Surgical treatment of intramedullary spinal cord metastases: functional outcome and complications-a multicenter study.

Intramedullary spinal cord metastasis (ISCM) is a rare event in the course of advanced malignancy. Management of these lesions remains controversial. Recently, surgery for ISCM has been advocated for selected patients. We performed a retrospective analysis of the clinical course, complications, and outcome of 30 patients surgically treated for ISCM. Patients' age, histopathological diagnoses of primary cancer, tumor size, spinal location, and extramedullary tumor dissemination were collected. Preoperative functional status, pre- and postoperative neurological status, and extent of the tumor resection were also analyzed. Predominant tumor location was thoracic, followed by cervical and conus medullaris. Lung cancer constituted the majority of primary malignancies. In 9 cases, one of the indications for spinal surgery was to obtain a histopathological diagnosis. On admission, all patients presented with neurological symptoms suggestive of myelopathy. After surgery, 18 patients exhibited improvement of symptoms in terms of pain relief and partial recovery of motor and/or sensory deficits; 6 patients were unchanged, while 6 patients exhibited postoperative deterioration. Median survival time after surgery was 9.9 months. Age > 70 years old, presence of systemic metastases, preoperative neurological non functional status, and lung cancer as primary tumor were all factors associated with a worse survival prognosis. This study did not show a clear survival difference between gross total and subtotal ISCM tumor resection. Patients who underwent gross total resection had a worse functional outcome with respect to patients with only partial resection. Gross total resection with low morbidity must be the surgical target, but when not possible, subtotal resection and adjuvant therapy are a valid therapeutic option.

Robotic single site versus robotic multiport hysterectomy in early endometrial cancer: a case control study / 부인종양

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical outcomes and cost of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) versus robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in early stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study, comparing perioperative outcomes and costs of RSSH and RMPH in early stage endometrial cancer patients. RSSH were matched 1:2 according to age, body mass index, comorbidity, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetric (FIGO) stage, type of radical surgery, histologic type, and grading. Mean hospital cost per discharge was calculated summarizing the cost of daily hospital room charges, operating room, cost of supplies and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 23 women who underwent RSSH were matched with 46 historic controls treated by RMPH in the same institute, with the same surgical team. No significant differences were found in terms of age, histologic type, stage, and grading. Operative time was similar: 102.5 minutes in RMPH and 110 in RSSH (p=0.889). Blood loss was lower in RSSH than in RMPH (respectively, 50 mL vs. 100 mL, p=0.001). Hospital stay was 3 days in RMPH and 2 days in RSSH (p=0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred in both groups. Early postoperative complications were 2.2% in RMPH and 4.3% in RSSH. Overall cost was higher in RMPH than in RSSH (respectively, $7,772.15 vs. $5,181.06). CONCLUSION: Our retrospective study suggests the safety and feasibility of RSSH for staging early endometrial cancer without major differences from the RMPH in terms of surgical outcomes, but with lower hospital costs. Certainly, further studies are eagerly warranted to confirm our findings.

Robotic single site versus robotic multiport hysterectomy in early endometrial cancer: a case control study / 부인종양

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical outcomes and cost of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) versus robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in early stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study, comparing perioperative outcomes and costs of RSSH and RMPH in early stage endometrial cancer patients. RSSH were matched 1:2 according to age, body mass index, comorbidity, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetric (FIGO) stage, type of radical surgery, histologic type, and grading. Mean hospital cost per discharge was calculated summarizing the cost of daily hospital room charges, operating room, cost of supplies and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 23 women who underwent RSSH were matched with 46 historic controls treated by RMPH in the same institute, with the same surgical team. No significant differences were found in terms of age, histologic type, stage, and grading. Operative time was similar: 102.5 minutes in RMPH and 110 in RSSH (p=0.889). Blood loss was lower in RSSH than in RMPH (respectively, 50 mL vs. 100 mL, p=0.001). Hospital stay was 3 days in RMPH and 2 days in RSSH (p=0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred in both groups. Early postoperative complications were 2.2% in RMPH and 4.3% in RSSH. Overall cost was higher in RMPH than in RSSH (respectively, $7,772.15 vs. $5,181.06). CONCLUSION: Our retrospective study suggests the safety and feasibility of RSSH for staging early endometrial cancer without major differences from the RMPH in terms of surgical outcomes, but with lower hospital costs. Certainly, further studies are eagerly warranted to confirm our findings.