Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feasibility and surgical outcomes of conventional and robot-assisted laparoscopy for early-stage ovarian cancer: a retrospective, multicenter analysis

  • Gynecologic Oncology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to investigate the safety, adequacy and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS) and robot-assisted laparoscopic (RALS) approach for the treatment of early-stage ovarian cancer.

Methods

We performed a multicentric, retrospective cohort study, enrolling patients affected by early-stage ovarian cancer who underwent laparoscopic management for early-stage ovarian cancer between 2006 and 2014. Surgical, pathologic and oncologic outcome data were analyzed to compare LS and RALS performances for early-stage ovarian cancer management.

Results

39 patients underwent laparoscopic staging for presumed stage I ovarian cancer: 23 underwent LS and 16 underwent RALS. The mean operative time was 281 ± 81 min (LS 288 ± 88 min; RALS 270 ± 72 min; p = 0.49). No conversion to laparotomy occurred, and one patient had intraoperative hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion. Four patients (10.2 %) experienced postoperative complications of grade 3 according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The median hospital stay was 3 days (1–15); the differences were not statistically significant between two groups [LS = 4 (1–15); RALS = 3 (1–7); p = 0.43]. During a mean follow-up period of 19.4 months, tumor recurrence occurred in 3 patients: 2 (8.7 %) in the LS group and 1 (6.25 %) in the RALS group. Overall survival and disease-free survival for the entire cohort were 97.4 and 92.3 %, respectively.

Conclusions

LS and RALS seem to be adequate and feasible for the treatment of early-stage ovarian cancer in terms of the surgical outcomes and oncological safety. Furthermore, in our experience, perioperative outcomes are comparable between LS and RALS making them an acceptable approach in selected patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J et al (2013) Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 49:1374–1403. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.027

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Laganà AS, Colonese F, Colonese E et al (2015) Cytogenetic analysis of epithelial ovarian cancer’s stem cells: an overview on new diagnostic and therapeutic perspectives. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 36:495–505

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E (2009) Cancer Statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 59:1–25. doi:10.1002/caac.20073.Available

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Young RC, Decker DG, Wharton JT et al (1983) Staging laparotomy in early ovarian cancer. JAMA 250:3072–3076. doi:10.1001/jama.1983.03340220040030

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Soper JT, Johnson P, Johnson V et al (1992) Comprehensive restaging laparotomy in women with apparent early ovarian carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 80:949–953

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Benedet JL, Bender H, Jones H III et al (2000) Staging classifications and clinical practice guidelines of gynaecologic cancers. Int J Gynecol Obstet 70:207–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lewin SN (2011) Revised FIGO staging system for endometrial cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol 54:215–218. doi:10.1097/GRF.0b013e3182185baa

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nezhat FR, DeNoble SM, Liu CS et al (2010) The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgical staging and debulking of apparent advanced stage ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers. JSLS 14:155–168. doi:10.4293/108680810X12785289143990

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Liu CS, Nagarsheth NP, Nezhat FR (2009) Laparoscopy and ovarian cancer: a paradigm change in the management of ovarian cancer? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16:250–262. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2009.01.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nezhat FR, Pejovic T, Finger TN, Khalil SS (2013) Role of minimally invasive surgery in ovarian cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 20:754–765. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2013.04.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nezhat FR, Datta MS, Liu C et al (2008) Robotic radical hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer. JSLS 12:227–237

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Weinberg L, Rao S, Escobar PF (2011) Robotic surgery in gynecology: an updated systematic review. Obs Gynecol Int 2011:852061. doi:10.1155/2011/852061

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cho JE, Nezhat FR (2009) Robotics and gynecologic oncology: review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16:669–681. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2009.06.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Querleu D, LeBlanc E (1994) Laparoscopic infrarenal paraaortic lymph node dissection for restaging of carcinoma of the ovary or fallopian tube. Cancer 73:1467–1471

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nezhat FR, Ezzati M, Chuang L et al (2009) Laparoscopic management of early ovarian and fallopian tube cancers: surgical and survival outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:83.e1–83.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.013

  16. Lambaudie E, Narducci F, Leblanc E et al (2012) Robotically assisted laparoscopy for paraaortic lymphadenectomy: technical description and results of an initial experience. Surg Endosc 26:2430–2435. doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2205-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Le T, Adolph A, Krepart GV et al (2002) The benefits of comprehensive surgical staging in the management of early-stage epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 85:351–355. doi:10.1006/gyno.2002.6636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Brockbank EC, Harry V, Kolomainen D et al (2013) Laparoscopic staging for apparent early stage ovarian or fallopian tube cancer. First case series from a UK cancer centre and systematic literature review. Eur J Surg Oncol 39:912–917. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2013.05.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ghezzi F, Malzoni M, Vizza E et al (2012) Laparoscopic staging of early ovarian cancer: results of a multi-institutional cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol 19:1589–1594. doi:10.1245/s10434-011-2138-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Park HJ, Kim DW, Yim GW et al (2013) Staging laparoscopy for the management of early-stage ovarian cancer: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 209(58):e1–e8. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2013.04.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Weber S, McCann CK, Boruta DM et al (2011) Laparoscopic surgical staging of early ovarian cancer. Rev Obs Gynecol 4:117–122. doi:10.3909/riog0166

