Minimally invasive surgical staging in early-stage ovarian carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Few studies investigated the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (eEOC). In this context, we aimed to review the current evidence comparing laparoscopy and the laparotomic approach for staging procedures in eEOC. This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Overall, 3065 patients were included: 1450 undergoing laparoscopy and 1615 undergoing laparotomic staging. Patients undergoing laparoscopy experienced a longer (but not statistically significant) operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 28.3 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.59 to 59.2), a lower estimated blood loss (WMD = −156.5 mL; 95% CI, −216.4 to −96.5), a shorter length of hospital stay (WMD = −3.7 days; 95% CI, −5.2 to −2.1), and a lower postoperative complication rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29–0.81) than patients undergoing laparotomy. The upstaging (OR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.55–1.20) and cyst rupture (OR = 1.32; 95% CI, 0.52–3.38) rates were similar between groups. Laparoscopic staging is associated with a shorter time to chemotherapy than laparotomic procedures (WMD = −5.16 days; 95% CI, −8.68 to −1.64). Survival outcomes were not influenced by the route of surgery. Pooled data suggested that the minimally invasive surgical approach is equivalent to laparotomy for the treatment of eEOC and may be superior in terms of perioperative outcomes. However, because of the low level of evidence of the included studies, further randomized trials are warranted