IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i6p936-d214139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predictors of Lymphoceles in Women Who Underwent Laparotomic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Early Gynecologic Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Author

Listed:
  • Hui-Hua Chen

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, Banqiao, New Taipei 220, Taiwan
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Wan-Hua Ting

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, Banqiao, New Taipei 220, Taiwan
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Ho-Hsiung Lin

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, Banqiao, New Taipei 220, Taiwan
    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Taiwan University College of Medicine and the Hospital, Taipei 100, Taiwan)

  • Sheng-Mou Hsiao

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, Banqiao, New Taipei 220, Taiwan
    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Taiwan University College of Medicine and the Hospital, Taipei 100, Taiwan
    Graduate School of Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Yuan Ze University, Taoyuan 320, Taiwan)

Abstract

Background: Lymphoceles could represent a detrimental complication after retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Our aim was to elucidate predictors of lymphoceles. Methods: Between 2011 and 2017, medical records of consecutive women who underwent laparotomic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for FIGO stage I or II gynecologic cancer were reviewed. Results: A total of 204 women, including those with lymphoceles (n = 31) and symptomatic lymphoceles (n = 7), were reviewed. According to multivariable analysis, parity (odds ratio = 0.59, p = 0.003), adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy (odds ratio = 2.60, p = 0.039), and peritoneal nonclosure without pelvic drainage (odds ratio = 2.31, p = 0.048) were predictors of lymphoceles. In addition, parity (odds ratio = 0.73, p = 0.03), hypertension (odds ratio = 2.62, p = 0.02), and peritoneal partial closure with pelvic drainage (odds ratio = 0.27, p = 0.02) were predictors of complications. Conclusion: Low parity, adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy, and peritoneal nonclosure without pelvic drainage were associated with increased lymphocele formation. In addition, a lower complication rate was found in the peritoneal partial closure with pelvic drainage group; thus, peritoneal partial closure with pelvic drainage might be suggested for women who undergo laparotomic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection.

Suggested Citation

  • Hui-Hua Chen & Wan-Hua Ting & Ho-Hsiung Lin & Sheng-Mou Hsiao, 2019. "Predictors of Lymphoceles in Women Who Underwent Laparotomic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Early Gynecologic Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-11, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:6:p:936-:d:214139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/6/936/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/6/936/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:6:p:936-:d:214139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.