    Google Scholar 

  22. Stier EA, Barakat RR, Curtin JP et al (1996) Laparotomy to complete staging of presumed early ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 87:737–740

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Buchsbaum HJ, Brady MF, Delgado G et al (1989) Surgical staging of carcinoma of the ovaries. Surg Gynecol Obstet 169:226–232

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee M, Kim SW, Paek J et al (2011) Comparisons of surgical outcomes, complications, and costs between laparotomy and laparoscopy in early-stage ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 21:251–256. doi:10.1097/IGC.0b013e318208c71c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chi DS, Abu-Rustum NR, Sonoda Y et al (2005) The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgical staging of apparent stage I ovarian and fallopian tube cancers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:1614–1619. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.11.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Park J-Y, Bae J, Lim MC, et al. Laparoscopic and laparotomic staging in stage I epithelial ovarian cancer: a comparison of feasibility and safety. Int J Gynecol Cancer 18:1202–1209. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1438.2008.01190.x

  27. Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Siesto G et al (2009) Laparoscopy staging of early ovarian cancer: our experience and review of the literature. Int J Gynecol Cancer 19(Suppl 2):S7–S13. doi:10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181bf82f3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zivanovic O, Sonoda Y, Diaz JP et al (2008) The rate of port-site metastases after 2251 laparoscopic procedures in women with underlying malignant disease. Gynecol Oncol 111:431–437. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Heitz F, Ognjenovic D, Harter P et al (2010) Abdominal wall metastases in patients with ovarian cancer after laparoscopic surgery: incidence, risk factors, and complications. Int J Gynecol Cancer 20:41–46. doi:10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181c443ba

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zanetta G, Rota S, Chiari S et al (1998) The accuracy of staging: an important prognostic determinator in stage I ovarian carcinoma, a multivariate analysis. Ann Oncol 9:1097–1101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Faught W, Lotocki RJ, Heywood M, Krepart GV (1996) Early ovarian cancer: value of a negative staging laparotomy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 17:200–203

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Muzii L, Palaia I, Sansone M et al (2009) Laparoscopic fertility-sparing staging in unexpected early stage ovarian malignancies. Fertil Steril 91:2632–2637. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.058

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Colomer AT, Jiménez AM, Bover Barceló MI (1994) Laparoscopic treatment and staging of early ovarian cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15:414–419. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2008.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tozzi R, Kohler C, Ferrara A, Schneider A (2004) Laparoscopic treatment of early ovarian cancer: surgical and survival outcomes. Gynecol Oncol 93:199–203. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.01.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Farache C, Alonso S, Ferrer Marsollier C et al (2012) Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: retrospective and comparative study with laparotomy and laparoscopy. J gynécologie, Obs Biol la Reprod 41:353–362. doi:10.1016/j.jgyn.2012.03.004

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Lambaudie E, Houvenaeghel G, Walz J et al (2008) Robot-assisted laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology. Surg Endosc 22:2743–2747. doi:10.1007/s00464-008-0116-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nezhat FR, Finger TN, Vetere P et al (2014) Comparison of perioperative outcomes and complication rates between conventional versus robotic-assisted laparoscopy in the evaluation and management of early, advanced, and recurrent stage ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 24:600–607. doi:10.1097/IGC.0000000000000096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Garibaldi Nesima Hospital, Catania, Italy

    Adriano Bellia, Francesco Cannone & Giuseppe Ettore

  2. Unit of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Human Pathology in Adulthood and Childhood “G. Barresi”, University of Messina, Via C. Valeria 1, 98125, Messina, Italy

    Salvatore Giovanni Vitale & Antonio Simone Laganà

  3. Department of Surgery, Paoli Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France

    Gilles Houvenaeghel, Sandrine Rua, Anais Ladaique, Camille Jauffret & Eric Lambaudie

Authors
  1. Adriano Bellia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Salvatore Giovanni Vitale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonio Simone Laganà
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francesco Cannone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gilles Houvenaeghel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sandrine Rua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anais Ladaique
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Camille Jauffret
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Giuseppe Ettore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Eric Lambaudie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Simone Laganà.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was not supported by any grant/fund.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no proprietary, financial, professional or other personal interest of any nature in any product, service or company.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bellia, A., Vitale, S.G., Laganà, A.S. et al. Feasibility and surgical outcomes of conventional and robot-assisted laparoscopy for early-stage ovarian cancer: a retrospective, multicenter analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 294, 615–622 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4087-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4087-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation