...
首页> 外文期刊>European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology: An International Journal >A comparative study of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with radical abdominal hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a long-term follow-up study.
【24h】

A comparative study of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with radical abdominal hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a long-term follow-up study.

机译:腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术与根治性腹部子宫切除术治疗早期宫颈癌的比较研究:一项长期随访研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) is a feasible alternative to radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH) for early-stage cervical cancer. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, matched case-control study of 24 consecutive cases with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I-II cervical cancer who underwent LRH by a single surgeon between January 1994 and December 2001. Cases were matched with controls (ratio 1:2) who underwent RAH by surgeon, age, stage and histology. Patient characteristics, clinical course, intra-operative complications and disease-free survival were compared between the two groups. Median counts were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Differences between means were compared using Student's t-test. Dichotomous groupings were analyzed using Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test as appropriate. Survival data were estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared with the log-rank test. RESULTS: The mean estimated blood loss in the RAH group was significantly greater than that in the LRH group (836.0 ml and 414.3 ml, respectively; p<0.001). Five patients (20.8%) from the LRH group and 23 patients (47.9%) from the RAH group received blood transfusion (p<0.03). The mean length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LRH group compared with the RAH group (10.7 days and 18.8 days, respectively; p<0.01). No statistically significant difference existed between the two groups with respect to operative time, pelvic lymph node count, frequency of lymph node involvement, extent of parametrial or vaginal resection margins, adjuvant treatment and intra-operative complications. Median follow-up was 78 months for the LRH group and 75 months for the RAH group. There was no significant difference in the 5-year disease-free survival rate between the groups (90.5% and 93.3% for LRH and RAH, respectively; p=0.918). CONCLUSIONS: LRH is a useful alternative to RAH for the management of early-stage cervical cancer. The benefits of LRH include reduced blood loss, fewer transfusions and shorter hospital stay, with comparable oncologic outcome.
机译:目的:为早期宫颈癌确定腹腔镜根治性子宫全切除术(LRH)是否可以替代根治性腹腔全子宫切除术(RAH)。研究设计:1994年1月至2001年12月间,由一名外科医生对国际妇产科联合I-II期宫颈癌连续24例患者进行了LRH的回顾性匹配病例对照研究。病例与对照相匹配(比率1)。 :2)根据外科医生,年龄,阶段和组织学对RAH进行了检查。比较两组的患者特征,临床病程,术中并发症和无病生存。使用Mann-Whitney U检验分析中位数。使用学生t检验比较均值之间的差异。适当地使用卡方检验和费舍尔精确检验对二分类分组进行分析。使用Kaplan-Meier估计估计生存数据,并将其与对数秩检验进行比较。结果:RAH组的平均估计失血量明显大于LRH组(分别为836.0 ml和414.3 ml; p <0.001)。 LRH组有5名患者(20.8%)和RAH组有23名患者(47.9%)接受了输血(p <0.03)。与RAH组相比,LRH组的平均住院时间显着缩短(分别为10.7天和18.8天; p <0.01)。两组在手术时间,骨盆淋巴结计数,淋巴结受累频率,子宫旁或阴道切除切缘的范围,辅助治疗和术中并发症方面无统计学差异。 LRH组中位随访时间为78个月,RAH组中位随访时间为75个月。两组之间的5年无病生存率无显着差异(LRH和RAH分别为90.5%和93.3%; p = 0.918)。结论:LRH是RAH的替代治疗早期宫颈癌的有用方法。 LRH的好处包括减少失血量,减少输血和缩短住院时间,并具有可比的肿瘤学结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号