Loading…

Role of perigastric arcade removal in serous epithelial ovarian cancers

Omentectomy is an essential part of cytoreductive surgery (CRS). However, removal of perigastric arcade (PGA) of the omentum is a controversial aspect of omentectomy in view of the fear of injury, vascular compromise and gastroparesis. Hence, we conducted a study to evaluate the necessity and effect...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ecancermedicalscience 2023, Vol.17, p.1519-1519
Main Authors: Kulkarni, Rohini Vinayak, Mohapatra, Manoranjan, Nayak, Bhagyalaxmi, Samantaray, Sagarika, Mohapatra, Janmejaya, Parija, Jita, Giri, Sushil Kumar
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 1519
container_issue
container_start_page 1519
container_title Ecancermedicalscience
container_volume 17
creator Kulkarni, Rohini Vinayak
Mohapatra, Manoranjan
Nayak, Bhagyalaxmi
Samantaray, Sagarika
Mohapatra, Janmejaya
Parija, Jita
Giri, Sushil Kumar
description Omentectomy is an essential part of cytoreductive surgery (CRS). However, removal of perigastric arcade (PGA) of the omentum is a controversial aspect of omentectomy in view of the fear of injury, vascular compromise and gastroparesis. Hence, we conducted a study to evaluate the necessity and effect of removal of PGA during omentectomy. The nature of the study was a prospective observational study. The study period was for 1 year between 1.3.2019 and 29.2.2020. Patients with stage III to IV serous epithelial ovarian cancers - chemo naive/post neoadjuvant chemotherapy, without macroscopic involvement of the PGA were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups - those who had PGA removed (group 1) and those whose PGA was preserved (group 2). Pre, intra and postoperative factors between the two groups were compared using standard statistical methods. Micrometastasis to PGA was present in 36.4% of the patients in group 1. The predictors for this involvement included gross involvement and microscopic involvement of the mobile part of the omentum ( < 0.001), pre surgery Meyer's score ( < 0.05) and requirement of peritonectomy ( < 0.05) during the CRS implying that higher the peritoneal carcinomatosis, more are the chances of microscopic involvement of PGA. On comparing postoperative outcomes between the two groups, we noted a statistically significant difference in intra-operative time ( < 0.01), prolonged recovery time with increased intensive care unit and hospital stay ( < 0.001) in group 1, although all with small absolute difference. However, there was no significant difference in major post-operative complications or time taken to tolerate soft diet. Micrometastasis to PGA was noted in significant number of cases. Its removal is also a safe procedure with minimal morbidity and good postoperative outcomes especially in cases with significant peritoneal carcinomatosis. Hence, it should be considered, provided we are achieving a complete cytoreduction otherwise.
doi_str_mv 10.3332/ecancer.2023.1519
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10129396</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2807910350</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c380t-585d4dba74cb704a0dbecdfdcc7cc8eab4becdd3a428c5aefe89e24adec280863</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdUV1LwzAUDaK4Of0BvkjBF18689E26ZPI0CkIguhzSNPbLaNtZtIO_Pembo7p083NPffcczgIXRI8ZYzRW9Cq1eCmFFM2JSnJj9CY8DSJswynxwfvETrzfoVxRnKanqIR44QwTvkYzd9sDZGtojU4s1C-c0ZHymlVQuSgsRtVR6aNPDjb-wjWpltCbcJnmDij2mgrwZ-jk0rVHi52dYI-Hh_eZ0_xy-v8eXb_EmsmcBenIi2TslA80QXHicJlAbqsSq251gJUkQx9yVRChU4VVCByoElQo6nAImMTdLflXfdFA6WGtnOqlmtnGuW-pFVG_p20ZikXdiMJJjRn-cBws2Nw9rMH38nGeA11rVoIHmW4w3OCWYoD9PofdGV71wZ_PyiRYIrzgCJblHbWewfVXg3BcshJ7nKSQ05yyCnsXB3a2G_8BsO-Aa2zktM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2807840209</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Role of perigastric arcade removal in serous epithelial ovarian cancers</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Kulkarni, Rohini Vinayak ; Mohapatra, Manoranjan ; Nayak, Bhagyalaxmi ; Samantaray, Sagarika ; Mohapatra, Janmejaya ; Parija, Jita ; Giri, Sushil Kumar</creator><creatorcontrib>Kulkarni, Rohini Vinayak ; Mohapatra, Manoranjan ; Nayak, Bhagyalaxmi ; Samantaray, Sagarika ; Mohapatra, Janmejaya ; Parija, Jita ; Giri, Sushil Kumar</creatorcontrib><description>Omentectomy is an essential part of cytoreductive surgery (CRS). However, removal of perigastric arcade (PGA) of the omentum is a controversial aspect of omentectomy in view of the fear of injury, vascular compromise and gastroparesis. Hence, we conducted a study to evaluate the necessity and effect of removal of PGA during omentectomy. The nature of the study was a prospective observational study. The study period was for 1 year between 1.3.2019 and 29.2.2020. Patients with stage III to IV serous epithelial ovarian cancers - chemo naive/post neoadjuvant chemotherapy, without macroscopic involvement of the PGA were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups - those who had PGA removed (group 1) and those whose PGA was preserved (group 2). Pre, intra and postoperative factors between the two groups were compared using standard statistical methods. Micrometastasis to PGA was present in 36.4% of the patients in group 1. The predictors for this involvement included gross involvement and microscopic involvement of the mobile part of the omentum ( &lt; 0.001), pre surgery Meyer's score ( &lt; 0.05) and requirement of peritonectomy ( &lt; 0.05) during the CRS implying that higher the peritoneal carcinomatosis, more are the chances of microscopic involvement of PGA. On comparing postoperative outcomes between the two groups, we noted a statistically significant difference in intra-operative time ( &lt; 0.01), prolonged recovery time with increased intensive care unit and hospital stay ( &lt; 0.001) in group 1, although all with small absolute difference. However, there was no significant difference in major post-operative complications or time taken to tolerate soft diet. Micrometastasis to PGA was noted in significant number of cases. Its removal is also a safe procedure with minimal morbidity and good postoperative outcomes especially in cases with significant peritoneal carcinomatosis. Hence, it should be considered, provided we are achieving a complete cytoreduction otherwise.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1754-6605</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1754-6605</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2023.1519</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37113727</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Cancer Intelligence</publisher><subject>Abdomen ; Alliances ; Appendectomy ; Gastric cancer ; Gynecology ; Hysterectomy ; Metastasis ; Oophorectomy ; Ovarian cancer ; Patients ; Regression analysis ; Software ; Surgery</subject><ispartof>Ecancermedicalscience, 2023, Vol.17, p.1519-1519</ispartof><rights>the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience.</rights><rights>the authors; licensee e cancermedicalscience. 2023. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>the authors; licensee cancermedicalscience. 2023</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2807840209/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2807840209?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,4024,25753,27923,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793,75126</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37113727$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kulkarni, Rohini Vinayak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohapatra, Manoranjan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nayak, Bhagyalaxmi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Samantaray, Sagarika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohapatra, Janmejaya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parija, Jita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giri, Sushil Kumar</creatorcontrib><title>Role of perigastric arcade removal in serous epithelial ovarian cancers</title><title>Ecancermedicalscience</title><addtitle>Ecancermedicalscience</addtitle><description>Omentectomy is an essential part of cytoreductive surgery (CRS). However, removal of perigastric arcade (PGA) of the omentum is a controversial aspect of omentectomy in view of