Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 290, Issue 6, pp 1215–1220 | Cite as

Comparison of reoperation rates, perioperative outcomes in women with endometrial cancer when the standard of care shifts from open surgery to laparoscopy

  • Alexander Boosz
  • Lothar Haeberle
  • Stefan P. Renner
  • Falk C. Thiel
  • Grit Mehlhorn
  • Matthias W. Beckmann
  • Andreas Mueller
Gynecologic Oncology

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze reoperation rates and perioperative outcomes after long-term follow-up of two surgical approaches in the treatment of endometrial cancer when the standard of care shifts from open surgery to laparoscopy at a university hospital.

Methods

In this retrospective monocenter study a total of 267 patients with endometrial cancer were included; 107 women underwent laparoscopy and 160 laparotomy. All of the patients received total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy, depending on individual pathological features (e.g. high risk for positive lymph nodes) and the expertise of the surgeon.

Results

Repeat surgery was needed significantly more often in the laparotomy group in comparison with the laparoscopy group (11.9 vs. 0.9 %, respectively; P < 0.001). Hospital stays were longer in the laparotomy group in comparison with laparoscopy (16.2 vs. 9.5 days; P < 0.000001). Postoperative complications were significantly more frequent in the laparotomy group in comparison with laparoscopy (25.0 vs. 10.3 %; P < 0.01). Operating times and preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin differences were similar in the two groups (193.9 vs. 190.6 min, 2.0 vs. 1.8 g/dl). Intraoperative complication rates were similar in the two groups (3.8 vs. 5.6 %).

Conclusions

Laparoscopy is a safe alternative to laparotomy for low risk endometrial cancer patients and offers markedly improved perioperative outcomes with a lower reoperation rate and fewer postoperative complications when the standard of care shifts from open surgery to laparoscopy in a university hospital.

