Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2025
Surgical Techniques to Optimize Ovarian Reserve during Laparoscopic Cystectomy for Ovarian Endometrioma
Published on: January 22, 2022
Laparoscopic versus open approach for interval cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy
Manuel Durán-Martínez1, Gonzalo Gómez-Dueñas1, Lidia Rodriguez-Ortíz1,2
1Surgical Oncology Unit, Reina Sofia University Hospital, Cordoba, Spain.
Background:
The use of the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of carcinomatosis from epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of both laparoscopic and open approach for interval CRS+HIPEC in a matched cohort of patients with advanced EOC.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database including 254 patients treated with interval CRS-HIPEC between January 2016 and December 2021 was performed. Patients with primary disease and limited carcinomatosis (PCI ≤ 10) were selected. A comparative analysis of patients treated by either open (O-CRS-HIPEC) or the laparoscopic (L-CRS-HIPEC) approach was conducted. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and perioperative outcomes were analysed.
Results:
Fifty-three patients were finally selected and enrolled into two comparable groups in this study. Of these, 14 patients were treated by interval L-CRS-HIPEC and 39 by interval O-CRS-HIPEC. The L-CRS-HIPEC group had a shorter hospital stay (5.6 ± 1.9 vs. 9.7 ± 9.8 days; p < 0.001) and a shorter time to return to systemic chemotherapy (4.3 ± 1.9 vs. 10.3 ± 16.8 weeks; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications between both groups. The 2-year OS and DFS was 100% and 62% in the L-CRS-HIPEC group versus 92% and 60% in the O-CRS-HIPEC group, respectively (p = 0.96; p = 0.786).
Conclusion:
This study suggests that the use of interval L-CRS-HIPEC for primary advanced EOC is associated with shorter hospital stay and return to systemic treatment while obtaining similar oncological results compared to the open approach. Further prospective research is needed to recommend this new approach for these strictly selected patients.