the fear of injury, vascular compromise and gastroparesis. Hence, we conducted a study to evaluate the necessity and effect of removal of PGA during omentectomy. The nature of the study was a prospective observational study. The study period was for 1 year between 1.3.2019 and 29.2.2020. Patients with stage III to IV serous epithelial ovarian cancers - chemo naive/post neoadjuvant chemotherapy, without macroscopic involvement of the PGA were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups - those who had PGA removed (group 1) and those whose PGA was preserved (group 2). Pre, intra and postoperative factors between the two groups were compared using standard statistical methods. Micrometastasis to PGA was present in 36.4% of the patients in group 1. The predictors for this involvement included gross involvement and microscopic involvement of the mobile part of the omentum ( &lt; 0.001), pre surgery Meyer's score ( &lt; 0.05) and requirement of peritonectomy ( &lt; 0.05) during the CRS implying that higher the peritoneal carcinomatosis, more are the chances of microscopic involvement of PGA. On comparing postoperative outcomes between the two groups, we noted a statistically significant difference in intra-operative time ( &lt; 0.01), prolonged recovery time with increased intensive care unit and hospital stay ( &lt; 0.001) in group 1, although all with small absolute difference. However, there was no significant difference in major post-operative complications or time taken to tolerate soft diet. Micrometastasis to PGA was noted in significant number of cases. Its removal is also a safe procedure with minimal morbidity and good postoperative outcomes especially in cases with significant peritoneal carcinomatosis. Hence, it should be considered, provided we are achieving a complete cytoreduction otherwise.</description><subject>Abdomen</subject><subject>Alliances</subject><subject>Appendectomy</subject><subject>Gastric cancer</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Hysterectomy</subject><subject>Metastasis</subject><subject>Oophorectomy</subject><subject>Ovarian cancer</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><issn>1754-6605</issn><issn>1754-6605</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNpdUV1LwzAUDaK4Of0BvkjBF18689E26ZPI0CkIguhzSNPbLaNtZtIO_Pembo7p083NPffcczgIXRI8ZYzRW9Cq1eCmFFM2JSnJj9CY8DSJswynxwfvETrzfoVxRnKanqIR44QwTvkYzd9sDZGtojU4s1C-c0ZHymlVQuSgsRtVR6aNPDjb-wjWpltCbcJnmDij2mgrwZ-jk0rVHi52dYI-Hh_eZ0_xy-v8eXb_EmsmcBenIi2TslA80QXHicJlAbqsSq251gJUkQx9yVRChU4VVCByoElQo6nAImMTdLflXfdFA6WGtnOqlmtnGuW-pFVG_p20ZikXdiMJJjRn-cBws2Nw9rMH38nGeA11rVoIHmW4w3OCWYoD9PofdGV71wZ_PyiRYIrzgCJblHbWewfVXg3BcshJ7nKSQ05yyCnsXB3a2G_8BsO-Aa2zktM</recordid><startdate>2023</startdate><enddate>2023</enddate><creator>Kulkarni, Rohini Vinayak</creator><creator>Mohapatra, Manoranjan</creator><creator>Nayak, Bhagyalaxmi</creator><creator>Samantaray, Sagarika</creator><creator>Mohapatra, Janmejaya</creator><creator>Parija, Jita</creator><creator>Giri, Sushil Kumar</creator><general>Cancer Intelligence</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2023</creationdate><title>Role of perigastric arcade removal in serous epithelial ovarian cancers</title><author>Kulkarni, Rohini Vinayak ; Mohapatra, Manoranjan ; Nayak, Bhagyalaxmi ; Samantaray, Sagarika ; Mohapatra, Janmejaya ; Parija, Jita ; Giri, Sushil Kumar</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c380t-585d4dba74cb704a0dbecdfdcc7cc8eab4becdd3a428c5aefe89e24adec280863</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Abdomen</topic><topic>Alliances</topic><topic>Appendectomy</topic><topic>Gastric cancer</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Hysterectomy</topic><topic>Metastasis</topic><topic>Oophorectomy</topic><topic>Ovarian cancer</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kulkarni, Rohini Vinayak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohapatra, Manoranjan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nayak, Bhagyalaxmi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Samantaray, Sagarika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohapatra, Janmejaya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parija, Jita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giri, Sushil