Keywords

Endometrial cancer Open surgery Laparoscopic surgery Reoperation 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors have nothing to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P (2005) Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 55(2):74–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wright JD, Barrena Medel NI, Sehouli J, Fujiwara K, Herzog TJ (2012) Contemporary management of endometrial cancer. Lancet 379(9823):1352–1360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Janda M, Gebski V, Brand A, Hogg R, Jobling TW, Land R, Manolitsas T, McCartney A, Nascimento M, Neesham D, Nicklin JL, Oehler MK, Otton G, Perrin L, Salfinger S, Hammond I, Leung Y, Walsh T, Sykes P, Ngan H, Garrett A, Laney M, Ng TY, Tam K, Chan K, Wrede CD, Pather S, Simcock B, Farrell R, Obermair A (2010) Quality of life after total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy for stage I endometrial cancer (LACE): a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 11(8):772–780PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mourits MJ, Bijen CB, Arts HJ, ter Brugge HG, van der Sijde R, Paulsen L, Wijma J, Bongers MY, Post WJ, van der Zee AG, de Bock GH (2010) Safety of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in early-stage endometrial cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 11(8):763–771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, Spiegel G, Barakat R, Pearl ML, Sharma SK (2009) Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol 27(32):5331–5336PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mueller A, Thiel F, Lermann J, Oppelt P, Beckmann MW, Renner SP (2010) Feasibility and safety of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) using the Hohl instrument in nonobese and obese women. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 36(1):159–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cho YH, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH (2007) Laparoscopic management of early uterine cancer: 10-year experience in Asan Medical Center. Gynecol Oncol 106(3):585–590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wallwiener D, Jonat W, Kreienberg R, Friese K, Diedrich K, Beckmann MW (2009) Atlas der gynäkologischen Operationen, 7th edn. Thieme, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mueller A, Oppelt P, Binder H, Ackermann S, Beckmann MW (2005) The “Hohl instrument” for optimizing total laparoscopic hysterectomy procedures. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12:432–435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pecorelli S (2009) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 105(2):103–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perrone AM, Di Marcoberardino B, Rossi M, Pozzati F, Pellegrini A, Procaccini M, Santini D, De Iaco P (2012) Laparoscopic versus laparotomic approach to endometrial cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 33(4):376–381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Galaal K, Bryant A, Fisher AD, Al-Khaduri M, Kew F, Lopes AD (2012) Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD006655Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Juhasz-Böss I, Haggag H, Baum S, Kerl S, Rody A, Solomayer E (2012) Laparoscopic and laparotomic approaches for endometrial cancer treatment: a comprehensive review. Arch Gynecol Obstet 286(1):167–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mueller A, Boosz A, Koch M, Jud S, Faschingbauer F, Schrauder M, Löhberg C, Mehlhorn G, Renner SP, Lux MP, Beckmann MW, Thiel FC (2012) The Hohl instrument for optimizing total laparoscopic hysterectomy: results of more than 500 procedures in a university training center. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285(1):123–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Müller A, Thiel FC, Renner SP, Winkler M, Häberle L, Beckmann MW (2010) Hysterectomy—a comparison of approaches. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107(20):353–359PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mueller A, Renner SP, Haeberle L, Lermann J, Oppelt P, Beckmann MW, Thiel F (2009) Comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and laparoscopy-assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) in women with uterine leiomyoma. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 144(1):76–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boosz A, Lermann J, Mehlhorn G, Loehberg C, Renner SP, Thiel FC, Schrauder M, Beckmann MW, Mueller A (2011) Comparison of re-operation rates and complication rates after total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and laparoscopy-assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 158(2):269–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Querleu D, Leblanc E, Cartron G et al (2006) Audit of preoperative and early complications of laparoscopic lymph node dissection in 1000 gynecologic cancer patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1287–1292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Terai Y, Tanaka T, Sasaki H, Kawaguchi H, Fujiwara S, Yoo S, Tanaka Y, Tsunetoh S, Kanemura M, Ohmichi MJ (2014) Total laparoscopic modified radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer compared with laparotomy. Obstet Gynaecol Res 40(2):570–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lu Q, Liu H, Liu C, Wang S, Li S, Guo S, Lu J, Zhang Z (2013) Comparison of laparoscopy and laparotomy for management of endometrial carcinoma: a prospective randomized study with 11-year experience. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 139(11):1853–1859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tahmasbi Rad M, Wallwiener M, Rom J, Sohn C, Eichbaum M (2013) Learning curve for laparoscopic staging of early and locally advanced cervical and endometrial cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet 288(3):635–642PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Wilde RL, Rafei A, Herrmann A (2014) Can a lymphadenectomy be avoided in early-stage endometrial adenocarcinoma? Arch Gynecol Obstet [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tinelli R, Litta P, Meir Y, Surico D, Leo L, Fusco A, Angioni S, Cicinelli E (2014) Advantages of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in extremely obese women (BMI >35) with early-stage endometrial cancer: a multicenter study. Anticancer Res 34(5):2497–2502PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rabischong B, Larraín D, Canis M, Le Bouëdec G, Pomel C, Jardon K, Kwiatkowski F, Bourdel N, Achard JL, Dauplat J, Mage G (2011) Long-term follow-up after laparoscopic management of endometrial cancer in the obese: a fifteen-year cohort study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18(5):589–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frey MK, Ihnow SB, Worley MJ Jr, Heyman KP, Kessler R, Slomovitz BM, Holcomb KM (2011) Minimally invasive staging of endometrial cancer is feasible and safe in elderly women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18(2):200–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bogani G, Cromi A, Uccella S, Serati M, Casarin J, Mariani A, Ghezzi F (2014) Laparoscopic staging in women older than 75 years with early-stage endometrial cancer: comparison with open surgical operation. Menopause [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Boosz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lothar Haeberle
    • 1
  • Stefan P. Renner
    • 1
  • Falk C. Thiel
    • 1
  • Grit Mehlhorn
    • 1
  • Matthias W. Beckmann
    • 1
  • Andreas Mueller
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyErlangen University Hospital, University of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyKarlsruhe Municipal HospitalKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations