or radiation can be initiated earlier, and radiation complications from bowel adhesions are minimized. Significant progress has been made in the last 2 decades in gynecologic malignancy. In this study, the application of laparoscopy in cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancer will be presented
Laparoscopy and ovarian cancer: a paradigm change in the management of ovarian cancer?
A MEDLINE search was conducted using the keywords 'laparoscopy ovarian cancer,' 'laparoscopy and borderline ovarian tumors,' 'advanced stage ovarian cancer,' 'laparoscopic cytoreduction ovarian cancer,' 'laparoscopy intraperitoneal catheter,' 'port-site metastases,' and 'carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum.' The publications were further limited to English-language articles, those addressing adnexal mass management, early stage ovarian cancer, and advanced stage ovarian cancer treatments. The articles were divided into 4 broad categories: adnexal masses, low malignant potential tumors, early stage ovarian cancer, and advanced ovarian cancer. For each category, a further subdivision into case reports, case series, and finally cohorts was developed and summarized. Additional articles were obtained based on the bibliographic cross-reference of the initial articles reviewed. The current literature defining the role of laparoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer is limited to case reports, case series, and cohort studies. However, these limited studies suggest equal efficacy of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy in both early and advanced stage ovarian cancer
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial bladder resection for the treatment of infiltrating endometriosis [Case Report]
This article reveals our surgical approach for treatment of a patient with severe pelvic and infiltrative bladder endometriosis with mucosal involvement using robotic-assisted laparoscopic excision and cystotomy repair. To our knowledge, this is the first case of total robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial bladder resection for the treatment of endometriosis. This article also discusses the pros and cons of robotic-assisted surgery and the current literature on infiltrative bladder endometriosis.
Fertility-sparing robotic-assisted radical trachelectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer [Case Report]
A combined pelvic lymphadenectomy with radical vaginal trachelectomy is an alternative to radical hysterectomy in the treatment of young women with cervical cancer desiring fertility preservation. This technique requires advanced vaginal surgery skills not commonly acquired. In an attempt to simplify the procedure we preformed what we believe to be the first case of robotic-assisted radical trachelectomy. A 30-year-old woman, gravida 1, para 1, desiring fertility preservation was given the diagnosis of invasive adenocarcinoma on cervical cone excision. The patient was treated with robotic-assisted pelvic lymphadenectomy and radical trachelectomy. We hope robotic-assisted radical trachelectomy will become an option for select women with early-stage cervical cancer who desire fertility preservation.
Robotic radical hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare intraoperative, pathologic and postoperative outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) to total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) in patients with early stage cervical carcinoma. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed cases of TLRH or RRH with pelvic lymphadenectomy performed for treatment of early cervical cancer between 2000 and 2008. RESULTS: Thirty patients underwent TLRH and pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer from August 2000 to June 2006. Thirteen patients underwent RRH and pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer from April 2006 to January 2008. There were no differences between groups for age, tumor histology, stage, lymphovascular space involvement or nodal status. No statistical differences were observed regarding operative time (323 vs 318 min), estimated blood loss (157 vs 200 mL), or hospital stay (2.7 vs 3.8 days). Mean pelvic lymph node count was similar in the two groups (25 vs 31). None of the robotic or laparoscopic procedures required conversion to laparotomy. The differences in major operative and postoperative complications between the two groups were not significant. All patients in both groups are alive and free of disease at the time of last follow up. CONCLUSION: Based on our experience, robotic radical hysterectomy appears to be equivalent to total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with respect to operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, and oncological outcome. We feel the intuitive nature of the robotic approach, magnification, dexterity, and flexibility combined with significant reduction in surgeon's fatigue offered by the robotic system will allow more surgeons to use a minimally invasive approach to radical hysterectomy.