Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2020

01-10-2020 | Laparotomy | Gynecologic Oncology

Lomboaortic Lymphadenectomy in Gynecological Oncology: Laparotomy, Laparoscopy or Robot-Assisted Laparoscopy?

Authors: Y. Kerbage, MD, A. Kakkos, MD, F. Kridelka, MD, PhD, E. Lambaudie, MD, PhD, A. S. Bats, MD, PhD, T. Hébert, MD, F. Goffin, MD, PhD, J. Wallet, PhD, E. Leblanc, MD, D. Hudry, MD, F. Narducci, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 10/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The outcomes of paraaortic lymphadenectomy were compared for the treatment of gynecological malignancies to identify the most appropriate surgical approach.

Methods

Our retrospective, multicentric study included 1304 patients who underwent paraaortic lymphadenectomy for gynecological malignancies. The patients were categorized into the following five groups based on treatment type: transperitoneal laparoscopy (group A, n = 198), extraperitoneal laparoscopy (group B, n = 681), robot-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopy (group C, n = 135), robot-assisted extraperitoneal laparoscopy (group D, n = 44), and laparotomy (group E, n = 246).

Results

The prevalence of cancer types differed according to the surgical approach: there were more ovarian cancers in group E and more cervical cancers in groups B and D (p < 0.001). Estimated blood loss was higher in group E (844.2 mL) than in groups treated with minimally invasive interventions (115.8–141.5 mL, p < 0.005). For infrarenal dissection, fewer nodes were removed in group C compared with the other approaches (16 vs. 21 nodes, respectively, p < 0.05). The average operative time ranged from 169 min for group A to 247 min for group E (p < 0.001). Length of hospital stay was 14 days for group E versus 3.5 days for minimally invasive procedures (p < 0.05). The early postoperative grade 3 and superior Dindo–Clavien complications occurred in 9–10% of the patients in groups B-D, 15% of the patients in group E, and only 3% and 4% for groups A and C, respectively. The most common complication was lymphocele.

