Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
RETRACTED: Choosing the most appropriate minimally invasive approach to treat gynecologic cancers in the context of an enhanced recovery program: Insights from a comprehensive cancer center
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
RETRACTED: Choosing the most appropriate minimally invasive approach to treat gynecologic cancers in the context of an enhanced recovery program: Insights from a comprehensive cancer center
Do you wish to request the book?
RETRACTED: Choosing the most appropriate minimally invasive approach to treat gynecologic cancers in the context of an enhanced recovery program: Insights from a comprehensive cancer center
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
RETRACTED: Choosing the most appropriate minimally invasive approach to treat gynecologic cancers in the context of an enhanced recovery program: Insights from a comprehensive cancer center
2020
Overview
The aim of the study was to compare the characteristics of procedures for gynecologic cancers conducted with conventional laparoscopy (CL) or robotically assisted laparoscopy (RAL) in the context of an enhanced recovery program (ERP).
This is a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from a cohort study conducted between 2016 (when the ERP was first implemented at the Institut Paoli-Calmettes, a comprehensive cancer center in France) and 2018. We included patients who had undergone minimally invasive surgery for gynecological cancers and followed our ERP. The endpoints were the analysis of postoperative complications, the length of postoperative hospitalization (LPO), and the proportion of combined procedures depending on the approach (RAL or CL). Combined procedures were defined by the association of at least two of the following operative items: hysterectomy, pelvic lymphadenectomy, and para-aortic lymphadenectomy.
A total of 362 women underwent either CL (n = 187) or RAL (n = 175) for gynecologic cancers and followed our ERP. The proportion of combined procedures performed by RAL was significantly higher (85/175 [48.6%]) than that performed by CL (23/187 [12.3%]; p < 0.001). The proportions of postoperative complications were similar between the two groups (19.4% versus 17.1%; p = 0.59). Logistic regression analysis revealed a statistically insignificant trend in the association of RAL with a reduced likelihood of an LPO > 3 days after adjusting for predictors of prolonged hospitalization (adjusted OR = 0.573 [0.236-1.388]; p = 0.217).
Experts from our cancer center preferentially choose RAL to perform gynecologic oncological procedures that present elements of complexity. More studies are needed to determine whether this strategy is efficient in managing complex procedures in the framework of an ERP.
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
