Capacity of mismatched Gaussian channels with and without feedback

S. Ihara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01198314

1990-12-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Open Resection in Patients with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: an Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Hanchu Xiong,Ji Wang,Yunlu Jia,Chenyang Ye,Yi Lu,Cong Chen,Jianguo Shen,Yongxia Chen,Wenhe Zhao,Linbo Wang,Jichun Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.03.042

2017-01-01

Abstract:Purposes: The contemporary surgery has reported the safety of laparoscopic surgery (LAP) for patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). However, its use is still debated due to suspicion of the oncologic equivalence to open surgery (OPEN). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of updated original articles to investigate the short-and long-term clinical outcomes of LAP compared with OPEN for GISTs. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and CNKI. Comparative studies of laparoscopic and open surgery for GISTs were published before November 2016. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was utilized to conduct quality assessment. The Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.0 was used for meta-analysis. Results: Twenty-four studies involving 2140 patients were included for the meta-analysis. The metaanalysis results showed that, compared with OPEN, LAP indicated potentially favorable outcomes in terms of operative time (WMD, -30.71; 95% CI, -58.48 to -2.95; P =0.03); intraoperative blood loss (WMD, -60.90; 95% CI, -91.53 to -30.28; P < 0.0001); time to flatus (WMD, -1.10; 95% CI, -1.41 to 0.79; P < 0.00001); time to oral intake (WMD, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.64 to 0.86; P < 0.00001); length of hospital stay (WMD, -3.42; 95% CI, -4.37 to -2.46; P < 0.00001); overall complications (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.54; P < 0.00001); and recurrence (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.66; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible for the treatment of GISTs including less operative time and intraoperative blood loss, earlier postoperative recovery, shorter hospital stay, and lower rate of overall complications and recurrence. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Laparoscopic surgery versus open resection in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Hanchu Xiong,Ji Wang,Yunlu Jia,Chenyang Ye,Yi Lu,Cong Chen,Jianguo Shen,Yongxia Chen,Wenhe Zhao,Linbo Wang,Jichun Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.03.042

IF: 3.125

2017-01-01

The American Journal of Surgery

Abstract:PURPOSES:The contemporary surgery has reported the safety of laparoscopic surgery (LAP) for patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). However, its use is still debated due to suspicion of the oncologic equivalence to open surgery (OPEN). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of updated original articles to investigate the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of LAP compared with OPEN for GISTs. METHODS:A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and CNKI. Comparative studies of laparoscopic and open surgery for GISTs were published before November 2016. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was utilized to conduct quality assessment. The Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.0 was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS:Twenty-four studies involving 2140 patients were included for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis results showed that, compared with OPEN, LAP indicated potentially favorable outcomes in terms of operative time (WMD, -30.71; 95% CI, -58.48 to -2.95; P = 0.03); intraoperative blood loss (WMD, -60.90; 95% CI, -91.53 to -30.28; P < 0.0001); time to flatus (WMD, -1.10; 95% CI, -1.41 to -0.79; P < 0.00001); time to oral intake (WMD, -1.25; 95% CI, -1.64 to -0.86; P < 0.00001); length of hospital stay (WMD, -3.42; 95% CI, -4.37 to -2.46; P < 0.00001); overall complications (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.54; P < 0.00001); and recurrence (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.66; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:Laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible for the treatment of GISTs including less operative time and intraoperative blood loss, earlier postoperative recovery, shorter hospital stay, and lower rate of overall complications and recurrence.
Comparison of Survival Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Surgery and Open Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

I.-Ning Chen,I.-Te Wang,Hsueh-Yu Mu,J.-Timothy Qiu,Wei-Min Liu,Ching-Wen Chang,Yen-Hsieh Chiu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14092117

2022-04-24

Cancers

Abstract:Objectives: To compare the survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and laparotomy radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study involving women who received a radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, stage IA1 with lymphovascular invasion, IA2, IB1, IB2, or IIA from 2008 to 2016. Clinicopathologic and perioperative outcomes were compared using appropriate statistical methodologies. Results: Oncologic survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Among the 105 cases identified, 58 (55.2%) and 47 (44.8%) women underwent MIS and open radical hysterectomy, respectively. Over a median follow-up period of 62 months, women who underwent MIS and open radical hysterectomy had a 5-year overall survival rate of 87.9% and 89.4% (p = 0.845) and a 5-year disease-free survival rate of 82.5% and 86.7% (p = 0.624), respectively. Conclusions: For early-stage cervical cancer, patients who underwent MIS radical hysterectomy had survival outcomes that were comparable to those who underwent open surgery at our institute.

oncology
SUCCOR morbidity: complications in minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer

Daniel Vázquez-Vicente,Felix Boria,Teresa Castellanos,Monica Gutierrez,Enrique Chacon,Nabil Manzour,Jose Angel Minguez,Nerea Martin-Calvo,Juan Luis Alcazar,Luis Chiva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2023-004657

