A Comparative Evaluation of Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy and Laparoscopic Supracervical Hysterectomy for Benign Uterine Diseases

Q4 Medicine
A. Kriplani, P. Garg, K. Khoiwal
{"title":"A Comparative Evaluation of Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy and Laparoscopic Supracervical Hysterectomy for Benign Uterine Diseases","authors":"A. Kriplani, P. Garg, K. Khoiwal","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1442","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ab s t r Ac t Background: Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) is a minimally invasive alternative to total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH), which is a common procedure in developed countries. The study aimed to evaluate the safety (risks vs benefits) of LSH in the Indian scenario when compared with TLH in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcome measures. