Introduction: In the present study, perioperative outcomes of laparoscopy (LPS) were compared to open surgery (OS) for the treatment of large adnexal masses (AM). Material and methods: Retrospective observational cohort study. Data of consecutive patients who underwent ovarian cystectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy for large AM (diameter ≥10 cm) at a referral minimally invasive gynecologic center were analyzed. Propensity score match (PSM) analysis was used to minimize covariate imbalances between the two groups. Results: Overall 330 patients, 285 (86.4%) LPSs and 45 (13.6%) OSs were included. PSM showed LPS (vs. OS) to be associated with less intraoperative blood loss (mL: 131.1 ± 52.6 vs. 545.5 ± 101.2; p = .007), shorter operative time (min: 84.8 ± 77.9 vs. 123.7 ± 70.1; p < .001), but higher rate of spillage (54.5% vs. 12.1%; p < .001). Among the LPS group, a positive correlation between AM size and both conversion to open surgery and need for mini-laparotomy was found (p < .05). Conclusions: An accurate patient selection, a dedicated workup, and an appropriate counselling are mandatory before LPS for large AM. The increased risks of intraoperative spillage associated with the minimally invasive approach should be acknowledged.
Surgical treatment of large adnexal masses: a retrospective analysis of 330 consecutive cases
Laganà AS;
In corso di stampa
Abstract
Introduction: In the present study, perioperative outcomes of laparoscopy (LPS) were compared to open surgery (OS) for the treatment of large adnexal masses (AM). Material and methods: Retrospective observational cohort study. Data of consecutive patients who underwent ovarian cystectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy for large AM (diameter ≥10 cm) at a referral minimally invasive gynecologic center were analyzed. Propensity score match (PSM) analysis was used to minimize covariate imbalances between the two groups. Results: Overall 330 patients, 285 (86.4%) LPSs and 45 (13.6%) OSs were included. PSM showed LPS (vs. OS) to be associated with less intraoperative blood loss (mL: 131.1 ± 52.6 vs. 545.5 ± 101.2; p = .007), shorter operative time (min: 84.8 ± 77.9 vs. 123.7 ± 70.1; p < .001), but higher rate of spillage (54.5% vs. 12.1%; p < .001). Among the LPS group, a positive correlation between AM size and both conversion to open surgery and need for mini-laparotomy was found (p < .05). Conclusions: An accurate patient selection, a dedicated workup, and an appropriate counselling are mandatory before LPS for large AM. The increased risks of intraoperative spillage associated with the minimally invasive approach should be acknowledged.Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