2024-02-05

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer

Abstract:Objective The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications in open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Methods Data were collected from the SUCCOR database of 1272 patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), 2009) who underwent radical hysterectomy in Europe between January 2013 and December 2014. We reviewed the duration of the surgeries, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, intra-operative and post-operative complications. The inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years and histologic type (squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma). Pelvic MRI confirming a tumor diameter ≤4 cm with no parametrial invasion and a pre-operative CT scan, MRI, or positron emission tomography CT demonstrating no extra-cervical metastatic disease were mandatory. Outcomes of interest were any grade >3 adverse events, intra-operative adverse events, post-operative adverse events, length of hospital stay, length of operation, and blood loss. Results The study included 1156 patients, 633 (54%) in the open surgery group and 523 (46%) in the minimally invasive surgery group. Median age was 46 years (range 18–82), median body mass index 25 kg/m 2 (range 15–68), and 1022 (88.3%) patients were considered to have an optimal performance status (ECOG Performance Status 0). The most common histologic tumor type was squamous carcinoma (n=794, 68.7%) and the most frequent FIGO staging was IB1 (n=510, 44.1%). In the minimally invasive surgery group the duration of surgery was longer (246 vs 196 min, p<0.01), estimated blood loss was lower (171 vs 418 mL, p<0.01), and length of hospital stay was shorter (4.7 vs 8.3 days, p<0.01) compared with the abdominal surgery group. There was no difference in the overall incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications between the two groups. Regarding grade I complications, the incidence of vaginal bleeding (2.9% vs 0.6%, p<0.01) and vaginal cuff dehiscence was higher in the minimally invasive surgery group than in the open group (3.3% vs 0.5%, p<0.01). Regarding grade III post-operative complications, bladder dysfunction (1.3% vs 0.2%, p=0.046) and abdominal wall infection (1.1% vs 0%, p=0.018) were more common in the open surgery group than in the minimally invasive surgery group. Ureteral fistula was more frequent in the minimally invasive group than in the open surgery group (1.7% vs 0.5%, p=0.037). Conclusion Our study showed that there was no significant difference in the overall incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications between minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and the open approach.

oncology,obstetrics & gynecology
Laparoscopic Vs. Open Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Single-Institution, Propensity Score Matching Study in China

Zhen Yuan,Dongyan Cao,Jie Yang,Mei Yu,Keng Shen,Jiaxin Yang,Ying Zhang,Huimei Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.01107

IF: 4.7

2019-01-01

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Study Objective: To compare the surgical and oncologic outcomes between open abdomen radical hysterectomy (ARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer. Methods: Retrospective observational study with propensity score matching was used to ensure balanced groups for ARH and LRH. One-hundred-and-ninety-eight women with cervical cancer, 99 treated using ARH and 99 using LRH, between January 2012 and December 2014. Outcomes included disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), intra-operative factors, post-operator recovery, urinary retention, and adverse events. Moreover, the inverse probability of the treatment weighting (IPTW) method was also used. Main Results: Compared with ARH, LRH was associated with a lower volume of blood loss (P < 0.001) and transfusion rate (P < 0.001), with a broader resection of the parametrium (P < 0.001). Post-operatively, the time to first flatus was shorter for LRH than ARH (P < 0.001) but the rate of urinary retention was higher for LRH (22.2%) than ARH (8.1%; P = 0.009). DFS and OS were similar between groups. By IPTW, laparoscopy was also not associated with poorer survival in terms of DFS (HR 1.52, CI 0.799-2.891, P = 0.202) or OS (HR 0.942, HR 0.425-2.09, P = 0.883). Conclusion: Compared with ARH, LRH provided better intra-operative and post-operative outcomes, with no significant difference in oncologic outcomes and survival. Urinary retention remains a clinical issue to improve with LRH. The technology of LRH has been improved in China to address the inconsistent results of oncologic outcomes in previous studies. Whether these improvements could be effective needs to be investigated in the future.
Comparison of survival outcome of open, total laparoscopic, and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy for stage IB2 cervical cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study

Hyung Joon Yoon,Byung Su Kwon,Hyun Jin Rho,Tae Hwa Lee,Dae Hoon Jeong,Ki Hyung Kim,Dong Soo Suh,Yong Jung Song

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000037426

IF: 1.6

2024-03-09

Medicine

Abstract:Over the past 3 decades, there has been remarkable advancement in the field of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for the treatment of early stage cervical cancer. Minimally invasive surgery radical hysterectomy (MIS RH), when compared to total abdominal radical hysterectomy (TARH), is related to reduced bleeding, shorter length of hospitalization, and decreased postoperative complications. [ 1–5 ] A histological analysis revealed that MIS RH had no influence on the surgical extent on parametrial resection [ 6 ] Furthermore, other research has demonstrated that MIS RH has survival outcomes that are equivalent to those of TARH. [ 7–10 ] Previous findings indicate that MIS RH is commonly applied for the treatment of early stage cervical cancer. But, there is a limitation of level 1 data available for comparing the survival outcomes of the 2 RH procedures. Laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer (LACC) trial, [ 11 ] a global phase III randomized trial, has reported that MIS RH was correlated with a significant decrease in disease-free survival (DFS) (hazard ratio [HR] 3.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.63, 8.58]). Additionally, mortality was found to be 6 times higher (HR 6.00, 95% CI [1.77, 20.30]) when compared to TARH. Similarly, analysis of oncologic outcomes from the SEER database revealed that MIS RH has been associated with increased 4-year mortality rates. [ 12 ] The findings of this analysis have caused widely debated on applying of MIS RH for early-stage cervical cancer.

