ObjectivesNeoadjuvant chemotherapy may be considered for women with epithelial ovarian cancer who have poor performance status or a disease burden not amenable to primary cytoreductive surgery. Overlap exists between indications for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and known risk factors for venous thromboembolism, including impaired mobility, increasing age, and advanced malignancy. The objective of this study was to determine the rate of venous thromboembolism among women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer.MethodsA multi-institutional, observational study of patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer was conducted. Primary outcome was rate of venous thromboembolism during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Secondary outcomes included rates of venous thromboembolism at other stages of treatment (diagnosis, following interval debulking surgery, during adjuvant chemotherapy, or during treatment for recurrence) and associations between occurrence of venous thromboembolism during neoadjuvant chemotherapy, subject characteristics, and interval debulking outcomes. Venous thromboembolism was defined as deep vein thrombosis in the upper or lower extremities or in association with peripherally inserted central catheters or ports, pulmonary embolism, or concurrent deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Both symptomatic and asymptomatic venous thromboembolism were reported.ResultsA total of 230 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included; 63 (27%) patients overall experienced a venous thromboembolism. The primary outcome of venous thromboembolism during neoadjuvant chemotherapy occurred in 16 (7.7%) patients. Of the remaining venous thromboembolism events, 22 were at diagnosis (9.6%), six post-operatively (3%), five during adjuvant chemotherapy (3%), and 14 during treatment for recurrence (12%). Patients experiencing a venous thromboembolism during neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a longer mean time to interval debulking and were less likely to undergo optimal cytoreduction (50% vs 80.2%, p=0.02).ConclusionsPatients with advanced ovarian cancer are at high risk for venous thromboembolism while receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Consideration of thromboprophylaxis may be warranted.
BackgroundIn this study, we aim to compare outcomes after cystotomy repair between standard sutures (910 polyglactin, poliglecaprone) versus barbed (V-Loc™ 90) suture. As a secondary outcome, we analyzed risk factors for suture preference between the two groups.
MethodsA retrospective chart review was undertaken for surgeries complicated by cystotomy, identi ed by ICD-9/10 codes from 2016 to 2019 at West Virginia University (WVU) Hospital. Comparisons were made between cystotomy repair using barbed suture versus standard braided suture. Injuries were categorized by procedure, surgeon specialty, surgical route, type of suture used in repair, and subsequent complications related to repair. Primary endpoints were examined by Pearson's Chi-square test and interval data by t-test. A p < .05 was signi cant.
ResultsSixty-eight patients were identi ed with iatrogenic cystotomy at WVU. Barbed suture was used for cystotomy repair in 11/68 (16.2%) patients. No signi cant difference was seen in postoperative outcomes between patients repaired with barbed suture versus standard braided suture. Barbed suture was signi cantly more likely to be used for cystotomy repair in minimally invasive surgery (p = 0.001). It was most often utilized in a robotic approach 7/11 (63.6%) followed by laparoscopic 3/11 (27.3%). Body mass index (BMI) was signi cantly higher in patients receiving a barbed suture repair (p = .005).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.