4.6 Review

Vaginal radical trachelectomy: A valuable fertility-preserving option in the management of early-stage cervical cancer. A series of 50 pregnancies and review of the literature

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 98, 期 1, 页码 3-10

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.04.014

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To report the obstetrical results following vaginal radical trachelectomy (VRT), a fertility-preserving surgery in the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. Methods. Retrospective review of our first 72 patients treated by a laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy followed by a VRT from October 1991 to October 2003 with regards to their reproductive function. Results. Patients' median age was 32 years old (21-42) and 53 (74%) were nulligravida. A total of 50 pregnancies occurred in 31 women. The majority (66%) had only one pregnancy, 19% had 2 pregnancies and 16% had 3 pregnancies or more. The rate of first trimester miscarriage was 16%, the rate of second trimester miscarriage was (4%) and 2 women (4%) elected to have pregnancy termination. A total of 36 pregnancies (72%) reached the third trimester. Of those, 3 (8%) ended prematurely at < 32 weeks gestation, 5 (14%) delivered between 32 and 36 weeks and 28 (78%) delivered at term (> 37 weeks). One newborn died of neonatal sepsis from E. coli infection and one died from cardiac malformation (trisomy-18). Seven patients (10%) had infertility problems: 3 from ovulatory causes of which 2 successfully conceived with IVF, one from endometriosis and low sperm count and 3 from probable cervical cause of which one conceived with IUI. One patient had a twin pregnancy following IVF and elected to have embryo reduction and subsequently delivered at 37 weeks. Conclusion. Based on our experience, the obstetrical results following VRT for early-stage cervical cancer are very encouraging. The majority of women can anticipate to conceive spontaneously and deliver near term. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据