Shiho Tsumura

Reconstruction of the diaphragm with autologous fascia lata during cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian cancer

Cytoreductive surgery for patients with advanced ovarian cancer often requires full-thickness resection of the diaphragm [1]. In most cases, the diaphragm can be closed directly; however, when the defect is wide and simple closure is difficult, reconstruction using a synthetic mesh is usually performed [2]. However, the use of this type of mesh is contraindicated in the presence of concomitant intestinal resections because of the risk of bacterial contamination [3]. Autologous tissue shows a higher resistance to infection than artificial materials [4]; thus, we introduce diaphragm reconstruction using autologous fascia lata during cytoreduction for advanced ovarian cancer. A patient with advanced ovarian cancer underwent right diaphragmatic full-thickness resection with concomitant resection of the rectosigmoid colon, and complete resection was achieved. The defect of the right diaphragm measured 12×8 cm, and direct closure was impossible. A section of the right fascia lata measuring 10×5 cm was harvested and sutured to the diaphragmatic defect with a 2-0 proline continuous suture. The harvesting of the fascia lata required only 20 minutes, with little blood loss. No intraoperative or postoperative complications were experienced, and adjuvant chemotherapy was initiated without any delay. Diaphragm reconstruction with the fascia lata is a safe and simple method, and we propose this reconstruction technique especially for patients with advanced ovarian cancer who undergo concomitant intestinal resections. The informed consent for use of this video was taken from the patient.

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and the importance of avoiding cancer cell spillage for early-stage cervical cancer: a narrative review

Radical hysterectomy is a standard surgery to treat early-stage uterine cervical cancer. The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial has shown that patients receiving minimally invasive radical hysterectomy have a poorer prognosis than those receiving open radical hysterectomy; however, the reason for this remains unclear. The LACC trial had 2 concerns: the learning curve and the procedural effects. Appropriate management of the learning curve effect, including surgeons' skills, is required to correctly interpret the result of surgical randomized controlled trials. Whether the LACC trial managed the learning curve effect remains controversial, based on the surgeons' inclusion criteria and the distribution of institutions with recurrent cases. An appropriate surgical procedure is also needed, and avoiding intraoperative cancer cell spillage plays an important role during cancer surgery. Cancer cell spillage during minimally invasive surgery to treat cervical cancer is caused by several factors, including 1) exposure of tumor, 2) the use of a uterine manipulator, and 3) direct handling of the uterine cervix. Unfortunately, these issues were not addressed by the LACC trial. We evaluated the results of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy while avoiding cancer cell spillage for early-stage cervical cancer. Our findings show that avoiding cancer cell spillage during minimally invasive radical hysterectomy may ensure an equivalent oncologic outcome, comparable to that of open radical hysterectomy. Therefore, evaluating the importance of avoiding cancer cell spillage during minimally invasive surgery with a better control of the learning curve and procedural effects is needed.