Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 8/2007

01-08-2007 | Head and Neck Oncology

Comparing Surgical Outcomes in Obese Women Undergoing Laparotomy, Laparoscopy, or Laparotomy With Panniculectomy for the Staging of Uterine Malignancy

Authors: Eric L. Eisenhauer, MD, Kelly A. Wypych, MS, Babak J. Mehrara, MD, Carrie Lawson, MD, Dennis S. Chi, MD, Richard R. Barakat, MD, Nadeem R. Abu-Rustum, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 8/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Limiting surgical morbidity while maintaining staging adequacy is a primary concern in obese patients with uterine malignancy. The goal of this study was to compare the surgical adequacy and postoperative morbidity of three surgical approaches to staging the disease of obese women with uterine cancer.

Methods

The records of all patients with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥35 undergoing primary surgery for uterine corpus cancer at our institution from January 1993 to May 2006 were reviewed. Patients were assigned to three groups on the basis of planned surgical approach—standard laparotomy, laparoscopy, or laparotomy with panniculectomy. Standard statistical tests appropriate to group size were used to compare the three groups.

Results

In all, 206 patients with a BMI of ≥35 were grouped as follows: laparotomy, 154 patients; laparoscopy, 25 patients; and laparotomy with panniculectomy, 27 patients. Median BMI was 41 (range, 35–84). Regional lymph nodes were removed in 45% of the laparotomy patients, 40% of the laparoscopy patients, and 70% of the panniculectomy patients (P = .04). Compared with laparotomy, both laparoscopy and panniculectomy yielded higher median pelvic and total lymph node counts (P = .001). Operative time was shortest after standard laparotomy, and blood loss was greatest after panniculectomy. The incidence of all incisional complications was lower for panniculectomy (11%) and laparoscopy (8%) compared with standard laparotomy (35%) (P = .002). On multivariate analysis, a significantly lower risk of total incisional complications was seen for patients undergoing panniculectomy (risk ratio, .25; 95% confidence interval, .071–.88) and laparoscopy (risk ratio, .19; 95% confidence interval, .04–.94).

