OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical outcomes and cost of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) versus robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in early stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study, comparing perioperative outcomes and costs of RSSH and RMPH in early stage endometrial cancer patients. RSSH were matched 1:2 according to age, body mass index, comorbidity, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetric (FIGO) stage, type of radical surgery, histologic type, and grading. Mean hospital cost per discharge was calculated summarizing the cost of daily hospital room charges, operating room, cost of supplies and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 23 women who underwent RSSH were matched with 46 historic controls treated by RMPH in the same institute, with the same surgical team. No significant differences were found in terms of age, histologic type, stage, and grading. Operative time was similar: 102.5 minutes in RMPH and 110 in RSSH (p=0.889). Blood loss was lower in RSSH than in RMPH (respectively, 50 mL vs. 100 mL, p=0.001). Hospital stay was 3 days in RMPH and 2 days in RSSH (p=0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred in both groups. Early postoperative complications were 2.2% in RMPH and 4.3% in RSSH. Overall cost was higher in RMPH than in RSSH (respectively, $7,772.15 vs. $5,181.06). CONCLUSION: Our retrospective study suggests the safety and feasibility of RSSH for staging early endometrial cancer without major differences from the RMPH in terms of surgical outcomes, but with lower hospital costs. Certainly, further studies are eagerly warranted to confirm our findings.
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Case-Control Studies ; Endometrial Neoplasms/economics/*surgery ; Female ; Health Care Costs ; Humans ; Hysterectomy/adverse effects/*methods ; Middle Aged ; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects/economics/*methods

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical outcomes and cost of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) versus robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in early stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study, comparing perioperative outcomes and costs of RSSH and RMPH in early stage endometrial cancer patients. RSSH were matched 1:2 according to age, body mass index, comorbidity, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetric (FIGO) stage, type of radical surgery, histologic type, and grading. Mean hospital cost per discharge was calculated summarizing the cost of daily hospital room charges, operating room, cost of supplies and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 23 women who underwent RSSH were matched with 46 historic controls treated by RMPH in the same institute, with the same surgical team. No significant differences were found in terms of age, histologic type, stage, and grading. Operative time was similar: 102.5 minutes in RMPH and 110 in RSSH (p=0.889). Blood loss was lower in RSSH than in RMPH (respectively, 50 mL vs. 100 mL, p=0.001). Hospital stay was 3 days in RMPH and 2 days in RSSH (p=0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred in both groups. Early postoperative complications were 2.2% in RMPH and 4.3% in RSSH. Overall cost was higher in RMPH than in RSSH (respectively, $7,772.15 vs. $5,181.06). CONCLUSION: Our retrospective study suggests the safety and feasibility of RSSH for staging early endometrial cancer without major differences from the RMPH in terms of surgical outcomes, but with lower hospital costs. Certainly, further studies are eagerly warranted to confirm our findings.
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Case-Control Studies ; Endometrial Neoplasms/economics/*surgery ; Female ; Health Care Costs ; Humans ; Hysterectomy/adverse effects/*methods ; Middle Aged ; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects/economics/*methods

OBJECTIVE: To investigate survival outcomes in endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) patients with single vs. multiple positive pelvic lymph nodes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective evaluation of all consecutive patients with histologically proven International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC1 EEC who underwent primary surgical treatment between 2004 and 2014 at seven Italian gynecologic oncology referral centers. Patients with pre- or intra-operative evidence of extra-uterine disease (including the presence of bulky nodes) and patients with stage IIIC2 disease were excluded, in order to obtain a homogeneous population. RESULTS: Overall 140 patients met the inclusion criteria. The presence of >1 metastatic pelvic node was significantly associated with an increased risk of recurrence and mortality, compared to only 1 metastatic node, at both univariate (recurrence: hazard ratio [HR]=2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.2–3.99; p=0.01; mortality: HR=2.8; 95% CI=1.24–6.29; p=0.01) and multivariable analysis (recurrence: HR=1.91; 95% CI=1.02–3.56; p=0.04; mortality: HR=2.62; 95% CI=1.13–6.05; p=0.02) and it was the only independent predictor of prognosis in this subset of patients. Disease-free survival (DFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were significantly longer in patients with only 1 metastatic node compared to those with more than 1 metastatic node (p=0.008 and 0.009, respectively). CONCLUSION: The presence of multiple metastatic nodes in stage IIIC1 EEC represents an independent predictor of worse survival, compared to only one positive node. Our data suggest that EEC patients may be categorized according to the number of positive nodes.
Disease-Free Survival ; Endometrial Neoplasms* ; European Union ; Female ; Gynecology ; Humans ; Lymph Node Excision ; Lymph Nodes ; Mortality ; Obstetrics ; Prognosis ; Recurrence ; Referral and Consultation ; Retrospective Studies

