Wilms Tumor: A Retrospective Study of 32 Patients Using Videolaparoscopic and Open Approaches

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_DUARTE_Wilms_Tumor_A_Retrospective_Study_of_32_Patients_2014.PDF (203.43 KB)
Citações na Scopus
25
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2014
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
Autores
Citação
UROLOGY, v.84, n.1, p.192-196, 2014
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
OBJECTIVE To compare videolaparoscopic nephrectomy and the open technique as treatments for Wilms tumor, specifically the surgical results, immediate and long-term complications, and patient survival. METHODS A review of charts of children with unilateral Wilms tumor was performed. There were 2 surgical groups: (1) only open surgery and (2) videolaparoscopy. Complications, transfusion, ruptures, margins, conversions, lymph nodes, and relapse were analyzed. RESULTS Seventeen children underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy and 15 underwent open nephrectomy. Mean surgical time was 164.71 +/- 26.07 minutes for the laparoscopic group, and there were no conversions or ruptures. The mean specimen weight was 145.01 +/- 105.85 g for the laparoscopic group and 257.40 +/- 162.70 g for the open surgery group. There was 1 preoperative rupture in the open surgery group. Transfusions were not required in either group. The surgical margins were positive in 1 of 17 cases (5.9%) in the laparoscopic group and in 3 of 15 cases (20%) in the open surgery group. One of the 17 (5.9%) laparoscopy-treated patients and 2 of the 15 open surgery-treated patients (13.3%) presented with local tumor relapse. The 5-year event-free survival rate was 93.3% (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.99) for the laparoscopic group and 79.6% (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.95] for the open surgery group (P = .446). CONCLUSION Both techniques showed similar immediate and long-term results. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc.
Palavras-chave
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/8552
Referências
  1. BRESLOW N, 1993, MED PEDIATR ONCOL, V21, P172, DOI 10.1002/mpo.2950210305
  2. CRAFT AW, 1989, CANCER SURV, V8, P605
  3. D'Angio GJ, 2008, J CLIN ONCOL, V26, P4055, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.5316
  4. Duarte RJ, 2006, BJU INT, V98, P155, DOI 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06214.x
  5. Engelen V, 2011, PEDIATR BLOOD CANCER, V56, P646, DOI 10.1002/pbc.22795
  6. Godzinski J, 2011, PEDIATR BLOOD CANCER, V57, P1266, DOI 10.1002/pbc.23147
  7. Graf N, 2012, EUR J CANCER, V48, P3240, DOI 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.06.007
  8. Grimsby GM, 2012, PEDIATR CLIN N AM, V59, P947, DOI 10.1016/j.pcl.2012.05.018
  9. Honeyman JN, 2012, J PEDIATR SURG, V47, P1228, DOI 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2012.03.030
  10. Javid PJ, 2011, J PEDIATR SURG, V46, P978, DOI 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2011.01.014
  11. Kalapurakal JA, 2010, INT J RADIAT ONCOL, V76, P201, DOI 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.01.046
  12. Ko EY, 2009, J PEDIATR UROL, V5, P56, DOI 10.1016/j.jpurol.2008.08.007
  13. Lubahn JD, 2012, J UROLOGY, V188, P1500, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.020
  14. Malogolowkin M, 2008, PEDIATR BLOOD CANCER, V50, P236, DOI 10.1002/pbc.21267
  15. Metzelder ML, 2007, CANCER, V109, P2343, DOI 10.1002/cncr.22696
  16. Nakamura Leah, 2010, Curr Urol Rep, V11, P58, DOI 10.1007/s11934-009-0082-z
  17. Piche N, 2012, J PEDIATR SURG, V47, pE1, DOI 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2012.02.018
  18. Shamberger RC, 1999, ANN SURG, V229, P292, DOI 10.1097/00000658-199902000-00019
  19. Shamberger RC, 2010, ANN SURG, V251, P555, DOI 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181c0e5d7
  20. Spreafico F, 2006, EXPERT REV ANTICANC, V6, P249, DOI 10.1586/14737140.6.2.249
  21. Wang LX, 2009, SURG ENDOSC, V23, P544, DOI 10.1007/s00464-008-9859-2

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MPE
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MCG
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICr
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/30
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/36
Carregar mais