Role of surgery in gynaecological sarcomas

Gynaecological sarcomas account for 3-4% of all gynaecological malignancies and have a poorer prognosis compared to gynaecological carcinomas. Pivotal treatment for early-stage uterine sarcoma is represented by total hysterectomy. Whereas oophorectomy provides survival advantage in endometrial stromal sarcoma is still controversial. When the disease is confined to the uterus, systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy is not recommended. Removal of enlarged lymph-nodes is indicated in case of disseminated or recurrent disease, where debulking surgery is considered the standard of care. Fertility sparing surgery for uterine leiomyosarcoma is not supported by strong evidence, whilst available data on fertility sparing treatment for endometrial stromal sarcoma are more promising. For ovarian sarcomas, in the absence of specific data, it is reasonable to adapt recommendations existing for uterine sarcomas, also regarding the role of lymphadenectomy in both early and advanced stage disease. Specific recommendations on cervical sarcomas' surgery are lacking. Existing data on surgical approach vary from radical hysterectomy to fertility-preserving surgery in the form of trachelectomy or wide local excision, however no definite conclusions can be drafted on the recommended surgical approach. For vulval sarcomas, complete surgical excision with at least 2 cm of free margin is considered to be the primary treatment which is associated with good prognosis. The aim of this review is to provide highest quality evidence to guide gynaecologic oncologists throughout surgical management of gynaecological sarcomas

Laparoscopic Management of Abdominal Pregnancy

Objective To illustrate the laparoscopic surgical management of a particular localization of extrauterine pregnancy misdiagnosed until 12 weeks gestational age, complicated by hemoperitoneum and abortion. Design Canadian Task Force III on the Periodic Health Examination's Levels of Evidence. Setting The prevalence of ectopic pregnancy among women presenting to an emergency department with first trimester bleeding, pain, or both ranges from 1% to 16% [1]. The most common localization of ectopic pregnancy is the fallopian tubes, whereas abdominal pregnancy accounts for at least 1% of extrauterine pregnancies. The reported incidence of abdominal pregnancy ranges from 1:10 000 to 1:30 000 pregnancies [2]. Abdominal pregnancy can be localized in the pelvic cul-de-sac, broad ligament, bowel, or pelvic sidewall. This rare type of ectopic pregnancy is often misdiagnosed until later in pregnancy, evolving in hemoperitoneum, abortion, embolism, or rarely, in diagnosed cases, live birth by cesarean section. In the literature, it is recommended that the placenta be left in situ in cases of abdominal pregnancy to avoid hemorrhage and organ injury, even though this approach may be associated with a higher rate of postoperative complications, such as infection, secondary bleeding, and cancer transformation [3]. We present a case of abdominal pregnancy in which the gestational sac was implanted in the broad ligament and resulted in hemoperitoneum at 12 weeks gestational age. Intervention In August 2010, a 35-year-old woman, gravida 3 para 1, presented at the Di Meglio ultrasound diagnostic center in Naples for a noninvasive prenatal ultrasound (bi-test) to confirm gestational age in what to that point had been considered a normal pregnancy at 12 weeks gestation. Ultrasound revealed an ectopic abdominal pregnancy with a live fetus located in the left parauterine side. A suspicious fluid level in the pouch Douglas was also detected, and so the woman was advised to go to an obstetric hospital for a medical evaluation of the clinical situation (starting hemoperitoneum). Later that same day, the woman presented at the Villa dei Platani Hospital in Avellino, where ultrasound confirmed increased fluid in the pouch of Douglas, along with initial signs of hemoperitoneum and loss of the fetal heartbeat. The woman was immediately transferred to the Malzoni Center for Advanced Endoscopic Gynecological Surgery in Avellino, where she underwent operative laparoscopy for removal of the abdominal pregnancy (surgeon, M.M.). Informed consent for the laparoscopic surgery was provided by the patient in accordance with local regulations. The patient also provided informed consent for the use of images and a video of the procedure. Institutional Review Board approval was not required. The procedure involved laparoscopic hemoperitoneum drainage (at least 500 mL of blood), left adnexectomy after transperitoneal identification of the left uretheral pathway, and complete removal of left broad ligament pregnancy abortion with consensual removal of the ectopic placenta. Conclusion The laparoscopic management of abdominal pregnancy and hemoperitoneum resulting from rupture of the gestational chamber and abortion was optimal. With this minimally invasive technique, it was possible to drain the hemoperitoneum completely and then proceed to total removal of the gestational chamber and the fetus. Thanks to the magnification of the image by laparoscopy, it was also possible to completely remove the placenta and the cotyledons from the peritoneal surface, thereby avoiding possible postoperative bleeding, infection, and sepsis resulting from retention of incomplete removal of the placenta. On the first postoperative day, the patient was in excellent clinical condition, with a marked reduction in circulating \uce\ub2-human chorionic gonadotropin. She was discharged on the second postoperative day and currently is in good health

Percutaneous-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Prospective Comparison

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of percutaneous approach, we prospectively compared our experience in percutaneous-assisted hysterectomy (PSS-H) with that in a series of laparoscopic hysterectomies (LPS-Hs). Methods: In this multicentric cohort study, from May 2015 to October 2017, 160 patients affected by benign and malignant gynecological conditions were considered eligible for minimally invasive surgery (MIS): 80 patients received PSS-H and 80 LPS-H. In each group, 30 cases of low-/intermediate-risk endometrial cancer were enrolled. For both groups, we documented preoperative outcomes, postoperative pain, and cosmetic outcomes. Results: No statistically significant differences were noted in baseline characteristics or operative time. We observed significant differences in estimated blood loss: median of 50 cc (PSS-H) and 100 cc (LPS-H) (p = 0.0001). In LPS-H, we reported 4 (5.0%) intraoperative complications and 1 (1.3%) in PSS-H. Thirty-day complications were 4 (5%) in PSS-H and 11 (13.8%) in LPS-H (p = 0.058). No significative differences were found in visual analog scale score, despite a relevant disparity in cosmetic outcome (p = 0.0001). For oncological cases, the 2 techniques had comparable intra- and postoperative outcomes and oncological accuracy. Conclusions: In this study, we reported that PSS-H is comparable to LPS-H for intra- and perioperative outcomes and postoperative pain, while PSS-H seems to be superior in cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction. PSS-H may represent a valid alternative in ultra-MIS for benign gynecological conditions and low-/intermediate-risk endometrial cancer. Keywords: Gynecological surgery; Hysterectomy; Minimally invasive surgery; New technology; Percutaneous approach; Personalized surgical treatment