RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of discontinuation of mechanical bowel preparation in advanced ovarian cancer surgery within the context of the ERAS program. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with advanced ovarian cancer who underwent cytoreductive surgery with simultaneous colon and/or rectal resection from January 2012 to November 2020. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) was given (pre-ERAS) or not (post-ERAS). Patient characteristics, including duration of antibiotic treatment, surgical complexity, and incidence of surgical and nonsurgical complications, were compared. RESULTS: During the study period, 114 patients who underwent colon and/or rectal resection were examined, of whom 39 received MBP and 75 did not receive MBP (NMBP). On comparison between the two groups, no significant differences were noted in the assessed patient characteristics, including mean age, FIGO stage, ASA class, BMI, or residual tumor. One patient (2.6%) in the MBP group, and 4 patients (5.3%) in the NMBP group experienced an anastomotic leakage (p = 0.11). No significant differences were found with respect to surgical site infection. (p = 0.5). CONCLUSION: MBP was not associated with any specific benefit for advanced ovarian cancer surgery. Gynecologic oncologists who use MBP should consider discontinuing this practice.
Asunto(s)
Recuperación Mejorada Después de la Cirugía , Neoplasias Ováricas , Humanos , Femenino , Estudios Retrospectivos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Electivos , Cuidados Preoperatorios/métodos , Neoplasias Ováricas/cirugíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: There is a gap in knowledge regarding the ideal management of patients with early-stage cervical cancer and intermediate-risk features. Here, we present a meta-analysis of the published literature on oncological outcomes in these patients and determine trends in postoperative management. METHODS: MEDLINE and PubMed were used for literature searches. The inclusion criteria were: English language articles including ≥ 10 patients, patients who underwent radical hysterectomy, nodes negative, studies reporting oncological outcomes and complications treatment-related and compare a surgery-only cohort with a radiotherapy cohort. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Combined relative risk was calculated using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model and a forest plot was drawn. RESULTS: We collected 183 manuscripts on early-stage cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy alone or with adjuvant radiotherapy after surgery. A total of eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Regarding oncological outcomes, survival was reported in five studies. The relative risk of recurrence and the relative risk of mortality was similar in both groups independently whether receive or not adjuvant therapy. Most of the studies did not report significant differences regarding morbidity treatment related between the groups, except for a higher rate of lymphedema after radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: We found that the relative risk of recurrence and mortality was similar in both groups not depending on adjuvant therapy. Therefore, whether radiotherapy adjuvant treatment is indicated remains a topic of debate.