Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Feb 1;23(2):234-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.10.002. Epub 2015 Oct 22.

Timing of Intrauterine Manipulator Insertion During Minimally Invasive Surgical Staging and Results of Pelvic Cytology in Endometrial Cancer.

Author information

1
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
2
Department of Gynecology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
3
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California.
4
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: koji.matsuo@med.usc.edu.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE:

Considering the hypothetical concern of retrograde tumor spread to the peritoneal cavity by insertion of an intrauterine manipulator, we examined the correlation between the timing of manipulator insertion and the results of pelvic cytology during total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) in endometrial cancer.

DESIGN:

Case-control study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING:

University-based hospitals.

PATIENTS:

Stage I to IV endometrial cancer patients who underwent TLH in which an intrauterine manipulator was used. Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, surgical details, and tumor characteristics.

INTERVENTIONS:

Archived medical record review.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:

A total of 333 patients was identified. Cases were divided into those with intrauterine manipulator insertion after pelvic cytology sampling (Group 1, n = 103) and those with intrauterine manipulator insertion before pelvic cytology sampling (Group 2, n = 230). Types of intrauterine manipulator were similar across the 2 groups (p = .77). There was no statistical difference in the results of pelvic cytology between the 2 groups: Group 1 versus 2, atypical cells 2.9% versus 4.8% and malignant cells 5.8% versus 9.6% (p = .36). Uterine perforation related to intrauterine manipulator insertion was seen in 1.0% and .4% of each group (p = .52). In a multivariate analysis controlling for demographics and tumor characteristics, advanced-stage disease remained an independent risk factor associated with increased risk of atypical and malignant cells (adjusted odds ratio, 10.3; 95% confidence interval, 4.44-23.8; p < .001).

CONCLUSION:

Our study suggested that the timing of intrauterine manipulator insertion during TLH for endometrial cancer is not associated with the results of pelvic cytology.

KEYWORDS:

Cytology; Endometrial cancer; Minimal invasive surgery; Uterine manipulator

PMID:
26475765
DOI:
10.1016/j.jmig.2015.10.002
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center