Comparison of single-port laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy for extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy

Efficacy of transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a retrospective comparison study

Background

Although single-port laparoscopy surgery has been evaluated for several years, it has not been widely adopted by gynecologic oncologists. The objective was to compare the perioperative outcomes and survival of endometrial cancer (EC) patients undergoing transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (TU-LESS) with multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MLS).

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective comparative monocentric study including patients treated between December 2017 and October 2021. The perioperative outcomes and survival of EC patients who had surgery via TU-LESS or MLS were compared, by propensity matching.

Results

A total of 156 patients were included (TU-LESS vs. MLS: 78 vs. 78). The conversion rate of TU-LESS and MLS was 5.13% and 2.56%, respectively (P=0.681). The operation time was comparable between the two groups [207.5min (180-251) vs. 197.5min (168.8-225), P=0.095]. There was no significant difference between the two groups in exhaustion time, perioperative complications, or postoperative complications. While, the TU-LESS group had a shorter out-of-bed activity time [36 hours (24-48) vs. 48 hours (48-72), P<0.001] and a lower visual analog pain scale 36 hours after surgery [1 (1-2) vs. 2 (1-2), P<0.001] than the MLS group. The length of hospital stay was similar in the two groups [5(4-6) vs. 5(4-5), P=0.599]. Following surgery, 38.5% of the TU-LESS patients and 41% of the MLS patients got adjuvant therapy (P=0.744). The median follow-up time for TU-LESS and MLS cohorts was 45 months (range: 20-66) and 43 months (range: 18-66), respectively. One TU-LESS patient and one MLS patient died following recurrence. The 4-year overall survival was similar in both groups (98.3% vs. 98.5%, P=0.875).

Conclusion

TU-LESS is a feasible and safe option with comparable perioperative outcomes and survival of MLS in endometrial cancer. With the growing acceptance of sentinel lymph node biopsy, TU-LESS of endometrial cancer may be a viable option for patients and surgeons.

Ultra-radical (extensive) surgery versus standard surgery for the primary cytoreduction of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer among women and the leading cause of death in women with gynaecological malignancies. Opinions differ regarding the role of ultra-radical (extensive) cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and morbidity associated with ultra-radical/extensive surgery in the management of advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid and Embase Ovid up to November 2021. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised studies (NRS), analysed using multivariate methods, that compared ultra-radical/extensive and standard surgery in women with advanced primary epithelial ovarian cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We identified three NRS and conducted meta-analyses where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three retrospective observational studies for inclusion in the review. Two studies included women exclusively undergoing upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS) and the other study including both PDS and interval debulking surgical (IDS) procedures. All studies were at critical risk of bias due to retrospective and non-randomised study designs. Meta-analysis of two studies, assessing 397 participants, found that women who underwent radical procedures, as part of PDS, may have a lower risk of mortality compared to women who underwent standard surgery (adjusted HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. The results were robust to a sensitivity analysis including women with more-extensive disease (carcinomatosis) (adjusted HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.85; I2 = 0%; n = 283, very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. One study reported a comparison of radical versus standard surgical procedures associated with both PDS and IDS procedures, but a multivariate analysis was only undertaken for disease-free survival (DFS) and therefore the certainty of the evidence was not assessable for overall survival (OS) and remains very low. The lack of reporting of OS meant the study was at high risk of bias for selective reporting of outcomes. One study, 203 participants, found that women who underwent radical procedures as part of PDS may have a lower risk of disease progression or death compared to women who underwent standard surgery (adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.92; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. The results were robust to a sensitivity analysis in one study including women with carcinomatosis (adjusted HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82; n = 139; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. A combined analysis in one study found that women who underwent radical procedures (using both PDS and IDS) may have an increased chance of disease progression or death than those who received standard surgery (adjusted HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.31; I2 = 0%; n = 527; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. In absolute and unadjusted terms, the DFS was 19.3 months in the standard surgery group, 15.8 in the PDS group and 15.9 months in the IDS group. All studies were at critical risk of bias and we only identified very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes reported in the review. Perioperative mortality, adverse events and quality of life (QoL) outcomes were either not reported or inadequately reported in the included studies. Two studies reported perioperative mortality (death within 30 days of surgery), but they did not use any statistical adjustment. In total, there were only four deaths within 30 days of surgery in both studies. All were observed in the standard surgery group, but we did not report a risk ratio (RR) to avoid potentially misleading results with so few deaths and very low-certainty evidence. Similarly, one study reported postoperative morbidity, but the authors did not use any statistical adjustment. Postoperative morbidity occurred more commonly in women who received ultra-radical surgery compared to standard surgery, but the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found only very low-certainty evidence comparing ultra-radical surgery and standard surgery in women with advanced ovarian cancer. The evidence was limited to retrospective, NRSs and so is at critical risk of bias. The results may suggest that ultra-radical surgery could result in improved OS, but results are based on very few women who were chosen to undergo each intervention, rather than a randomised study and intention-to-treat analysis, and so the evidence is very uncertain. Results for progression/DFS were inconsistent and evidence was sparse. QoL and morbidity was incompletely or not reported in the three included studies. A separate prognostic review assessing residual disease as a prognostic factor in this area has been addressed elsewhere, which demonstrates the prognostic effect of macroscopic debulking to no macroscopic residual disease. In order to aid existing guidelines, the role of ultra-radical surgery in the management of advanced-stage ovarian cancer could be addressed through the conduct of a sufficiently powered, RCT comparing ultra-radical and standard surgery, or well-designed NRSs, if this is not possible.

The Transumbilical Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Extraperitoneal Approach for Pelvic and Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy: A Technique Note and Feasibility Study

Background

Nowadays, lymphadenectomy could be performed by the transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach. Nevertheless, each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages. Under these circumstances, we developed a transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site (TU-LESS) extraperitoneal approach for lymphadenectomy. In this research, the primary goal is to demonstrate the feasibility of the novel approach in systematic lymphadenectomy and present the surgical process step-by-step.

Methods

Between May 2020 and June 2021, patients who had the indications of systematic lymphadenectomy underwent lymphadenectomy via the TU-LESS extraperitoneal approach. This new approach was described in detail, and the clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes were collected and analyzed.

Results

Eight patients with gynecological carcinoma were included in the research, including four with high-risk endometrial cancer and four with early-stage ovarian cancer. The TU-LESS extraperitoneal approach for pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy was successfully performed in all patients without conversion. In all, a median of 26.5 pelvic lymph nodes (range 18–35) and 18.0 para-aortic lymph nodes (range 7–43) were retrieved. There was a median of 166.5 min of surgical time (range 123–205). Patients had speedy recoveries without complications. All patients had positive pain responses after surgery, as well as satisfactory cosmetic and body image outcomes.

Conclusion

Our initial experience showed that it is feasible to perform systematic lymphadenectomy with the TU-LESS extraperitoneal approach. And this new approach may provide a new measure or a beneficial supplement for lymphadenectomy in gynecologic cancer.

Left Lateral Endosurgical Extraperitoneal Total Hysterectomy with Para-Aortic and Pelvic Lymphadenectomy: A Novel Approach for the Obese Patient with Endometrial Cancer

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To describe the left lateral extraperitoneal approach to perform complete para-aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy and transverse total hysterectomy from left to right as a novel approach to treat obese patients with endometrial cancer. Laparoscopic management of obese patients represents a challenge for the gynecologic surgeon. The extraperitoneal approach is technically easier in the obese patient because it naturally creates a bowel-free operative field.

DESIGN

A prospective pilot bicentric and descriptive study (Canadian Task Force classification III) evaluating the feasibility and reproducibility of the transverse total hysterectomy and complete lymphadenectomy through left endoscopic extraperitoneal approach in obese patients with endometrial cancer.

SETTING

A comprehensive cancer center in Toulouse and a teaching university hospital in Madrid.

PATIENTS

Sixteen consecutive overweight or obese patients (body mass index > 25 kg/m²) with high-risk endometrial cancer.

INTERVENTIONS

Currently, the left extraperitoneal approach is routinely used to perform complete para-aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy. It provides direct access to the left ureter and uterine pedicle. This access can be extended to the right side when performing a transverse extrafascial hysterectomy from left to right. The procedure starts from the left extraperitoneal space, where the left uterine artery is sectioned and the vesicovaginal and rectovaginal septa are developed, without opening the peritoneum. Colpotomy is performed from the left to the right side. Once the right ureter is identified, the right uterine artery can be safely transected. Alternatively, the right uterine artery can be sealed and sectioned during the right pelvic lymphadenectomy. At the end of the procedure the peritoneum is opened to complete the surgery.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Between May 2015 and February 2016, 16 consecutive obese patients were successfully treated using this technique. Median patient age was 62 years (range, 44-78), and median body mass index was 32.5 kg/m² (range, 26-42). In 3 cases the right uterine artery was sealed during the right pelvic lymphadenectomy, in 11 cases after completing vaginal opening, and in 2 cases after peritoneal opening. The median operative time was 137.5 minutes (range, 66-260). The median blood loss was 85 mL (range, 0-260), and no blood transfusion was required in any of our 16 patients. No significant complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

The full extraperitoneal approach represents an interesting alternative strategy for the surgical treatment of obese patients with high-risk endometrial cancer.

Single-port or Classic Laparoscopy Compared With Laparotomy to Assess the Peritoneal Cancer Index in Primary Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

A thorough laparoscopic assessment of the abdominopelvic cavity is a crucial step in the workup of primary advanced epithelial ovarian cancer to decide whether up-front cytoreductive surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the best option for adequate management. The purpose of our study was to compare single-port laparoscopy (SPL), classic laparoscopy (CL), and laparotomy using the peritoneal cancer index (PCI). Patients treated for Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique stage 3 or 4 epithelial ovarian cancer were included in our study when they underwent a PCI evaluation by laparoscopy followed by laparotomy for cytoreduction. According to the technique used for the "noninvasive" procedure (SPL vs CL), 2 groups were compared retrospectively. The individual records of all patients were reviewed and analyzed. From 2011 to 2014, 21 patients were assessed for PCI by SPL plus laparotomy versus 21 by CL plus laparotomy. The clinicopathological features were similar in both groups (not significant [NS]), except for performance status >0, which was more frequent in the SPL group (39% vs 6%, p = .04). Quotation of PCI was possible for all patients. Nonbrowsing areas marked 3 procedures in the SPL group and 2 procedures in the CL group (NS). The mean PCI score and the score of each region assessed by SPL and CL were comparable with the evaluation by laparotomy (NS). Completeness of cytoreduction was achieved in 78% of cases in both groups (NS). SPL and widely mini-invasive procedures seem to be effective tools compared with laparotomy to adequately assess the resectability of a peritoneal carcinomatosis using the PCI.

[A propensity score evaluation of single-port or multiport extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy and the transperitoneal approach for gynecological cancers]

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PALN) is a crucial step in the management of gynecological cancers. However, some concerns exist on the completeness of PALN according to the route (transperitoneal vs. extraperitoneal single-port or multiport). We compared these three surgical techniques using a propensity score.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing an endoscopic PALN for a gynecological cancer from May 2010 to Mars 2015. Fifty-one patients had a single-port extraperitoneal PALN, 16 a multiport extraperitoneal PALN and 62 a transperitoneal PALN. Factors independently related to technique performances were tested on a multivariate model adjusted for a propensity score.

RESULTS

The number of lymph nodes removed by transperitoneal route was 15 and extraperitoneal route single and multiport was 12. After adjustment for the propensity score of undergoing the extraperitoneal approach, no difference in the number of lymph node removed was noted (P=0.17). There was more lymphocyst after transperitoneal (17%) and multiport extraperitoneal PALN (19%) than after extraperitoneal PALN (2%) (P=0.04). Success rate of single-port extraperitoneal PALN was 94% (n=48). Four patients required a conversion to an open route due to vascular injury.

