Vaginal Morcellation Inside Protective Pouch: A Safe Strategy for Uterine Extration in Cases of Bulky Endometrial Cancers:. Operative and Oncological Safety of the Method

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
18
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2015
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
Citação
JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, v.22, n.6, p.938-943, 2015
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Objective: To evaluate the operative and oncologic outcomes of an innovative technique for organ morcellation in patients scheduled for laparoscopic treatment of uterine malignancies. ] Background: Endoscopy is currently considered the standard of care for the operative treatment of endometrial cancer; however, the use of minimal invasive surgery (MIS) is restricted in patients with a bulky uterus or narrow vagina. Conventional unprotected intraperitoneal uterine fragmentation is indeed contraindicated in these cases. Consequently, oncologically safe methods to render these patients eligible for MIS are urgently needed. Intervention: Prospective study of women with histologically proven endometrial cancer in which uterus removal was a realistic concern owing to both organ size and proportionality. The patients underwent laparoscopic staging, including retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy, total hysterectomy, and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, followed by vaginal morcellation of the uterus inside a protective pouch (LapSac). Results: In our series of 30 cases, we achieved successful completion in all patients, without conversion to laparotomy. No surgery-related casualty or intraoperative morbidity was observed. The mean organ size was 246 g (range, 148-420 g), and the average additional operative time related to vaginal morcellation was 16 minutes (range, 9-28 minutes). Proper histopathological staging according to 2009 FIGO staging guidelines could be performed in all specimens. Two patients (6%) presented with significant postoperative complications, 1 each with vesicovaginal fistula and vaginal vault dehiscence. Fourteen patients (46%) needed adjuvant therapy. After a median follow-up of 20 months (range, 6-38 months), the 12-month and 24-month overall survival was 100% and 73.4% (95% confidence interval, 51%-96%), respectively. Four patients with positive lymph nodes died of distant metastasis. No case of pelvic or local relapse was observed. Conclusion: Vaginal morcellation following oncologic principles is a feasible method that permits rapid uterine extraction and potentially avoids unnecessary laparotomies. This series suggests that the technique may be oncologically safe and also can be used in cases of uterine pathology of uncertain malignancy.
Palavras-chave
Endoscopy, Protective pouch, Uterine cancer, Vaginal morcellation
Referências
  1. Dindo D, 2004, ANN SURG, V240, P205, DOI 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
  2. Rivard C, 2012, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V19, P313, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2011.12.019
  3. Condous G, 2009, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V16, P52, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.09.618
  4. Creasman W, 2009, INT J GYNECOL OBSTET, V105, P109, DOI 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.010
  5. Montella F, 2014, SURG ENDOSC, V28, P1949, DOI 10.1007/s00464-014-3422-0
  6. Walker JL, 2009, J CLIN ONCOL, V27, P5331, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3248
  7. Stine JE, 2014, OBSTET GYNECOL SURV, V69, P415, DOI 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000088
  8. Wright JD, 2012, LANCET, V379, P1352, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60442-5
  9. Brower V, 2014, JNCI-J NATL CANCER I, V106, DOI 10.1093/jnci/dju339
  10. Della Badia C, 2010, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V17, P791, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.07.001
  11. Favero G, 2013, GYNECOL ONCOL, V128, P151, DOI 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.09.028
  12. Favero G, 2012, GYNECOL ONCOL, V126, P443, DOI 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.05.023
  13. Galaal K, 2012, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, V9, DOI [DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD006655.PUB2, 10.1002/14651858.CD006655.pub2]
  14. George S, 2014, CANCER-AM CANCER SOC, V120, P3154, DOI 10.1002/cncr.28844
  15. Gunthert AR, 2015, AM J OBSTET GYNECOL, V212, p[e1, e4, 546]
  16. Hampton T, 2014, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V312, P588, DOI 10.1001/jama.2014.10041
  17. Harkenrider MM, 2015, GYNECOL ONCOL, V136, P365, DOI 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.12.036
  18. Kho KA, 2014, OBSTET GYNECOL, V124, P787, DOI 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000448
  19. Lakhi N, 2011, AM J OBSTET GYNECOL, V204, p[e1, e2, 566]
  20. Mounts M.J.E., 2010, LANCET ONCOL, V11, P763
  21. Pavlakis K, 2014, INT J GYNECOL PATHOL, V33, P135, DOI 10.1097/PGP.0b013e318289437c
  22. Seidman MA, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0050058
  23. Siufi DFD, 2014, TUMORI, V100, P477, DOI 10.1700/1660.18154