Conclusions

Both laparoscopic staging and panniculectomy in a standardized fashion were associated with an improved lymph node count and a lower rate of incisional complications than laparotomy alone. Although definitive conclusions are limited by low patient numbers, the substantial decrease in wound complications suggests that these two approaches should be considered for obese patients undergoing uterine cancer staging.
Literature
1.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:43–66PubMed
2.
Tretli S, Magnus K. Height and weight in relation to uterine corpus cancer morbidity and mortality. A follow-up study of 570,000 women in Norway. Int J Cancer 1990;46:165–72PubMedCrossRef
3.
Tornberg SA, Carstensen JM. Relationship between Quetelet’s index and cancer of breast and female genital tract in 47,000 women followed for 25 years. Br J Cancer 1994;69:358–61PubMed
4.
Parazzini F, La Vecchia C, Bocciolone L, Franceschi S. The epidemiology of endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1991;41:1–16PubMedCrossRef
5.
Executive summary of the clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:1855–67
6.
Creasman WT, Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Homesley HD, Graham JE, Heller PB. Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer. A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 1987;60(8 Suppl):2035–41PubMed
7.
Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Kurman RJ, et al. Relationship between surgical-pathological risk factors and outcome in clinical stage I and II carcinoma of the endometrium: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 1991;40:55–65PubMedCrossRef
8.
Boronow RC, Morrow CP, Creasman WT, et al. Surgical staging in endometrial cancer: clinical-pathologic findings of a prospective study. Obstet Gynecol 1984;63:825–32PubMed
9.
Homesley HD, Kadar N, Barrett RJ, Lentz SS. Selective pelvic and periaortic lymphadenectomy does not increase morbidity in surgical staging of endometrial carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167:1225–30PubMed
10.
Larson DM, Johnson K, Olson KA. Pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy for surgical staging of endometrial cancer: morbidity and mortality. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:998–1001PubMed
11.
Girardi F, Petru E, Heydarfadai M, Haas J, Winter R. Pelvic lymphadenectomy in the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1993;49:177–80PubMedCrossRef
12.
Kilgore LC, Partridge EE, Alvarez RD, et al. Adenocarcinoma of the endometrium: survival comparisons of patients with and without pelvic node sampling. Gynecol Oncol 1995;56:29–33PubMedCrossRef
13.
Mohan DS, Samuels MA, Selim MA, et al. Long-term outcomes of therapeutic pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage I endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1998;70:165–71PubMedCrossRef
14.
Everett E, Tamimi H, Greer B, et al. The effect of body mass index on clinical/pathologic features, surgical morbidity, and outcome in patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2003;90:150–7PubMedCrossRef
15.
Krebs HB, Helmkamp BF. Transverse periumbilical incision in the massively obese patient. Obstet Gynecol 1984;63:241–5PubMed
16.
Greer BE, Cain JM, Figge DC, Shy KK, Tamimi HK. Supraumbilical upper abdominal midline incision for pelvic surgery in the morbidly obese patient. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76(3 Pt 1):471–3PubMed
17.
Voss SC, Sharp HC, Scott JR. Abdominoplasty combined with gynecologic surgical procedures. Obstet Gynecol 1986;67:181–5PubMedCrossRef
18.
Wright JD, Powell MA, Herzog TJ, et al. Panniculectomy: improving lymph node yield in morbidly obese patients with endometrial neoplasms. Gynecol Oncol 2004;94:436–41PubMedCrossRef
19.
Eltabbakh GH, Shamonki MI, Moody JM, Garafano LL. Hysterectomy for obese women with endometrial cancer: laparoscopy or laparotomy? Gynecol Oncol 2000;78(3 Pt 1):329–35PubMedCrossRef
20.
Scribner DR Jr, Walker JL, Johnson GA, McMeekin DS, Gold MA, Mannel RS. Laparoscopic pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection in the obese. Gynecol Oncol 2002;84:426–30PubMedCrossRef
21.
Obermair A, Manolitsas TP, Leung Y, Hammond IG, McCartney AJ. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy for obese women with endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2005;15:319–24PubMedCrossRef
22.
Gemignani ML, Curtin JP, Zelmanovich J, Patel DA, Venkatraman E, Barakat RR. Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: clinical outcomes and hospital charges. Gynecol Oncol 1999;73:5–11PubMedCrossRef
23.
Tozzi R, Malur S, Koehler C, Schneider A. Analysis of morbidity in patients with endometrial cancer: is there a commitment to offer laparoscopy? Gynecol Oncol 2005;97:4–9PubMedCrossRef
24.
Abu-Rustum NR, Gemignani ML, Moore K, et al. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy using the argon-beam coagulator: pilot data and comparison to laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 2003;91:402–9PubMedCrossRef
25.
Martin RC 2nd, Brennan MF, Jaques DP. Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature. Ann Surg 2002;235:803–13PubMedCrossRef
26.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. A goodness-of-fit test for the multiple regression model. Commun Stat 1980;A10:1043–69CrossRef
27.
Walker J, Mannel R, Piedmonte M, Schlaerth J, Spirtos N, Speigel G. Phase III trial of laparoscopy (scope) vs laparotomy (open) for surgical resection and comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study (abstract). Gynecol Oncol 2006;101:S11–2
28.
Foley K, Lee RB. Surgical complications of obese patients with endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1990;39:171–4PubMedCrossRef
29.
Pavelka JC, Ben-Shachar I, Fowler JM, et al. Morbid obesity and endometrial cancer: surgical, clinical, and pathologic outcomes in surgically managed patients. Gynecol Oncol 2004;95:588–92PubMedCrossRef
30.
Cosin JA, Powell JL, Donovan JT, Stueber K. The safety and efficacy of extensive abdominal panniculectomy at the time of pelvic surgery. Gynecol Oncol 1994;55:36–40PubMedCrossRef
31.
Blomfield PI, Le T, Allen DG, Planner RS. Panniculectomy: a useful technique for the obese patient undergoing gynecological surgery. Gynecol Oncol 1998;70:80–6PubMedCrossRef
32.
Micha JP, Rettenmaier MA, Francis L, Willenberg R, Brown JV. “Medically necessary” panniculectomy to facilitate gynecologic cancer surgery in morbidly obese patients. Gynecol Oncol 1998;69:237–42PubMedCrossRef
33.
Pearl ML, Valea FA, Chalas E. Panniculectomy and supraumbilical vertical midline incisions in morbidly obese gynecologic oncology patients. J Am Coll Surg 1998;186:649–53PubMedCrossRef
34.
Powell JL, Kasparek DK, Connor GP. Panniculectomy to facilitate gynecologic surgery in morbidly obese women. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94:528–31PubMedCrossRef
35.
Hopkins MP, Shriner AM, Parker MG, Scott L. Panniculectomy at the time of gynecologic surgery in morbidly obese patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:1502–5PubMedCrossRef
36.
Tillmanns TD, Kamelle SA, Abudayyeh I, et al. Panniculectomy with simultaneous gynecologic oncology surgery. Gynecol Oncol 2001;83:518–22PubMedCrossRef
37.
Lutman CV, Havrilesky LJ, Cragun JM, et al. Pelvic lymph node count is an important prognostic variable for FIGO stage I and II endometrial carcinoma with high-risk histology. Gynecol Oncol 2006;102:92–7PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparing Surgical Outcomes in Obese Women Undergoing Laparotomy, Laparoscopy, or Laparotomy With Panniculectomy for the Staging of Uterine Malignancy
Authors
Eric L. Eisenhauer, MD
Kelly A. Wypych, MS
Babak J. Mehrara, MD
Carrie Lawson, MD
Dennis S. Chi, MD
Richard R. Barakat, MD
Nadeem R. Abu-Rustum, MD
Publication date
01-08-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 8/2007
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9440-6

Other articles of this Issue 8/2007

Annals of Surgical Oncology 8/2007 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Significance of Common Hepatic Artery Lymph Node Metastases During Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Head Adenocarcinoma

Breast Oncology

Validation of a Breast Cancer Nomogram for Predicting Nonsentinel Lymph Node Metastases after a Positive Sentinel Node Biopsy

OriginalPaper

Tattooing Breast Cancers Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Events

Consensus Statement on Mandatory Registration of Clinical Trials

Melanoma

A Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Bevacizumab with or without Daily Low-Dose Interferon Alfa-2b in Metastatic Malignant Melanoma

Editorial

SEER Data: It Can Be Thought Provoking, But Where Do We Go From Here?