What question did this study set out to answer?

The research aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of soft-tissue endoscopic surgery compared to conventional open surgery for vascular anomalies and benign tumors.

April 19, 2026SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología0 citationsOpen Access

Endoscopic versus open surgery for soft tissue vascular anomalies and benign tumors: a two-center propensity score-matched study

MLM M LiFourth People’s Hospital of Jinan HWHuaijie WangMedical Center Hospital ZGZhengtuan GuoMedical Center Hospital

Key Points

The research aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of soft-tissue endoscopic surgery compared to conventional open surgery for vascular anomalies and benign tumors.
Retrospective review of 414 patients undergoing endoscopic or open surgery
Propensity score matching to minimize bias and differences between groups
Comparison of treatment outcomes between the matched groups
Endoscopic surgery resulted in significantly lower estimated blood loss (20 mL vs. 50 mL)
Operative duration was longer for endoscopic surgery (223 minutes vs. 173 minutes)
No major complications were observed in either group
Higher incidence of focal skin burn in endoscopic surgery (statistically significant)
Significantly lower rates of wound dehiscence and flap necrosis in endoscopic surgery compared to open surgery.

Abstract

Background No large-scale study has compared the outcomes of soft-tissue endoscopic surgery (SOFTES) with conventional open surgery (OS) for vascular anomalies and benign soft tissue tumors. We aimed to compare the operative safety, efficacy, and outcomes of the two approaches for soft tissue lesions. Methods Patients ( n = 414) undergoing SOFTES or OS in two centers were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias and group differences. The treatment outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results After matching, 150 patients (SOFTES: 75; OS: 75) were included. Compared with the OS group, the estimated blood loss in the SOFTES group was significantly lower 20 mL (1-500) vs. 50 mL (5-600); p = 0.001; however, the operative duration was significantly longer 223 minutes (35-490) vs. 173 minutes (37-494); p = 0.008. Major complications were not observed. The incidence of focal burn of skin in the SOFTES group was higher than that in the OS group ( p = 0.048). The incidences of superficial peroneal nerve injury, postoperative bleeding, persistent lymph drainage, local sensory paralyses (5 cm 2 ), surgical site infection, hematoma/seroma, and residual mild pain were not significantly different between the two groups. However, the incidence of wound dehiscence n = 0 (0.00%) vs. n = 7 (9.33%); p = 0.010 and flap necrosis n = 1 (1.33%) vs. n = 11 (14.67%); p = 0.005 was significantly higher in the OS group than in the SOFTES group. Residual pain was cured or significantly improved. All patients achieved resolution of contracture had normal or near-normal joint motion. Conclusions Endoscopic surgery is a safe and effective treatment option for various vascular anomalies and benign soft tissue tumors in selected patients. This paradigm shift has many advantages in terms of clinical outcomes and reduces postoperative complications.

اسأل الذكاء الاصطناعي

Bookmark

View Full Paper