Minimally invasive compared with open surgery in patients with borderline ovarian tumors.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the surgical and oncological outcomes between laparoscopic (single-port or multi-port) and open surgery in the treatment of patients with borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs).

METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on 687 patients who underwent single-port laparoscopy (n=89), multi-port laparoscopy (n=223), or open surgery (n=375) due to BOTs.

RESULTS: The age, tumor size, tumor marker, and the proportions of radical surgery rate and surgical staging were significantly lower in the single-port laparoscopy and multi-port laparoscopy groups compared with those in the open surgery group (all P<0.001). The operative time, operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and perioperative complications were also significantly reduced in the two laparoscopic groups compared with those in the open surgery group (all P<0.001). However, there was no significant difference found between the groups with regard to histological type, pathologic stage, and postoperative residual tumor volume. After the median follow-up time of 41.8months, the recurrence-free survival and overall survival rates did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy (either the single-port or multi-port) was a preferred alternative to open surgery in the present cohort of BOT patients because it was associated with more favorable surgical outcomes, with no compromise in oncologic outcome.