SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Laparoscopic treatment of endometrial cancer: systematic review.

The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy and safety of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer. Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Gynecological Cancer Collaborative Review Group Trial Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, BIOSIS Previews, the China Biological Medicine Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Whole Article Database, Wan Fang Data, and VIP Information, from January 1991 to May 2012, as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, issue 5, 2012). We also hand searched unpublished and gray literature, reference lists of identified studies, gynecologic cancer handbooks, and conference abstracts. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic surgery with laparotomy for treatment of all stages of endometrial cancer were selected. Data extraction was performed independently by 2 review authors who assessed study quality and extracted data. The whole articles were assessed for method quality by using the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group method quality criteria. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic, which estimates the percentage of heterogeneity between trials. The outcomes were pooled statistically when no clinical heterogeneity was apparent. For time to event data, hazard ratios were pooled using the generic inverse variance facility of RevMan 5. Random effects models were used for all meta-analyses. The search yielded 9 eligible RCTs (1361 laparotomy and 2255 laparoscopy). There was no significant difference between laparoscopic and laparotomic approaches to endometrial cancer in 3-year overall survival (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 1.71; p = .77), 3-year disease-free survival (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.80; p = .89), recurrence at 3-year follow-up (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.60 to 2.06; p = .74), and pelvic node yield (mean difference [MD, 0.45; 95% CI, -0.41 to 1.32; p = .30). The benefits of laparoscopic surgery vs laparotomy were shorter length of hospital stay (MD, -3.42; 95% CI, -3.81 to -3.03; p < .01), and lower rates of postoperative complications (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73; p < .01). Disadvantages were higher rates of intraoperative complications (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05 to1.74; p = .02) and longer duration of surgical procedures (MD, 32.73; 95% CI, 16.34 to 49.13; p < .01). We conclude that, compared with laparotomy, laparoscopic surgery seems to be beneficial in women with endometrial cancer, in particular insofar as postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. However, more well-designed RCTs are needed to assess the long-term clinical outcomes, in particular the quality of life.

Full text links

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Group 7SearchHeart failure treatmentPapersTopicsCollectionsEffects of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure Importance: Only 1 class of glucose-lowering agents-sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors-has been reported to decrease the risk of cardiovascular events primarily by reducingSeptember 1, 2017: JAMA CardiologyAssociations of albuminuria in patients with chronic heart failure: findings in the ALiskiren Observation of heart Failure Treatment study.CONCLUSIONS: Increased UACR is common in patients with heart failure, including non-diabetics. Urinary albumin creatininineJul, 2011: European Journal of Heart FailureRandomized Controlled TrialEffects of Liraglutide on Clinical Stability Among Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Review

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app