medicine, general & internal
Surgical Treatment for Endometrial Cancer, Hysterectomy Performed via Minimally Invasive Routes Compared with Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Purushothaman Natarajan,Gayathri Delanerolle,Lucy Dobson,Cong Xu,Yutian Zeng,Xuan Yu,Kathleen Marston,Thuan Phan,Fiona Choi,Vanya Barzilova,Simon G. Powell,James Wyatt,Sian Taylor,Jian Qing Shi,Dharani K. Hapangama

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16101860

2024-05-14

Cancers

Abstract:Background: Total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as the standard of care for early-stage endometrial cancer (EC). Prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses have focused on outcomes reported solely from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), overlooking valuable data from non-randomised studies. This inaugural systematic review and network meta-analysis comprehensively compares clinical and oncological outcomes between MIS and open surgery for early-stage EC, incorporating evidence from randomised and non-randomised studies. Methods: This study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020186959). All original research of any experimental design reporting clinical and oncological outcomes of surgical treatment for endometrial cancer was included. Study selection was restricted to English-language peer-reviewed journal articles published 1 January 1995–31 December 2021. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Results: A total of 99 studies were included in the network meta-analysis, comprising 181,716 women and 14 outcomes. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery demonstrated reduced blood loss and length of hospital stay but increased operating time. Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic-assisted surgery was associated with a significant reduction in ileus (OR = 0.40, 95% CrI: 0.17–0.87) and total intra-operative complications (OR = 0.38, 95% CrI: 0.17–0.75) as well as a higher disease-free survival (OR = 2.45, 95% CrI: 1.04–6.34). Conclusions: For treating early endometrial cancer, minimal-access surgery via robotic-assisted or laparoscopic techniques appears safer and more efficacious than open surgery. Robotic-assisted surgery is associated with fewer complications and favourable oncological outcomes.

oncology
[Comparison of the Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Surgery and Open Surgery for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer].

H Y He,Z J Yang,D Y Zeng,D S Yao,J T Fan,R F Zhao,J Q Zhang,X,Z Lin,Y M Jiang,L Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-3766.2017.06.011

2017-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the short-term and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic surgery compared with traditional laparotomy in cases of stage ⅠA2-ⅡA2 cervical cancer. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on the clinical data of 1 863 patients diagnosed as FIGO stages ⅠA2-ⅡA2 cervical cancer in 6 third-grade class-A hospitals in Guangxi province between January 2007 and May 2014. One thousand and seventy-one received laparoscopy, and 792 received laparotomy. T-test, U-test and χ(2) test were used to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes. The short-term outcomes included surgical related outcomes and operative complications, and the long-term outcomes included quality of life (pelvic floor functions and sexual functions), survival and recurrence. Pelvic floor function and sexual function were assessed with the International Consultation on Incontinence Quesonnaire Female Lower Urinary tract(ICIQ-FLUTS) and the Female Sexual Function Inventory (FSFI), respectively. Survival rates were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. The survival curves were compared with Log-rank test. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluaterisk factors for prognosis. Results: (1)The short-term outcomes : There were significant difference in operative time([(257±69) vs(238±56)min], estimated blood loss[(358±314) vs(707±431)ml], anus exhausting time[(2.5±0.9) vs (2.9±0.8)d], preserved days of catheter[(15±7) vs(18±9)d], and post-operative length of stay[(19±16) vs (30±21)d] between the laparoscopic surgery group and the opensurgery group(P<0.05). There was no significant difference in lymph nodes yielded[(21±9) vs (21±11)], left parametrial width[(2.5±0.8) vs (2.7±0.7)cm], right parametrial width [(2.6±0.3) vs (2.7±0.2)cm], vaginal cuff length[(2.4±0.7) vs (2.2±0.7)cm] between the laparoscopic surgery group and the opensurgery group(P>0.05). The intra-operative complications occurred in 8.1%(87/1 071)in the laparoscopic surgery group and in 10.7%(85/792)in the open surgery group(P>0.05). However, the complications of vascular injury in the laparoscopic surgery group[2.6%(28/1 071)]was lower than that in the open surgery group[7.7%(61/792), P<0.001]. The laparoscopic surgery exhibited lower post- operative complication rate [33.8%(362/1 071)vs 40.2%(318/792), P<0.05] and poorer wound healing rate [0.7%(7/1 071)vs 4.0%(32/792), P<0.05]. (2)The long-term outcomes(Hierarchical analysis): The overall incontinence in ICIQ-FLUTS questionnaire in nerve-sparing laparoscopic group [28.4%(67/236)] was lower than that in the open surgery group [35.9%(71/198), P=0.004] . However, There was no significant difference in degree of incontinence between the two groups(P>0.05). The overall sexual dysfunction in FSFI questionnaire after 12 months of postoperative in the nerve-sparing laparoscopic group [47.0%(111/236)]was lower than that in the open surgery group [58.6%(116/198), P=0.001], and the six different dimension scores in the laparoscopic surgery group were higher than that in the open surgery group (P<0.05). The recurrence rate was 3.5%(35/1 007)in the laparoscopicsurgery group and 4.7%(35/740)in the open surgery group(P>0.05). The 5-year OS was 94.0% for the laparoscopic surgery group and 90.2% for the open surgery group(P>0.05), and the 5-year DFS was 93.9% for the laparoscopic surgery group and 89.1% for the open surgery group(P>0.05). (3) Prognostic fators: In univariate analysis, tumor dimension, clinical stage, deep stromal invasion, LVSI, and retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis signficantly affected 5-year OS and 5-year DFS(P<0.05); In multivariate analyses, LVSI, deep stromal invasion and LN metastasis were independent prognostic factors(P<0.05). Conclusions: Laparoscopy can reduceestimated blood loss, accelerate postoperative recovery and improve the quality of life after surgery compared to laparotomy, and it ensures the same oncological results as open surgery. Laparoscopic approach is a safe and effective treatment for early-stage cervical cancer.
Comparison of laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤2 cm