Kumar</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Ecancermedicalscience</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kulkarni, Rohini Vinayak</au><au>Mohapatra, Manoranjan</au><au>Nayak, Bhagyalaxmi</au><au>Samantaray, Sagarika</au><au>Mohapatra, Janmejaya</au><au>Parija, Jita</au><au>Giri, Sushil Kumar</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Role of perigastric arcade removal in serous epithelial ovarian cancers</atitle><jtitle>Ecancermedicalscience</jtitle><addtitle>Ecancermedicalscience</addtitle><date>2023</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>17</volume><spage>1519</spage><epage>1519</epage><pages>1519-1519</pages><issn>1754-6605</issn><eissn>1754-6605</eissn><abstract>Omentectomy is an essential part of cytoreductive surgery (CRS). However, removal of perigastric arcade (PGA) of the omentum is a controversial aspect of omentectomy in view of the fear of injury, vascular compromise and gastroparesis. Hence, we conducted a study to evaluate the necessity and effect of removal of PGA during omentectomy. The nature of the study was a prospective observational study. The study period was for 1 year between 1.3.2019 and 29.2.2020. Patients with stage III to IV serous epithelial ovarian cancers - chemo naive/post neoadjuvant chemotherapy, without macroscopic involvement of the PGA were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups - those who had PGA removed (group 1) and those whose PGA was preserved (group 2). Pre, intra and postoperative factors between the two groups were compared using standard statistical methods. Micrometastasis to PGA was present in 36.4% of the patients in group 1. The predictors for this involvement included gross involvement and microscopic involvement of the mobile part of the omentum ( &lt; 0.001), pre surgery Meyer's score ( &lt; 0.05) and requirement of peritonectomy ( &lt; 0.05) during the CRS implying that higher the peritoneal carcinomatosis, more are the chances of microscopic involvement of PGA. On comparing postoperative outcomes between the two groups, we noted a statistically significant difference in intra-operative time ( &lt; 0.01), prolonged recovery time with increased intensive care unit and hospital stay ( &lt; 0.001) in group 1, although all with small absolute difference. However, there was no significant difference in major post-operative complications or time taken to tolerate soft diet. Micrometastasis to PGA was noted in significant number of cases. Its removal is also a safe procedure with minimal morbidity and good postoperative outcomes especially in cases with significant peritoneal carcinomatosis. Hence, it should be considered, provided we are achieving a complete cytoreduction otherwise.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Cancer Intelligence</pub><pmid>37113727</pmid><doi>10.3332/ecancer.2023.1519</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1754-6605
ispartof Ecancermedicalscience, 2023, Vol.17, p.1519-1519
issn 1754-6605
1754-6605
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10129396
source Publicly Available Content Database; PubMed Central
subjects Abdomen
Alliances
Appendectomy
Gastric cancer
Gynecology
Hysterectomy
Metastasis
Oophorectomy
Ovarian cancer
Patients
Regression analysis
Software
Surgery
title Role of perigastric arcade removal in serous epithelial ovarian cancers
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T03%3A54%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Role%20of%20perigastric%20arcade%20removal%20in%20serous%20epithelial%20ovarian%20cancers&rft.jtitle=Ecancermedicalscience&rft.au=Kulkarni,%20Rohini%20Vinayak&rft.date=2023&rft.volume=17&rft.spage=1519&rft.epage=1519&rft.pages=1519-1519&rft.issn=1754-6605&rft.eissn=1754-6605&rft_id=info:doi/10.3332/ecancer.2023.1519&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2807910350%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c380t-585d4dba74cb704a0dbecdfdcc7cc8eab4becdd3a428c5aefe89e24adec280863%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2807840209&rft_id=info:pmid/37113727&rfr_iscdi=true