title: Second-look operation for epithelial ovarian cancer: laparoscopy or laparotomy?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the results, complications, and hospital charges associated with laparoscopy versus laparotomy in second-look operations for epithelial ovarian cancer.
  
  
  METHODS
  We conducted a retrospective chart review of 109 patients with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent a second-look operation between July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1995.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Thirty-one patients (28.4%) underwent laparoscopy, 70 patients (64.2%) underwent laparotomy, and eight patients (7.3%) underwent both procedures at the same operation. The majority of patients (60.6%) presented with stage IIIC disease. Persistent ovarian cancer was found in 65 of 109 (59.6%) patients, including 17 of 31 (54.8%) evaluated by laparoscopy, 43 of 70 (61.4%) by laparotomy, and five of eight (62.5%) by both procedures. Significantly lower mean blood loss was noted in patients undergoing laparoscopy (27 mL) compared with laparotomy (208 mL) (P < .01). In addition, the mean operating time for laparoscopy (129 minutes) was significantly shorter than that for laparotomy (153 minutes) (P < .01), and mean hospital stay was shorter for patients undergoing laparoscopy (1.6 days) compared with laparotomy (6.8 days) (P < .01). All intraoperative and immediate postoperative complications were noted in patients who underwent laparotomy. There was no difference in day of surgery charges between the two procedures; however, total hospital charges were significantly lower for patients undergoing laparoscopy ($ 9448) compared with laparotomy ($ 17,969) (P < .01). With a median follow-up of 22.0 months, recurrence after negative second-look surgery was noted in four of 27 (14.8%) patients evaluated by laparotomy and two of 14 (14.3%) patients evaluated by laparoscopy.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Laparoscopy may be an acceptable alternative to second-look laparotomy for interval evaluation of epithelial ovarian cancer. Second-look laparoscopy probably results in less morbidity, shorter operating time, shorter hospital stay, and lower total hospital charges. These results require confirmation in a randomized clinical trial.
authors.affiliation: Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
authors.forename: N R
authors.initials: NR
authors.lastname: Abu-Rustum
authors.forename: R R
authors.initials: RR
authors.lastname: Barakat
authors.forename: P L
authors.initials: PL
authors.lastname: Siegel
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Venkatraman
authors.forename: J P
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Curtin
authors.forename: W J
authors.initials: WJ
authors.lastname: Hoskins
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D016063:Blood Loss, Surgical; D005260:Female; D017722:Hospital Charges; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000191:economics; D007813:Laparotomy / Q000191:economics; D008875:Middle Aged; D010051:Ovarian Neoplasms / Q000191:economics / Q000601:surgery*; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D012086:Reoperation; D012189:Retrospective Studies