Xu Chen,Na Zhao,Piaopiao Ye,Jiahua Chen,Xingwei Nan,Hongqin Zhao,Kai Zhou,Yuyang Zhang,Jisen Xue,Haihong Zhou,Huiling Shang,Hanxiao Zhu,Van der Merwe Leanne,Xiaojian Yan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000994

2020-04-09

International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer

Abstract:Objective There is recent evidence that demonstrates worse oncologic outcomes associated with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy when compared with open radical hysterectomy, particularly in patients with tumors >2 cm. The aim of our study was to retrospectively evaluate the oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics(FIGO) 2009 stage IB1 (FIGO 2009) cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤2 cm. Methods A retrospective review of medical records was performed to identify patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open radical hysterectomy during January 2010 and December 2018. Inclusion criteria were: (1) histologically confirmed cervical cancer including all histological types; (2) FIGO 2009 stage IB1; (3) tumor size ≤2 cm (determined by pelvic examination, magnetic resonance imaging or transvaginal ultrasound); (4) had undergone radical hysterectomy (type II or III) with pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy as primary surgical treatment; (5) had follow-up information. Patients with FIGO 2009 stage IA1 or IA2, tumor size >2 cm, or who received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy before surgery, those with cervical cancer incidentally found after simple hysterectomy, or with insufficient data were excluded. Concurrent comparison between the laparoscopic and open cohorts was made for disease-free survival and overall survival. Results A total of 325 cervical cancer patients were included; of these, 129 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery and 196 patients had open surgery. The median follow-up times were 51.8 months (range 2–115) for laparoscopic surgery and 49.5 months (range 3–108) for open surgery. Patients in the laparoscopic group had significantly worse 5 year disease-free survival than those in the open group (90.4% vs 97.7%; p=0.02). There was no significant difference in 5 year overall survival between groups (96.9% vs 99.4%, p=0.33). The Cox proportional hazards regression analysis indicated that laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower disease-free survival compared with open surgery (adjusted hazard ratio 4.64, 95% CI 1.26 to 17.06; p=0.02). In patients with non-squamous cell carcinoma or with grade II–III, laparoscopic surgery had a significantly worse 5 year disease-free survival compared with the open surgery group (74% vs 100%, p=0.01, and 88.8% vs 98.0%, p=0.02, respectively). Conclusion Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with worse disease-free survival for stage IB1 (FIGO 2009) cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤2 cm compared with open radical hysterectomy. Further studies may shed additional light on the impact of minimally invasive surgery in this low-risk patient population.
Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Xiaowei Wang,Gaoyang Cao,Weifang Mao,Weifeng Lao,Chao He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_533_18

2020-01-01

Abstract:This study aimed to compare clinical and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.We searched PubMed/Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Yahoo, and Google Scholar databases for relevant articles published up to 2017. Studies based on comparability between robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer were designated. Clinical outcomes included operative time, conversion to open surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), bowel function recovery time, length of hospital stay (LOS), anastomosis leak, and postoperative complications. Oncological outcomes comprised the number of lymph nodes extracted, the positive circumferential margin (PCRM), and the distal resection margin (DRM).Twenty studies were designated totaling 5496 patients, comprising a robot-assisted surgery patient group (n = 2168, 39.4%) and a laparoscopic surgery patient group (n = 3328, 60.6%). The robot-assisted surgery group was associated with longer operative time (odds ratio [OR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.14, 0.82), lower conversion to open surgery rate (OR 0.55, 95% CI; 0.44, 0.69), shorter LOS (OR - 0.15, 95% CI; -0.30, 0.00), faster bowel function recovery (OR - 0.38, 95% CI; -0.74, -0.02), and lower postoperative complications (OR 0.79, 95% CI; 0.65, 0.97). EBL, anastomosis leak rate, and oncological outcomes including the number of lymph nodes extracted, the DRM, and the PCRM showed no significant differences between groups.Robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer showed longer operative time, lower conversion, faster bowel function recovery rates, and shorter hospital stay, and similar oncological outcomes compared to laparoscopic surgery.
Effect of the surgical approach on survival outcomes in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A real‐world multicenter study of a large Chinese cohort from 2006 to 2017