DISCUSSION

Using a propensity score, single-port extraperitoneal route offers similar efficacy to perform PALN than transperitoneal or multiport extraperitoneal route but with less lymphocysts.

Laparoscopic technique of para-aortic lymph node dissection: A comparison of the different approaches to trans- versus extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy

Since Dr Dargent first reported endoscopic surgery using retroperitoneal pelvicoscopy to perform pelvic lymph node sampling in 1987, many literature reviews on the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic staging surgery of gynecologic malignancies have been published. However, the procedure of laparoscopic lymphadenectomy is more difficult to perform due to the limited surgical space and associated technical problems. Especially in the para-aortic lymphadenectomy procedure, there are many barriers to overcome in the surgical field, learning curve, and technique. We present a review of lymphadenectomy, especially para-aortic lymphadenectomy.

Staging lymphadenectomy in patients with localized high risk prostate cancer: comparison of the laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) technique with conventional multiport laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

In patients with localized high-risk prostate cancer awaiting radiation therapy, pelvic lymphadenectomy (PL) is a reliable minimally invasive staging procedure. We compared outcomes after laparoendoscopic single site PL (LESSPL) with those after conventional multiport laparoscopic PL (MLPL).

METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was carried out at the authors' center. For LESSPL the reusable X-Cone single port was combined with straight and prebent laparoscopic instruments and an additional 3 mm needlescopic grasper. MLPL was performed via four trocars of different sizes using standard laparoscopic instruments.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent either LESSPL (n = 20) or MLPL (n = 97) between January 2008 and July 2013, were included in the study. Demographic data were comparable between groups. Patients in the LESSPL group tended to be older and had a significantly higher ASA-score. The mean operating time was 172.4 ± 34.1 min for LESSPL and 116.6 ± 40.1 min for MLPL (P < .001). During LESSPL, no conversion to MLPL was necessary. An average of 12 lymph nodes per patient was retrieved, with no significant difference between study groups. Postoperative pain scores were similar between groups. The hospital stay was 2.3 ± 0.7 days after LESSPL and 3.1 ± 1.2 days after MLPL (P = .01). Two days postoperatively, significantly more patients after LESSPL than after MLPL recovered their normal physical activity (P < .001). Six months postoperatively, no complications were registered in the LESSPL group and cosmetic results were excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, shorter hospitalization and quicker postoperative recovery were major benefits of LESSPL over MLPL. In patients with localized prostate cancer, staging LESS pelvic lymphadenectomy may be a safe alternative to conventional multiport laparoscopy.

Evaluation of single-port laparoscopy for peritoneal carcinomatosis assessment in advanced ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVES

Ovarian cancers are usually diagnosed at an advanced stage. The extent of the disease before surgery partly determines the ability to perform a complete cytoreduction. The peritoneal cancer index (PCI) is used to evaluate peritoneal carcinomatosis and has been validated in ovarian cancer and correlated with resectability. The aim of our study was to assess the feasibility of single-port laparoscopy (SPL) for suspicion of advanced ovarian cancer and to describe the ability to calculate the PCI score at the time of laparoscopy.

STUDY DESIGN

Between February 2011 and January 2013, 33 patients underwent SPL for suspected advanced ovarian cancer. Individual records for all patients were prospectively reviewed and analyzed. For each patient, we determined the PCI score.

RESULTS

33 patients underwent initial SPL, 85% had increased carcinological markers and 67% a radiological suspicion of peritoneal carcinomatosis. The median operative time was 90min. During SPL, 76% of patients underwent ascites evacuation; all patients had peritoneal cytology and peritoneal biopsies. Only 3 patients experienced perioperative complications. Two open conversions were recorded. Quotation of the PCI score was possible for all patients. Eighteen patients (55%) had a PCI score below 10; one had a maximal PCI score of 39. The PCI score was null for 9 patients. Non-browsing areas marked 8 procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

SPL appeared to be feasible, with satisfying immediate results and postoperative outcome, compared to conventional laparoscopy. It allowed a satisfying exploration of the abdomino-pelvic cavity and a good description of peritoneal carcinomatosis with only a few non-browsing PCI areas.