4.6 Article

Abdominal radical trachelectomy: Success and pitfalls in a general gynecologic oncology practice

Journal

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
Volume 112, Issue 3, Pages 506-510

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.10.029

Keywords

Cervical cancer; Fertility; Radical trachelectomy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To report Our successes and complications with a series of abdominal radical trachelectomies performed to preserve fertility in young women at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). Methods. Institutional review board (IRB) permission was obtained for retrospective record review. Data were collected regarding patient age and parity, tumor stage and histology, surgical time and complications, post-operative complications. follow-up, and pregnancy. Results. Ten patients underwent radical abdominal trachelectomy, 9 by the same surgeon (LD). Surgery was essentially identical to that of radical hysterectomy with the exception of re-anastomosis of the uterine fundus to the vagina and placement of cerclage. Pre-operative evaluation and post operative follow-up Was for the most part identical for all patients. Two patients achieved pregnancy, with 1 twin delivery and 1 patient had 2 pregnancies. Two patients experienced cervical stenosis with regular menses and the same 2 patients passed their abdominal cerclage vaginally. To date there have been no cancer recurrences. Pap smear follow-up has been complicated by difficulty in reading smears from the lower uterine segment (LUS). Conclusion. Radical abdominal trachelectomy can be Successfully performed by any gynecologic oncologist who is trained in radical pelvic surgery. Pre-operative counseling is crucial in obtaining informed consent. Patients must be aware of potential post-operative complications, including pre-term delivery. Cytology department needs to be aware of potential pitfalls in reading Pap smears from the LUS. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available