Chenyan Guo,Xiaoyan Tang,Yan Meng,Ying Zhang,Xuyin Zhang,Jingjing Guo,Xiaohong Lei,Junjun Qiu,Keqin Hua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3287

IF: 4.711

2020-07-06

Cancer Medicine

Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Objective</h3><p>To compare survival outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and laparotomy in early‐stage cervical cancer (CC) patients.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Methods</h3><p>A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO, 2009) stage IA1 (lymphovascular invasion)‐IIA1 CC patients undergoing MIS or laparotomy at four tertiary hospitals from 2006 to 2017. Propensity score matching and weighting and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed. Survival was compared in various matched cohorts and subgroups.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Results</h3><p>Three thousand two hundred and fifty‐two patients (2439 MIS and 813 laparotomy) were included after matching. (1) The 2‐ and 5‐year recurrence‐free survival (RFS) (2‐year, hazard ratio [HR], 1.81;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09‐3.0; 5‐year, HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.21‐3.89) or overall survival (OS) (2‐year, HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.03‐3.40; 5‐year, HR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.29‐5.10) were significantly worse for MIS in patients with stage I B1, but not the cohort overall (2‐year RFS, HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.76‐1.42; 2‐year OS, HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.70‐1.41; 5‐year RFS, HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.76‐1.65; 5‐year OS, HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.79‐1.83) or other stages (2) In a subgroup analysis, MIS exhibited poorer survival in many population subsets, even in patients with less risk factors, such as patients with squamous cell carcinoma, negative for parametrial involvement, with negative surgical margins, negative for lymph node metastasis, and deep stromal invasion < 2/3. (3) In the cohort treated with (2172, 54%) or without adjuvant treatment (1814, 46%), MIS showed worse RFS than laparotomy in patients treated without adjuvant treatment, whereas no differences in RFS and OS were observed in adjuvant‐treatment cohort. (4) Inadequate surgeon proficiency strongly correlated with poor RFS and OS in patients receiving MIS compared with laparotomy.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusions</h3><p>MIS exhibited poorer survival outcomes than laparotomy group in many population subsets, even in low‐risk subgroups. Therefore, laparotomy should be the recommended approach for CC patients.</p></section>

oncology
Safety of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecologic Oncology

Ya-xia CHEN,Xing XIE

2014-01-01

Abstract:Patients with gynecological malignant tumor are relatively older than patients with benign gynecological diseases. The operation process for gynecological cancers is more complicated and need longer operation time than for benign gynecological diseases. Malignant tumor has possibility of wound planting and recurrence. Many doctors worry about peri-operation complications and the prognosis of patients with gynecologic cancers received minimally invasive operation. At present, the minimally invasive operation in gynecological malignant tumor was far less than in the benign gynecological diseases. But a lot of literature shows that in cervical cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and other gynecological malignant tumors, the prognosis and peri-operation complication rate in patients treated with laparoscopic radical operation are similar or even better than patients treated with traditional open operation. In conclusion, minimally invasive treatment of gynecologic malignant tumor by doctors with laparoscopic operation skills is feasible, reasonable and safe.
Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in high-risk histologic endometrial cancer patients: A meta-analysis

Nae Ry Kim,A Jin Lee,Eun Jung Yang,Kyeong A So,Sun Joo Lee,Tae Jin Kim,Seung-Hyuk Shim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.06.004

Abstract:Objective: To compare the effects of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OPS) on the risk of recurrence and mortality in patients with endometrial cancer (EC) of high-risk histology (grade 3 endometrioid adenocarcinoma, papillary serous carcinoma [PS], clear cell carcinoma [CC], and carcinosarcoma) using meta-analysis. Material and methods: We systematically reviewed published studies comparing MIS and OPS in EC patients with high-risk histology until January 2022. The endpoints were recurrence and mortality rate. Study design features that may have affected participant selection, recurrence/death detection, and manuscript publication were assessed. For pooled estimates of the effect of MIS on recurrence/mortality, the random- or fixed-effects meta-analytical models were used after assessing the cross-study heterogeneity. Result: Nine observational studies (eight retrospective and one prospective) fulfilled our search criteria (MIS, 8877 patients; OPS, 5751 patients). The fixed-effects model-based meta-analysis indicated that MIS did not significantly increase the risk of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.05; p = 0.13) and mortality (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.93; p < 0.001) when compared with OPS. This pattern was also observed in the subgroup analyses based on the stage (early stage vs. all stage), histology (PS and CC), and MIS type (laparoscopy vs. robotic). There was no evidence of publication bias. Conclusion: This meta-analysis of observational studies revealed that MIS did not compromise the prognosis of EC patients with high-risk histology. Well-designed randomized controlled trials could verify the results of this uncommon but deadly tumor.
Comparison of survival and complications between minimally invasive and open staging surgeries in non-endometrioid endometrial cancer

