Laterally extended endopelvic resection for gynecological malignancies, a comparison between laparoscopic and laparotomic approach.

INTRODUCTION:The historical approach to LEER is laparotomic, but recently laparoscopy has been proposed. The objective of this study was to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the two approaches and to assess the overall quality of life (QoL). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Women submitted to LEER between October 2012 and March 2020 were retrospectively recruited. Peri-operative data were analyzed and compared. Recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30, QLQ-CX24, and QLQ-OV28 questionnaires were administered 6 months after surgery in women with no evidence of recurrence after LEER. RESULTS:Of the included 41 patients, 20 were submitted to laparoscopic LEER (L-LEER) and 21 to open LEER (O-LEER). Median operating time (442 vs 630 min, p = 0.001), median blood loss (275 vs 800 ml, p < 0.001), and median length of hospital stays (10 vs 16 days, p = 0.002) were shorter in the laparoscopic group, while tumor resection rate and peri-operative complications were similar. After a median follow-up of 27.5 months, no differences, in terms of DFS (p = 0.83) and OS (p = 0.96) were observed between the two approaches. High functional scores and low levels of adverse symptoms were observed on the surviving women. CONCLUSION:QoL after LEER is acceptable, and laparoscopy provides better surgical and similar oncological outcomes when compared to laparotomy. L-LEER can be considered a further option of treatment for women with gynecological tumors infiltrating the pelvic sidewall.