Comparison of intraoperative and early postoperative results of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus laparotomic staging surgery for ovarian cancer

Thus far, the traditional method of performing staging surgery in ovarian cancer has been laparotomy. Although randomized controlled trials are lacking, minimally invasive options are deemed safe and sufficient for staging and treatment of early-stage ovarian cancer. This study aims to compare the intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent staging surgery via laparoscopy or laparotomy because of ovarian cancer. This retrospective study was conducted among 37 patients undergoing staging surgery done via laparoscopy (Group 1) or laparotomy (Group 2) between February 2018 and May 2022 at a single center. Intraoperative and early postoperative results were collected. Regarding postoperative complications between the two groups, the formation of lymphoceles and hernias in Group 2 was significantly higher compared to Group 1 (p = 0.019 and p = 0.050, respectively). When these groups were compared regarding Clavien-Dindo classification, Grade 1 complications were high among the laparoscopy group. In contrast, Grade 2, 3A and 3B complications were significantly higher in the laparotomy group (p = 0.002). Regarding hospital stay during the postoperative period, the patients in Group 2 stayed significantly longer compared to Group 1 (p = 0.001). As an alternative to open surgery for diagnosing and staging ovarian cancer, the laparoscopic approach is reliable and can be applied safely to patients. However, more prospective randomized studies are needed to support the obtained data.

Ovarian cancer; Staging surgery; Laparoscopy; Laparotomy; Complications

[1] National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. Cancer stat facts: ovarian cancer. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ovary.html (Accessed: 30 December 2018).

[2] Torre LA, Trabert B, DeSantis CE, Miller KD, Samimi G, Runowicz CD, et al. Ovarian cancer statistics, 2018. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2018; 68: 284–296.

[3] Stewart C, Ralyea C, Lockwood S. Ovarian cancer: an integrated review. Seminars in Oncology Nursing. 2019; 35: 151–156.

[4] Liu B, Liao J, Gu W, Wang J, Li G, Wang L. ADNEX model-based diagnosis of ovarian cancer using MRI images. Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging. 2021; 2021: 2146578.

[5] Reis-de-Carvalho C, Castro C, Osório F. Unusual endometriosis mimicking disseminated cancer after hysterectomy in a young woman. BMJ Case Reports. 2021; 14: e241002.

[6] Morales-Castelán JE, Lara-Hernández ME, Hernández-Nava JM, Lino-Silva LS, Salcedo-Hernández RA. Abdominal tuberculosis mimicking ovarian cancer. A case series report. Gac Med Mex. 2022; 158: 124–127.

[7] Nikolaidi A, Fountzilas E, Fostira F, Psyrri A, Gogas H, Papadimitriou C. Neoadjuvant treatment in ovarian cancer: new perspectives, new challenges. Frontiers in Oncology. 2022; 12: 820128.

[8] Kamei Y, Kobayashi E, Nakatani E, Shiomi M, Sawada M, Kakuda M, et al. A single institution’s experience with minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer, and a systematic meta-analysis of the literature. International Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2023; 28: 794–803.

[9] Park JY, Bae J, Lim MC, Lim SY, Seo SS, Kang S, et al. Laparoscopic and laparotomic staging in stage I epithelial ovarian cancer: a comparison of feasibility and safety. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2008; 18: 1202–1209.

[10] Pinto P, Burgetova A, Cibula D, Haldorsen IS, Indrielle-Kelly T, Fischerova D. Prediction of surgical outcome in advanced ovarian cancer by imaging and laparoscopy: a narrative review. Cancers. 2023; 15: 1904.

[11] Pinto P, Chiappa V, Alcazar J, Franchi D, Testa AC, Cibula D, et al. OC11.01: preoperative assessment of non-resectability in patients with ovarian cancer using imaging (ISAAC study): an interim analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2022; 60: 31.

[12] Vergote I, Magrina JF, Zanagnolo V, Magtibay PM, Butler K, Gil-Moreno A, et al. The LACC trial and minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2020; 27: 462–463.

[13] Kooby DA. Laparoscopic surgery for cancer: historical, theoretical, and technical considerations. Oncology. 2006; 20: 917–927.

[14] Bagley CM Jr, Young RC, Schein PS, Chabner BA, Devita VT. Ovarian carcinoma metastatic to the diaphragm—frequently undiagnosed at laparotomy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1973; 116: 397–400.

[15] Querleu D, Leblanc E. Laparoscopic infrarenal paraaortic lymph node dissection for restaging of carcinoma of the ovary or fallopian tube. Cancer. 1994; 73: 1467–1471.

[16] Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Uccella S, Bergamini V, Tomera S, Franchi M, et al. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the surgical management of apparent early stage ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2007; 105: 409–413.

[17] Gallotta V, Petrillo M, Conte C, Vizzielli G, Fagotti A, Ferrandina G, et al. Laparoscopic versus laparotomic surgical staging for early-stage ovarian cancer: a case-control study. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2016; 23: 769–774.

[18] Ran X, He X, Li Z. Comparison of laparoscopic and open surgery for women with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Frontiers in Oncology. 2022; 12: 879889.

[19] Gauthier T, Uzan C, Lefeuvre D, Kane A, Canlorbe G, Deschamps F, et al. Lymphocele and ovarian cancer: risk factors and impact on survival. The Oncologist. 2012; 17: 1198–1203.

[20] Vetere PF, Lazarou G, Mondesir C, Wei K, Khullar P, Ogden L. Strategies to minimize adhesion formation after surgery. JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 2011; 15: 350–354.

[21] Trocchi P, Mach P, Kimmig KR, Stang A. Ovarian cancer surgery in Germany: an analysis of the nationwide hospital file 2005–2015. Women’s Health. 2022; 18: 17455065221075903.

[22] Matsuo K, Huang Y, Matsuzaki S, Klar M, Roman LD, Sood AK, et al. Minimally invasive surgery and risk of capsule rupture for women with early-stage ovarian cancer. JAMA Oncology. 2020; 6: 1110–1113.