Dong Won Hwang,Se Ik Kim,Hee Seung Kim,Hyun Hoon Chung,Jae-Weon Kim,Noh Hyun Park,Maria Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108584

IF: 4.037

2024-08-20

European Journal of Surgical Oncology

Abstract:Objective This study aimed to compare survival and complications between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery and evaluate related risk factors in patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer. Methods Clinicopathologic characteristics; survival outcomes; complications; and prognostic factors associated with progression-free survival and overall survival were compared among patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer who underwent primary staging surgery using laparoscopic, robotic, or open abdominal surgery (2004–2017). Results In total, 91 patients were included: 41 and 50 underwent minimally invasive surgery and open surgery, respectively. The minimally invasive surgery and open surgery groups showed similar progression-free survival (5-year progression-free survival rate, 58.7 % vs. 58.5 %; P = .925) and overall survival (5-year overall survival rate, 73.6 % vs. 80.3 %; P = .834). Intraoperative (7.2 % vs. 6.0 %; P = .111) and postoperative surgical complications (14.6 % vs. 26.0 %; P = .165) were similar between the groups. However, blood loss was lower (mean, 305.1 vs. 561.2 ml, P < .001) and hospital stay was shorter (mean, 8.2 vs. 15.4 days, P < .001) in the minimally invasive surgery group. Using multivariate analysis, lymphovascular space invasion was identified as poor prognostic factor for progression-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.054; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.521–6.132; P = .002) and overall survival (adjusted HR, 3.918; 95 % CI, 1.455–10.551; P = .007), whereas age ≥ 60 years was poor prognostic factor for only overall survival (adjusted HR, 5.0953; 95 % CI, 1.660–15.378; P = .004). Conclusions Surgical outcomes did not differ between the minimally invasive and open surgery group in patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer. Lymphovascular space invasion was a significant survival factor in this context.

oncology,surgery
Efficacy and safety of minimally invasive surgery versus open laparotomy for epithelial ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Akira Yokoi,Hiroko Machida,Muneaki Shimada,Koji Mastuo,Shogo Shigeta,Shigenori Furukawa,Nobumichi Nishikawa,Hiroyuki Nomura,Kensuke Hori,Hideki Tokunaga,Tadahiro Shoji,Tsukasa Baba,Satoru Nagase

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.08.011

2024-08-13

Abstract:Objective: To examine the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and conventional abdominal surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), stratified by treatment type. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by an Expert Panel of the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology Ovarian Cancer Committee. Several academic databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Database, and Ichushi were searched by the Japan Medical Library Association on November 11, 2023, using the keywords "epithelial ovarian cancer", "minimally invasive surgery", "laparoscopic", and "robot-assisted". Articles describing MIS treatment for EOC compared with conventional abdominal surgery were independently assessed by two authors. The primary outcomes were survival and perioperative adverse events. Results: After screening 1114 studies, 35 articles were identified, including primary staging surgery (PSS) for early-stage EOC EOC (n = 20) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy following interval debulking surgery (NACT-IDS; n = 10) and upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS; n = 5) for advanced-stage EOC. These studies included 29,888 patients (7661 undergoing MIS and 22,227 undergoing abdominal surgery). Patients receiving MIS and abdominal surgery had similar overall survival (PSS: odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-1.37; NACT-IDS: OR 0.93, 95%CI 0.25-3.44 and PDS: OR 0.66, 95%CI 0.36-1.22, all P > 0.05). MIS showed perioperative complication rates comparable to those of abdominal surgery (intraoperative and postoperative, all treatment types P ≥ 0.05). However, the rate of lymph node dissection in early-stage EOC (PSS: OR 0.49, 95%CI0.26-0.91) and multivisceral resections in advanced-stage EOC (NACT-IDS: OR 0.27 95%CI 0.16-0.44 and PDS: OR 0.27, 95%CI 0.16-0.44) was lower in MIS than in abdominal surgery (all P < 0.05). Conclusion: MIS did not negatively impact the survival and perioperative complications of patients with EOC compared to abdominal surgery. While MIS is a viable option, varied case selection and surgical procedures suggest potential bias, requiring further validation studies.
Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Yue-Lin Song,Rui-Zhe Li,Bo-Jie Feng,Yu-Han Lu,Li-Fei Wang,Zhao-Yun Wang,Kai-Ge Pei,Li-Fei Sun,Rui Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108240