The aim of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (Società Italiana Unitaria di Colon-Proctologia, SIUCP) on the diagnosis and management of hemorrhoidal disease, with the goal of guiding physicians in the choice of the best treatment option. A panel of experts was charged by the Board of the SIUCP to develop key questions on the main topics related to the management of hemorrhoidal disease and to perform an accurate and comprehensive literature search on each topic, in order to provide evidence-based answers to the questions and to summarize them in statements. All the clinical questions were discussed by the expert panel in multiple rounds through the Delphi approach and, for each statement, a consensus among the experts was reached. The questions were created according to PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) criteria, and the statements were developed adopting the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology. In cases of grade 1 hemorrhoidal prolapse, outpatient procedures including hemorrhoidal laser procedure and sclerotherapy may be considered the preferred surgical options. For grade 2 prolapse, nonexcisional procedures including outpatient treatments, hemorrhoidal artery ligation and mucopexy, laser hemorrhoidoplasty, the Rafaelo procedure, and stapled hemorrhoidopexy may represent the first-line treatment options, whereas excisional surgery may be considered in selected cases. In cases of grades 3 and 4, stapled hemorrhoidopexy and hemorrhoidectomy may represent the most effective procedures, even if, in the expert panel opinion, stapled hemorrhoidopexy represents the gold-standard treatment for grade 3 hemorrhoidal prolapse.

The aim of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (Società Italiana Unitaria di Colon-Proctologia, SIUCP) on the diagnosis and management of hemorrhoidal disease, with the goal of guiding physicians in the choice of the best treatment option. A panel of experts was charged by the Board of the SIUCP to develop key questions on the main topics related to the management of hemorrhoidal disease and to perform an accurate and comprehensive literature search on each topic, in order to provide evidence-based answers to the questions and to summarize them in statements. All the clinical questions were discussed by the expert panel in multiple rounds through the Delphi approach and, for each statement, a consensus among the experts was reached. The questions were created according to PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) criteria, and the statements were developed adopting the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology. In cases of grade 1 hemorrhoidal prolapse, outpatient procedures including hemorrhoidal laser procedure and sclerotherapy may be considered the preferred surgical options. For grade 2 prolapse, nonexcisional procedures including outpatient treatments, hemorrhoidal artery ligation and mucopexy, laser hemorrhoidoplasty, the Rafaelo procedure, and stapled hemorrhoidopexy may represent the first-line treatment options, whereas excisional surgery may be considered in selected cases. In cases of grades 3 and 4, stapled hemorrhoidopexy and hemorrhoidectomy may represent the most effective procedures, even if, in the expert panel opinion, stapled hemorrhoidopexy represents the gold-standard treatment for grade 3 hemorrhoidal prolapse.

The aim of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (Società Italiana Unitaria di Colon-Proctologia, SIUCP) on the diagnosis and management of hemorrhoidal disease, with the goal of guiding physicians in the choice of the best treatment option. A panel of experts was charged by the Board of the SIUCP to develop key questions on the main topics related to the management of hemorrhoidal disease and to perform an accurate and comprehensive literature search on each topic, in order to provide evidence-based answers to the questions and to summarize them in statements. All the clinical questions were discussed by the expert panel in multiple rounds through the Delphi approach and, for each statement, a consensus among the experts was reached. The questions were created according to PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) criteria, and the statements were developed adopting the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology. In cases of grade 1 hemorrhoidal prolapse, outpatient procedures including hemorrhoidal laser procedure and sclerotherapy may be considered the preferred surgical options. For grade 2 prolapse, nonexcisional procedures including outpatient treatments, hemorrhoidal artery ligation and mucopexy, laser hemorrhoidoplasty, the Rafaelo procedure, and stapled hemorrhoidopexy may represent the first-line treatment options, whereas excisional surgery may be considered in selected cases. In cases of grades 3 and 4, stapled hemorrhoidopexy and hemorrhoidectomy may represent the most effective procedures, even if, in the expert panel opinion, stapled hemorrhoidopexy represents the gold-standard treatment for grade 3 hemorrhoidal prolapse.

The aim of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (Società Italiana Unitaria di Colon-Proctologia, SIUCP) on the diagnosis and management of hemorrhoidal disease, with the goal of guiding physicians in the choice of the best treatment option. A panel of experts was charged by the Board of the SIUCP to develop key questions on the main topics related to the management of hemorrhoidal disease and to perform an accurate and comprehensive literature search on each topic, in order to provide evidence-based answers to the questions and to summarize them in statements. All the clinical questions were discussed by the expert panel in multiple rounds through the Delphi approach and, for each statement, a consensus among the experts was reached. The questions were created according to PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) criteria, and the statements were developed adopting the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology. In cases of grade 1 hemorrhoidal prolapse, outpatient procedures including hemorrhoidal laser procedure and sclerotherapy may be considered the preferred surgical options. For grade 2 prolapse, nonexcisional procedures including outpatient treatments, hemorrhoidal artery ligation and mucopexy, laser hemorrhoidoplasty, the Rafaelo procedure, and stapled hemorrhoidopexy may represent the first-line treatment options, whereas excisional surgery may be considered in selected cases. In cases of grades 3 and 4, stapled hemorrhoidopexy and hemorrhoidectomy may represent the most effective procedures, even if, in the expert panel opinion, stapled hemorrhoidopexy represents the gold-standard treatment for grade 3 hemorrhoidal prolapse.