Conclusions

Laparotomy increases preoperative and postoperative morbidity. The robot-assisted transperitoneal approach demonstrated a poorer lymph node yield than laparotomy and extraperitoneal approaches.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Leblanc E, Katdare N, Narducci F, Bresson L, Gouy S, Morice P, et al. Should systematic infrarenal para-aortic dissection be the rule in the pretherapeutic staging of primary or recurrent locally advanced cervix cancer patients with a negative preoperative para-aortic PET imaging? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26(1):169–75.CrossRef Leblanc E, Katdare N, Narducci F, Bresson L, Gouy S, Morice P, et al. Should systematic infrarenal para-aortic dissection be the rule in the pretherapeutic staging of primary or recurrent locally advanced cervix cancer patients with a negative preoperative para-aortic PET imaging? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26(1):169–75.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Gouy S, Morice P, Narducci F, Uzan C, Martinez A, Rey A, et al. Prospective multicenter study evaluating the survival of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer undergoing laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy before chemoradiotherapy in the era of positron emission tomography imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(24):3026–33.CrossRef Gouy S, Morice P, Narducci F, Uzan C, Martinez A, Rey A, et al. Prospective multicenter study evaluating the survival of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer undergoing laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy before chemoradiotherapy in the era of positron emission tomography imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(24):3026–33.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference AlHilli MM, Mariani A. The role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2013;18(2):193–9.CrossRef AlHilli MM, Mariani A. The role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2013;18(2):193–9.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Benedetti Panici P, Perniola G, Tomao F, Fischetti M, Savone D, Di Donato V, et al. An update of laparoscopy in cervical cancer staging: is it a useful procedure? Oncology. 2013;85(3):160–5.CrossRef Benedetti Panici P, Perniola G, Tomao F, Fischetti M, Savone D, Di Donato V, et al. An update of laparoscopy in cervical cancer staging: is it a useful procedure? Oncology. 2013;85(3):160–5.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Boosz A, Haeberle L, Renner SP, Thiel FC, Mehlhorn G, Beckmann MW, et al. Comparison of reoperation rates, perioperative outcomes in women with endometrial cancer when the standard of care shifts from open surgery to laparoscopy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290(6):1215–20.CrossRef Boosz A, Haeberle L, Renner SP, Thiel FC, Mehlhorn G, Beckmann MW, et al. Comparison of reoperation rates, perioperative outcomes in women with endometrial cancer when the standard of care shifts from open surgery to laparoscopy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290(6):1215–20.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Montanari G, Di Donato N, Del Forno S, Benfenati A, Bertoldo V, Vincenzi C, et al. Laparoscopic management of early stage ovarian cancer: is it feasible, safe, and adequate? A retrospective study. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2013;34(5):415–8.PubMed Montanari G, Di Donato N, Del Forno S, Benfenati A, Bertoldo V, Vincenzi C, et al. Laparoscopic management of early stage ovarian cancer: is it feasible, safe, and adequate? A retrospective study. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2013;34(5):415–8.PubMed
7.
go back to reference Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.CrossRef Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Pakish J, Soliman PT, Frumovitz M, Westin SN, Schmeler KM, Reis RD, et al. A comparison of extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic or robotic para-aortic lymphadenectomy for staging of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(2):366–71.CrossRef Pakish J, Soliman PT, Frumovitz M, Westin SN, Schmeler KM, Reis RD, et al. A comparison of extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic or robotic para-aortic lymphadenectomy for staging of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(2):366–71.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lambaudie E, Narducci F, Leblanc E, Bannier M, Jauffret C, Cannone F, et al. Robotically assisted laparoscopy for paraaortic lymphadenectomy: technical description and results of an initial experience. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(9):2430–5.CrossRef Lambaudie E, Narducci F, Leblanc E, Bannier M, Jauffret C, Cannone F, et al. Robotically assisted laparoscopy for paraaortic lymphadenectomy: technical description and results of an initial experience. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(9):2430–5.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Narducci F, Lambaudie E, Mautone D, Hudry D, Bresson L, Leblanc E. Extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy by robot-assisted laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology: preliminary experience and advantages and limitations. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(8):1494–502.CrossRef Narducci F, Lambaudie E, Mautone D, Hudry D, Bresson L, Leblanc E. Extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy by robot-assisted laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology: preliminary experience and advantages and limitations. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(8):1494–502.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Ponce J, Barahona M, Pla MJ, Rovira J, Garcia-Tejedor A, Gil-Ibanez B, et al. Robotic transperitoneal infrarenal para-aortic lymphadenectomy with double docking: technique, learning curve, and perioperative outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(4):622–7.CrossRef Ponce J, Barahona M, Pla MJ, Rovira J, Garcia-Tejedor A, Gil-Ibanez B, et al. Robotic transperitoneal infrarenal para-aortic lymphadenectomy with double docking: technique, learning curve, and perioperative outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(4):622–7.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Dargent D, Ansquer Y, Mathevet P. Technical development and results of left extraperitoneal laparoscopic paraaortic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;77(1):87–92.CrossRef Dargent D, Ansquer Y, Mathevet P. Technical development and results of left extraperitoneal laparoscopic paraaortic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;77(1):87–92.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Nagao S, Fujiwara K, Kagawa R, Kozuka Y, Oda T, Maehata K, et al. Feasibility of extraperitoneal laparoscopic para-aortic and common iliac lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103(2):732–5.CrossRef Nagao S, Fujiwara K, Kagawa R, Kozuka Y, Oda T, Maehata K, et al. Feasibility of extraperitoneal laparoscopic para-aortic and common iliac lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103(2):732–5.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Benito V, Lubrano A, Arencibia O, Andújar M, Pinar B, Medina N, et al. Laparoscopic extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the staging of locally advanced cervical cancer: is it a feasible procedure at a peripheral center? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(2):332–6.CrossRef Benito V, Lubrano A, Arencibia O, Andújar M, Pinar B, Medina N, et al. Laparoscopic extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the staging of locally advanced cervical cancer: is it a feasible procedure at a peripheral center? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(2):332–6.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Leblanc E, Narducci F, Frumovitz M, Lesoin A, Castelain B, Baranzelli MC, et al. Therapeutic value of pretherapeutic extraperitoneal laparoscopic staging of locally advanced cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(2):304–11.CrossRef Leblanc E, Narducci F, Frumovitz M, Lesoin A, Castelain B, Baranzelli MC, et al. Therapeutic value of pretherapeutic extraperitoneal laparoscopic staging of locally advanced cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(2):304–11.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Díaz-Feijoo B, Gil-Ibáñez B, Pérez-Benavente A, Martínez-Gómez X, Colás E, Sánchez-Iglesias JL, et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopy for extraperitoneal paraaortic lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(1):98–101. Díaz-Feijoo B, Gil-Ibáñez B, Pérez-Benavente A, Martínez-Gómez X, Colás E, Sánchez-Iglesias JL, et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopy for extraperitoneal paraaortic lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(1):98–101.
Metadata
Title
Lomboaortic Lymphadenectomy in Gynecological Oncology: Laparotomy, Laparoscopy or Robot-Assisted Laparoscopy?
Authors
Y. Kerbage, MD
A. Kakkos, MD
F. Kridelka, MD, PhD
E. Lambaudie, MD, PhD
A. S. Bats, MD, PhD
T. Hébert, MD
F. Goffin, MD, PhD
J. Wallet, PhD
E. Leblanc, MD
D. Hudry, MD
F. Narducci, MD
Publication date
01-10-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 10/2020
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08471-0

Other articles of this Issue 10/2020

Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2020 Go to the issue