IF: 4.037

2024-04-01

European Journal of Surgical Oncology

Abstract:Minimally invasive surgery on treatment of early-stage cervical cancer is debatable. Traditional approaches of colpotomy are considered responsible for an inferior oncological outcome. Evidence on whether protective colpotomy could optimize minimally invasive technique and improve prognoses of women with early-stage cervical cancer remains limited. We produced a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare oncological outcomes of the patients treated by minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy to those treated by open surgery according to existing literature. We explored PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized controlled trials or observational studies published in English, (2) studies comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy to abdominal radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer, and (3) studies comparing survival outcomes. Two reviewers performed the screening, data extraction, and quality assessment independently. A total of 8 retrospective cohort studies with 2020 women were included in the study, 821 of whom were in the minimally invasive surgery group, and 1199 of whom were in the open surgery group. The recurrence-free survival and overall survival in the minimally invasive surgery group were both similar to that in the open surgery group (pooled hazard ratio, 0.88 and 0.78, respectively; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38 and 0.42-1.44, respectively). Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy on treatment of early-stage cervical cancer had similar recurrence-free survival and overall survival compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy. Protective colpotomy could be a guaranteed approach to modifying minimally invasive technique.

oncology,surgery
Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter analysis

Juliana Rodriguez,Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain,James Saenz,David Ortiz Isla,Gabriel Jaime Rendon Pereira,Diego Odetto,Fabio Martinelli,Vladimir Villoslada,Ignacio Zapardiel,Lina Maria Trujillo,Milagros Perez,Marcela Hernandez,Jose Martin Saadi,Francesco Raspagliesi,Henry Valdivia,Jaime Siegrist,Shuangshuang Fu,Mindy Hernandez Nava,Lina Echeverry,Florencia Noll,Antonino Ditto,Aldo Lopez,Alicia Hernandez,Rene Pareja

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-002086

2021-01-27

International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer

Abstract:Introduction Recent evidence has shown adverse oncological outcomes when minimally invasive surgery is used in early-stage cervical cancer. The objective of this study was to compare disease-free survival in patients that had undergone radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, either by laparoscopy or laparotomy. Methods We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with cervical cancer stage IA1 with lymph-vascular invasion, IA2, and IB1 (FIGO 2009 classification), between January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2017, at seven cancer centers from six countries. We included squamous, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous histologies. We used an inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity score to construct a weighted cohort of women, including predictor variables selected a priori with the possibility of confounding the relationship between the surgical approach and survival. We estimated the HR for all-cause mortality after radical hysterectomy with weighted Cox proportional hazard models. Results A total of 1379 patients were included in the final analysis, with 681 (49.4%) operated by laparoscopy and 698 (50.6%) by laparotomy. There were no differences regarding the surgical approach in the rates of positive vaginal margins, deep stromal invasion, and lymphovascular space invasion. Median follow-up was 52.1 months (range, 0.8–201.2) in the laparoscopic group and 52.6 months (range, 0.4–166.6) in the laparotomy group. Women who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy had a lower rate of disease-free survival compared with the laparotomy group (4-year rate, 88.7% vs 93.0%; HR for recurrence or death from cervical cancer 1.64; 95% CI 1.09–2.46; P=0.02). In sensitivity analyzes, after adjustment for adjuvant treatment, radical hysterectomy by laparoscopy compared with laparotomy was associated with increased hazards of recurrence or death from cervical cancer (HR 1.7; 95% CI 1.13 to 2.57; P=0.01) and death for any cause (HR 2.14; 95% CI 1.05–4.37; P=0.03). Conclusion In this retrospective multicenter study, laparoscopy was associated with worse disease-free survival, compared to laparotomy.
Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ZhaoYue,HangBo,XiongGuang-Wu,ZhangXiao-Wei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2017.0022

2017-01-01

Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques

Abstract:Purpose: To investigate the value of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer by comparing intraoperative and postoperative outcomes with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH). Materials and Methods: We searched the Medline, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, through February 2, 2016 with keywords of laparoscopic OR laparoscopy AND radical hysterectomy OR early cervical cancer OR stage IB, stage IB1, stage IB2, stage IIA, stage IIA1, stage IIA2, stage IIA cervical cancer to identify all relevant studies that compared LRH with ARH in treating early cervical cancer. Two reviewers evaluated the quality of literature independently. Standardized tables were used to extract data (study or participant details and results) from the texts, tables, figures, or any other attachments of eligible publications. Weighted mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs) were pooled with the random effects model. Then we conducted meta-analysis using the RevMan5.3 software. Results: A total of 615 studies were initially identified. After screening, 23 studies, including 4205 patients were recruited. LRH was associated with lower estimated blood loss (mL) (MD=-178.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]=-214.89 to -141.94, P<.00001), longer operation time (minutes) (MD=43.68, 95% CI=29.42-57.95, P<.00001), fewer retrieved lymph nodes (MD=-3.44, 95% CI=-5.96 to -0.92, P=.007), shorter hospital stay (day) (MD=-3.17, 95% CI=-4.06 to -2.29, P<.00001), quicker return to normal bowel activity (day) (MD=-0.7, 95% CI=-0.96 to -0.45, P<.00001), and shorter duration of bladder catheterization (day) (MD=-1.69, 95% CI=-2.83 to -0.55, P<.004) than ARH. LRH also demonstrated lower odds of transfusion (OR=0.47, 95% CI=0.30-0.73, P=.0007), and ileus (OR=0.34, 95% CI=0.12-0.91, P=.03) than ARH. Conclusion: LRH outweighs ARH in treating early stage cervical cancer in most essential aspects, which should arouse sufficient attention.
Application and evaluation of minimally invasive surgical treatment options for early endometrial cancer

