Is lymph node dissection mandatory among early stage endometrial cancer patients? A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Whether routine lymph node dissection for early endometrial cancer is beneficial to survival is still controversial. However, surgeons usually perform lymph node dissection on all patients with early endometrial cancer. This study aimed to prove that the risk of lymph node metastasis, as defined by our standard, is very low in such patients and may change the current surgical practice. METHODS: 36 consecutive patients who had staged surgery for endometrial cancer were collected. All eligible patients meet the following very low risk criteria for lymph node metastasis, including: (1) preoperative diagnosis of endometrial cancer (preoperative pathological diagnosis), (2) tumors confined to the uterine cavity and not beyond the uterine body, (3) PET-MRI lymph node metastasis test is negative. PET-MRI and pathological examination were used to assess the extent and size of the tumor, the degree of muscular invasion, and lymph node metastasis. RESULTS: The median age at diagnosis was 52 years (range 35-72 years). The median tumor size on PET-MRI was 2.82 cm (range 0.66-6.37 cm). Six patients underwent robotic surgery, 20 underwent laparoscopic surgery, 8 underwent Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy, and 2 underwent vaginal hysterectomy. 23% (63.9%) patients had high-grade (i.e. 2 and 3) tumors. Among the 36 patients who underwent lymph node sampling, the median number of lymph nodes retrieved was 32 (range 9-57 nodules). No patient (0%) was diagnosed with lymph node metastasis. According to the policy of each institution, 8 patients (22.2%) received adjuvant therapy, and half of them also received chemotherapy (4 patients; 50%). CONCLUSIONS: None of the patients who met the criteria had a pathological assessment of lymph node metastasis. Omitting lymph node dissection may be reasonable for patients who meet our criteria.

A retrospective study of electroencephalography burst suppression in children undergoing general anesthesia.

IMPORTANCE: In children, anesthesia dosages are based on population pharmacokinetics and patient hemodynamics rather than patient-specific brain activity. Brain function is highly susceptible to the effects of anesthetics. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this retrospective pilot study was to assess the prevalence of electroencephalography (EEG) burst suppression-a sign of deep anesthesia-in children undergoing general anesthesia. METHODS: We analyzed EEG in patients aged 1-36 months who received sevoflurane or propofol as the primary anesthetic. Patient enrollment was stratified into two age groups: 1-12 months and 13-36 months. Burst suppression (voltage ≤ 5.0 mV, lasting > 0.5 seconds) was characterized by occurrence over anesthesia time. Associations with patient demographics and anesthetics were determined. RESULTS: In total, 54 patients (33 males and 21 females) were included in the study [age 11.0 (5.0-19.5) months; weight 9.2 (6.5-11.0) kg]. The total prevalence of burst suppression was 56% (30/54). Thirty-three percent of patients experienced burst suppression during the surgical phase. The greatest proportion of burst suppression occurred during the induction phase. More burst suppression event occurrences (18/30) were observed in the patient under sevoflurane anesthesia (P = 0.024). Virtually all patients who received propofol boluses had burst suppression (P = 0.033). More burst suppression occurred in patients with hypotension (P < 0.001). During the surgical phase, a younger age was associated with more burst suppression (P = 0.002). INTERPRETATION: EEG burst suppression was associated with younger age, inhalation anesthetics, propofol bolus, and lower arterial pressure.