子宫内膜癌机器人辅助腹腔镜改良根治性子宫切除术与开腹手术的肿瘤学和手术效果比较

M. Ishikawa, K. Nakayama, S. Razia, Hitomi Yamashita, T. Ishibashi, Kosuke Kanno, Seiya Sato, Satoru Kyo
{"title":"子宫内膜癌机器人辅助腹腔镜改良根治性子宫切除术与开腹手术的肿瘤学和手术效果比较","authors":"M. Ishikawa, K. Nakayama, S. Razia, Hitomi Yamashita, T. Ishibashi, Kosuke Kanno, Seiya Sato, Satoru Kyo","doi":"10.31083/j.ceog5102047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background : This study aimed to compare the oncologic and surgical outcomes of patients treated with robot-assisted modified radical hysterectomy (RAMRH) and total laparoscopic modified radical hysterectomy (TLMRH) for endometrial cancer (EC) with those of patients treated with abdominal modified radical hysterectomy (AMRH). Methods : We performed a retrospective analysis of 133 patients with early-stage EC who underwent different surgical approaches (RAMRH, n = 14; TLMRH, n = 94; AMRH, n = 25) between 2018 and 2021 at Shimane University Hospital. The data on clinical outcomes, including estimated blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of hospital stay, and number of dissected lymph nodes were collected from the patients’ electronic medical records. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to plot survival data, and log-rank tests were used to determine the statistical significance of differences in survival rates. Results : RAMRH showed the lowest bleeding volume (RAMRH: 95 ± 123.21 mL; TLMRH: 140.74 ± 172.60 mL; AMRH: 482.6 ± 429 mL) and shortest hospital stay (RAMRH: 6.43 ± 1.09 days; TLMRH: 7.30 ± 3.39 days; AMRH: 9.88 ± 2.65 days) among the three groups. The number of dissected lymph nodes tended to be higher in the RAMRH group than that in the TLMRH or AMRH group. The different surgical approaches did not correlate with progression-free survival and overall survival. Conclusions : Both RAMRH and TLMRH are safe, feasible, innovative, and minimally invasive surgical alternatives to AMRH for patients with EC.","PeriodicalId":505527,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Oncological and Surgical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted, Laparoscopic Modified Radical Hysterectomy and Laparotomy for Endometrial Cancer\",\"authors\":\"M. Ishikawa, K. Nakayama, S. Razia, Hitomi Yamashita, T. Ishibashi, Kosuke Kanno, Seiya Sato, Satoru Kyo\",\"doi\":\"10.31083/j.ceog5102047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background : This study aimed to compare the oncologic and surgical outcomes of patients treated with robot-assisted modified radical hysterectomy (RAMRH) and total laparoscopic modified radical hysterectomy (TLMRH) for endometrial cancer (EC) with those of patients treated with abdominal modified radical hysterectomy (AMRH). Methods : We performed a retrospective analysis of 133 patients with early-stage EC who underwent different surgical approaches (RAMRH, n = 14; TLMRH, n = 94; AMRH, n = 25) between 2018 and 2021 at Shimane University Hospital. The data on clinical outcomes, including estimated blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of hospital stay, and number of dissected lymph nodes were collected from the patients’ electronic medical records. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to plot survival data, and log-rank tests were used to determine the statistical significance of differences in survival rates. Results : RAMRH showed the lowest bleeding volume (RAMRH: 95 ± 123.21 mL; TLMRH: 140.74 ± 172.60 mL; AMRH: 482.6 ± 429 mL) and shortest hospital stay (RAMRH: 6.43 ± 1.09 days; TLMRH: 7.30 ± 3.39 days; AMRH: 9.88 ± 2.65 days) among the three groups. The number of dissected lymph nodes tended to be higher in the RAMRH group than that in the TLMRH or AMRH group. The different surgical approaches did not correlate with progression-free survival and overall survival. Conclusions : Both RAMRH and TLMRH are safe, feasible, innovative, and minimally invasive surgical alternatives to AMRH for patients with EC.\",\"PeriodicalId\":505527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog5102047\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog5102047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究旨在比较接受机器人辅助改良根治性子宫切除术(RAMRH)和全腹腔镜改良根治性子宫切除术(TLMRH)治疗的子宫内膜癌(EC)患者与接受腹腔镜改良根治性子宫切除术(AMRH)治疗的患者的肿瘤学和手术效果。方法:我们对岛根大学医院在2018年至2021年期间接受不同手术方法(RAMRH,n = 14;TLMRH,n = 94;AMRH,n = 25)治疗的133例早期EC患者进行了回顾性分析。临床结果数据,包括估计失血量、手术时间、住院时间和切除淋巴结数量,均从患者的电子病历中收集。采用卡普兰-梅耶曲线绘制生存数据,并用对数秩检验确定生存率差异的统计学意义。结果:三组患者中,RAMRH出血量最少(RAMRH:95 ± 123.21 mL;TLMRH:140.74 ± 172.60 mL;AMRH:482.6 ± 429 mL),住院时间最短(RAMRH:6.43 ± 1.09天;TLMRH:7.30 ± 3.39天;AMRH:9.88 ± 2.65天)。RAMRH 组切除的淋巴结数量往往高于 TLMRH 或 AMRH 组。不同的手术方法与无进展生存期和总生存期无关。结论 :对于EC患者来说,RAMRH和TLMRH都是安全、可行、创新和微创的手术方法,可替代AMRH。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Oncological and Surgical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted, Laparoscopic Modified Radical Hysterectomy and Laparotomy for Endometrial Cancer
Background : This study aimed to compare the oncologic and surgical outcomes of patients treated with robot-assisted modified radical hysterectomy (RAMRH) and total laparoscopic modified radical hysterectomy (TLMRH) for endometrial cancer (EC) with those of patients treated with abdominal modified radical hysterectomy (AMRH). Methods : We performed a retrospective analysis of 133 patients with early-stage EC who underwent different surgical approaches (RAMRH, n = 14; TLMRH, n = 94; AMRH, n = 25) between 2018 and 2021 at Shimane University Hospital. The data on clinical outcomes, including estimated blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of hospital stay, and number of dissected lymph nodes were collected from the patients’ electronic medical records. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to plot survival data, and log-rank tests were used to determine the statistical significance of differences in survival rates. Results : RAMRH showed the lowest bleeding volume (RAMRH: 95 ± 123.21 mL; TLMRH: 140.74 ± 172.60 mL; AMRH: 482.6 ± 429 mL) and shortest hospital stay (RAMRH: 6.43 ± 1.09 days; TLMRH: 7.30 ± 3.39 days; AMRH: 9.88 ± 2.65 days) among the three groups. The number of dissected lymph nodes tended to be higher in the RAMRH group than that in the TLMRH or AMRH group. The different surgical approaches did not correlate with progression-free survival and overall survival. Conclusions : Both RAMRH and TLMRH are safe, feasible, innovative, and minimally invasive surgical alternatives to AMRH for patients with EC.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信