Leilei Xu,Fu Hua,Changhua Li,Tong Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/thc-240439

IF: 1.6

2024-08-29

Technology and Health Care

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted techniques have gained popularity, and endometrial cancer (EC) remains a significant health problem among women. OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) therapy options for early endometrial cancer will be evaluated for their effectiveness and safety is the aim of this paper. We also investigate the differences in oncologic outcomes between MIS and open surgery (OS) for individuals with early-stage EC. The patient was diagnosed with early-stage EC and treated with laparoscopic surgery and was the focus of a retrospective analysis. 162 patients with early EC were analyzed, with diagnoses occurring between 2002 and 2022. METHODS: The patients were fragmented into two groups, one for OS and another for laparoscopic procedures. The total tumor excision and recurrence rates were identical across the two methods, indicating similar oncologic results. Rates of complications were likewise comparable across the two groups. RESULTS: The quality of life ratings of patients with robotic-assisted surgery was higher than those with laparoscopic surgery. Sixty-two (62.2%) of the 162 patients in this research had OS, whereas Fifty-six (57.8%) had MIS. The probability of recurrence of EC from stages III to IV was significanitly higher in women who had OS. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive procedures were shown to be effective in treating early-stage EC, and while these findings provide support for their usage, larger multicenter randomized controlled studies are required to verify these results and further examine possible long-term advantages. Patients with early-stage EC, regardless of histologic type, had superior survival rates with MIS compared to OS.

engineering, biomedical,health care sciences & services
Minimally Invasive Versus Open Surgery for Radical Hysterectomy Followed By Adjuvant Radiotherapy in Intermediate- or High-Risk Early-Stage Cancer of The Cervix: A Retrospective Study

Qi-ying Zhang,Zi Liu,Ya-li Wang,Jing Zhang,Wen Li,Tao Wang,Juan Wang,Fan Shi,Jin Su

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-830000/v1

2021-09-02

Abstract:Abstract Background Postoperative radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) improves outcomes of cervical cancer patients with risk factors. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has an inferior survival than open radical hysterectomy (ORH), however, the impact of MIS on postoperative RT remains uncertain. The study compared the impacts of MIS versus ORH on delivering of adjuvant RT or CRT for intermediate- or high-risk early-stage cervical cancer. Methods Data on stage IB1-IIA2 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy and postoperative RT/CRT in our institution, from 2014 to 2017, were retrospectively collected. Patients with high or intermediate-risk factors who met the Sedlis criteria received postoperative pelvic external beam radiotherapy (50Gy/25f) with platinum-based chemotherapy (0–6 cycles) according to guidelines. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared in the two surgical groups. Results One hundred and twenty-nine patients eligible for the study (68 in ORH; 61 in MIS groups) had similar clinicopathologic features except for the stage (highest in MIS was IB1; IIA1 in ORH) and presence of lymph vascular space invasion (higher in MIS group). The median time interval from surgery to chemotherapy and to RT was shorter in the MIS group. Three-year DFS and OS were similar in both groups. Further sub-analysis indicated that the DFS and OS in intermediate/high-risk groups had no significant difference. Cox-multivariate analyses found that tumor size > 4 cm and time interval from surgery to RT beyond seven weeks were adverse independent prognostic factors for DFS. Conclusions In early-stage (IB1-IIA2) cervical cancer patients with intermediate or high-risk factors who received postoperative RT or CRT, no matter they received ORH or MIS as their primary treatment, the DFS and OS had no significant difference, despite TI from surgery to postoperative adjuvant therapy being shorter in the MIS group than ORH.

Capacity of mismatched Gaussian channels with and without feedback

Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Open Resection in Patients with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: an Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Laparoscopic surgery versus open resection in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of Survival Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Surgery and Open Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

SUCCOR morbidity: complications in minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer

Laparoscopic Vs. Open Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Single-Institution, Propensity Score Matching Study in China

Comparison of survival outcome of open, total laparoscopic, and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy for stage IB2 cervical cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study

Surgical Treatment for Endometrial Cancer, Hysterectomy Performed via Minimally Invasive Routes Compared with Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

[Comparison of the Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Surgery and Open Surgery for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer].

Comparison of laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤2 cm

Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Effect of the surgical approach on survival outcomes in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A real‐world multicenter study of a large Chinese cohort from 2006 to 2017

Safety of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecologic Oncology

Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in high-risk histologic endometrial cancer patients: A meta-analysis

Comparison of survival and complications between minimally invasive and open staging surgeries in non-endometrioid endometrial cancer

Efficacy and safety of minimally invasive surgery versus open laparotomy for epithelial ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter analysis

Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Application and evaluation of minimally invasive surgical treatment options for early endometrial cancer

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Surgery for Radical Hysterectomy Followed By Adjuvant Radiotherapy in Intermediate- or High-Risk Early-Stage Cancer of The Cervix: A Retrospective Study