Article Text

Download PDFPDF
EP388 Laparoscopic para-aortic lymph node staging in the care of advanced cervical cancer (IB3-IVA): retroperitoneal or transperitoneal?
  1. M Pécout1,
  2. C Bourgin2,
  3. H Azais3,
  4. F Machuron4,
  5. K Nyangoh Timoh5,
  6. L Oulmader6,
  7. G Canlorbe3,
  8. C Coutant7,
  9. O Graesslin8,
  10. C Touboul9,
  11. A Bricou10,
  12. C Huchon11,
  13. E Daraï12,
  14. M Ballester12,
  15. J Levêque5,
  16. V Lavoué5,
  17. S Bendifallah13,
  18. E Raimond8,
  19. Y Kerbage1 and
  20. P Collinet1
  1. 1Jeanne de Flandre Hospital, Lille
  2. 2René Gauducheau Hospital, Nantes
  3. 3La Pitié Salpétrière Hospital, Paris
  4. 4Université de Lille, Lille
  5. 5Centre Hospitalier de Rennes, Rennes
  6. 6CHRU Bretonneau, Tours
  7. 7Centre Hospitalier de Dijon, Dijon
  8. 8Centre Hospitalier de Reims, Reims
  9. 9Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, Créteil
  10. 10Hopital Jean Verdier, Bondy
  11. 11Centre Hospitalier de Poissy, Poissy
  12. 12Hopital Tenon, Paris
  13. 13Hopital Nord, APHM, Marseilles, France

Abstract

Introduction/Background Para-aortic lymphadenectomy is currently not systematized in the pre-treatment management of advanced cervical cancer (FIGO IB3-IVA). However, metastatic lymph has prognostic and therapeutic importance. We compared morbidity and mortality of retroperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy with transperitoneal approach, in the pre-therapeutic lymph node staging of cervix cancers at a locally advanced stage (FIGO IB3-IVA).

Methodology All pre- and postoperative data from 331 patients operated for advanced cervical cancer with a negative Positron Emission Tomography-scanner, managed between 1999 and 2017 in 9 centers in France were listed in the FRANCOGYN database. Morbidity and mortality related to the surgical approach was assessed by studying the rate of per and postoperative complications, as well as the duration of hospitalization. Also analyzed were overall survival as well as survival without recurrence.

Results 164 patients received a retroperitoneal approach (group 1) and 167 patients received a transperitoneal approach (group 2). Of these 331 patients, 12 had an intraoperative complication (4 of group 1 and 8 of group 2, p=0.36) and 34 a postoperative complication (12 of group 1 and 22 of group 2, p=0.044), none of which required surgical revision. Hospital stay was shorter in group 1 than in group 2 (3.87±2.47 days versus 5.17±3.04 days, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups; 25 patients in group 1 died (15.24%), compared with 26 patients in group 2 (15.57%). There was no significant difference in recidivism; 40 patients in group 1 had a recurrence (24.39%), compared with 37 in group 2 (22.16%).

Conclusion The transperitoneal approach has more complications postoperatively and a longer hospital stay than the retroperitoneal approach. In contrast, there is no significant difference in survival without recurrence or overall survival depending on the approach.

Disclosure Nothing to disclose.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.