The aim of this review is to summarize the available evidence on the use and benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the management of ovarian masses and early-stage ovarian cancer.

MIS did not negatively impact survival outcomes or increase perioperative complication rates in patients with early-stage ovarian cancer compared to open surgery, while providing the inherent benefits associated with this surgical approach. Regarding the type of MIS, both laparoscopic and robotic approaches can be used in well selected patients at specialized centers.

MIS appears to be a feasible and well tolerated surgical option for the evaluation of ovarian masses and for the comprehensive staging of early-stage ovarian cancer patients. Compared to open surgery, MIS offers several advantages, including significantly reduced blood loss, a lower need for transfusion, shorter hospital stays and faster postoperative recovery, without compromising surgical results. Furthermore, extensive retrospective studies have shown comparable survival outcomes between both approaches. However, high-quality evidence from randomized clinical trials is still needed to establish definitive conclusions and draw international recommendations.

This study aimed to evaluate the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for patients with benign tumors who underwent laparoscopic surgery at our facility and were subsequently diagnosed with borderline ovarian tumors or ovarian cancer.

We conducted a retrospective review of 45 patients initially diagnosed with benign ovarian tumors who underwent laparoscopic surgery at our institution from January 2009 to April 2024.

Postoperative pathological examination identified 32 cases of borderline ovarian tumors and 13 cases of ovarian cancer. Laparoscopic cystectomy was performed in 14 (43.8%) borderline cases and 4 (30.8%) ovarian cancer cases. Out of 14 patients with borderline ovarian tumors who underwent cystectomy, 8 subsequently underwent staging laparotomy, whereas 6 underwent only ovarian tumor cystectomy. In contrast, none of the patients with ovarian cancer completed treatment with only ovarian tumor cystectomy. Recurrent disease was observed in 9.4% of borderline tumor cases, all of which were successfully managed with further surgery. In the ovarian cancer group, recurrence occurred in 31% of patients, with 3 resulting in tumor-related mortality.

Laparoscopic surgery for borderline ovarian tumors is suggested to be oncologically safe, with low recurrence rate and no adverse impact on survival. However, for ovarian cancer, particularly in cases with peritoneal dissemination, rapid disease progression remains a concern. While this study suggests that laparoscopic surgery may be a viable option for borderline ovarian tumors, further research is needed to validate these findings, particularly for ovarian cancer.

Postoperative wound recovery following laparotomy for port-site metastasis (PSM) resection is a concern. Reports indicate that wound healing disorders occur in patients with PSM. The challenges associated with PSM resection include the complete removal of the lesion, ensuring rapid wound healing, and maintaining the integrity of the abdominal wall. To date, there have been no reports on a minimally invasive approach for PSM resection following ovarian cancer through the inner side of the abdominal wall.

A 66-year-old G2P1 patient with a history of high-grade serous ovarian adenocarcinoma IIA presented with two abdominal wall masses, suspected to be PSM. She underwent laparoscopic resection of the lesions under general anesthesia. The excised masses measured approximately 10 cm and 5 cm, and margins were negative. The surgery lasted 1 hour and 33 minutes, with minimal intraoperative bleeding and no complications. The postoperative recovery was smooth. No recurrence was observed during the 12-month follow-up.

In our view, laparoscopy may be used as a minimally invasive technique that allows for PSM in the abdominal wall.

Ovarian cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors in female reproductive system in the world, and the choice of its treatment is very important for the survival rate and prognosis of patients. Traditional open surgery is the main treatment for ovarian cancer, but it has the disadvantages of big trauma and slow recovery. With the continuous development of minimally invasive technology, minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia has been gradually applied to the treatment of ovarian cancer because of its advantages of less trauma and quick recovery. However, the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia in the treatment of ovarian cancer are still controversial.

To explore the efficacy and safety of general anesthesia minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of ovarian cancer.

The clinical data of 90 patients with early ovarian cancer in our hospital were analyzed retrospectively. According to the different surgical treatment methods, patients were divided into study group and control group (45 cases in each group). The study group received minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia for ovarian cancer, while the control group received traditional open surgery for ovarian cancer. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), clinical efficacy and safety of the two groups were compared.

The intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, postoperative gas evacuation time, and postoperative EORTC QLQ-C30 score of the study group were significantly better than those of the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in the study group was significantly lower than in the control group (P < 0.05). The two groups had no significant differences in the preoperative adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), androstenedione (AD), cortisol (Cor), cluster of differentiation 3 positive (CD3+), and cluster of differentiation 4 positive (CD4+) indexes (P > 0.05). In contrast, postoperatively, the study group's ACTH, AD, and Cor indexes were lower, and the CD3+ and CD4+ indexes were higher than those in the control group (P < 0.05).

Minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia in patients with early ovarian cancer can significantly improve the efficacy and safety, improve the short-term prognosis and quality of life of patients, and is worth popularizing.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is women's fourth most common oncological cause of death. One of the main prognostic factors in ovarian cancer is the tumor stage. For instance, surgical staging of the disease is focal when choosing the best therapeutic option for each case. Although open surgery is the prevalent approach for staging and treating ovarian cancer, the use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has found recent application in staging or restaging cases of early disease. Our work compares oncological outcomes after MIS staging for FIGO I epithelial ovarian cancer with the laparotomic approach. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations, we systematically searched the Pub Med and Scopus databases in February 2023. No temporal nor geographical limitation was made. We included the articles containing data about Disease-Free Survival (DFS) and Overall Survival (OS), Recurrence Rates (RR), and Upstaging Rates (UpR). We used comparative studies for the meta-analysis. After the database search and article selection, 19 works matched the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Eleven of these were comparative studies between MIS and Open Surgical Staging (OSS) approaches for ovarian cancer staging and were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis did not show a statistically significant difference between the MIS and the OSS group concerning DFS, OS, and RR. Only Upstaging Rate ≥ FIGO Stage II was statistically significative higher in the OSS group. Likewise, MIS is confirmed to be an approach with a lower profile of surgical complications. In conclusion, our study did not show one approach to be safer than the other. However, the lack of dedicated studies limits the evidence of our study. For instance, we recommend adequately selecting the specimen, minimizing the risk of spillage, and optimizing surgical staging.

The original meta-analysis of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is already outdated, owing to the latest trial results. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy and adverse events of cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC compared to conventional therapy for advanced and platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (OC).

In this meta-analysis, phase II/III controlled trials regarding 'HIPEC' and 'ovarian cancer' were searched for in electronic databases from inception to March 2022.

Twenty-one studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. The pooled hazard ratio [HR] in the HIPEC group for progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45-0.83, p = .002) and overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.51-0.82, p < .001) were improved in the HIPEC group compared with the non-HIPEC group. For primary advanced disease, OS and PFS were significantly increased in patients receiving interval debulking surgery + HIPEC, whereas PFS was not significantly different between primary debulking surgery (PDS) + HIPEC and PDS alone. For platinum-sensitive recurrent disease, no correlation was observed for PFS and OS between the HIPEC and non-HIPEC groups (p < .05). The incidence of procedure-related complications was higher in the HIPEC group than in the non-HIPEC group (odds ratio = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.24-3.01, p < .01). The morbidity of leukopenia, neutropenia, nausea, hypoalbuminemia, and grades III-IV electrolyte disturbance was higher in the HIPEC group than in the non-HIPEC group. However, HIPEC administration reduced the risk of intra-abdominal bleeding and constipation.

HIPEC-based regimens improved the clinical prognosis for primary advanced OC, whereas no significant value was elicited for recurrent OC.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic staging (RALS) is increasingly used for staging epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Evidence of its safety is limited. The aim of this review is to compare the efficacy and safety of RALS in clinical early-stage EOC to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy and to assess the level of evidence that is currently available to adopt this surgical technique.

Only retrospective studies comparing staging by minimally invasive surgery (MIS) to laparotomy are available. Both RALS and conventional laparoscopic staging shorten length of hospital stay (LHS, mean -2.9 days) and decrease estimated blood loss (EBL, mean -79 ml less) compared to laparotomy. Complication rates and number of lymph nodes collected are similar in all surgical staging techniques. Survival outcomes after staging by MIS cannot be compared to staging by laparotomy because of the lack of evidence but RALS is probably noninferior to conventional laparoscopic staging.

RALS probably improves perioperative outcomes in patients with clinical early stage EOC similar to conventional laparoscopic staging. Whether oncologic outcomes of RALS are comparable to open and conventional approaches is uncertain as there is only level C evidence and randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to confirm the current retrospective findings.

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) play crucial roles in cancer progression. Our previous study demonstrated that NIN1/RPN12 binding protein 1 homolog (NOB1) was a functional regulator in the progression of ovarian cancer (OC). However, the role of miRNA-612 (miR-612) in OC has not been elucidated. In this study, we aimed to investigate the regulatory mechanism of NOB1 targeting miRNA, miR-612, in OC tumorigenicity. The miR-612 expression was down-regulated in OC patient tissues and four OC cell lines (Caov3, A2780, SKOV3 and OVCAR3). The miR-612 level was negatively correlated with NOB1 expression, and dual-luciferase reporter assay indicated that miR-612 suppressed NOB1 expression by targeting the 3'UTR of NOB1 transcript. Up-regulation of miR-612 mediated by lentiviral transduction suppressed cell proliferation, colony formation, migration, invasion, and induced apoptosis in OC cell lines. In addition, miR-612 overexpression inhibited tumor growth of OC in vivo by sequestering NOB1 expression. In conclusion, our results suggested that miR-612 directly targeted NOB1 to suppress OC progression. Therefore, the miR-612-NOB1 axis could serve as therapeutic targets for OC.

Almost all gynecological and general-surgical operations are - or can be - performed laparoscopically. In comparison to an abdominal approach, the minimally invasive access offers several advantages; however, laparoscopy (both conventional and robotic-assisted) can be associated with a number of approach-specific complications. Although the majority of them are related to the laparoscopic entry, adverse events may also occur due to the presence of pneumoperitoneum or the use of laparoscopic instruments. Unfortunately, a high proportion of complications (especially affecting the bowel and ureter) remain unrecognized during surgery. This narrative review provides comprehensive up-to-date information about definitions, classifications, risk factors and incidence of surgical complications in conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopy, with a special focus on gynecology. The topic is discussed from various perspectives, e.g. in the context of stage of surgery, injured organs, involved instruments, and in relation to malpractice claims.