Pregnancy outcome and recurrence after conservative laparoscopic surgery for borderline ovarian tumors

32Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of conservative laparoscopic management of borderline ovarian tumors, and to assess pregnancy outcome and recurrence after fertility-sparing surgery. Methods. From 1995 to 2005, 43 patients of reproductive age presented with adnexal mass, which was subsequently diagnosed as a borderline tumor of the ovary. These patients were treated by conservative laparoscopic surgery, with intraoperative staging of the disease. Patients were evaluated every 3 months for the first 2 years, and then every 6 months thereafter, to determine the best modality for following patients after conservative surgery. Results. Three (7%) patients developed a recurrence after conservative treatment. Among the 43 patients who had conservative surgery, 21 (49%) became pregnant during the follow-up period; 12 (57%) conceived spontaneously, and the remaining 9 (43%) patients underwent caesarean section. Conclusions. In our opinion, conservative laparoscopic treatment of borderline ovarian tumors is an appropriate and reasonable therapeutic option for young women with low-stage disease who wish to preserve their childbearing potential, because the fertility results are encouraging. Recurrence can be noted after this type of treatment, but the cases of recurrent disease can be detected with close follow-up and treated accordingly. Careful selection of candidates for this kind of treatment is, of course, necessary, and close follow-up is required. © 2007 Taylor & Francis.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tinelli, F. G., Tinelli, R., La Grotta, F., Tinelli, A., Cicinelli, E., & Schönauer, M. M. (2007). Pregnancy outcome and recurrence after conservative laparoscopic surgery for borderline ovarian tumors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 86(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016340600994596

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free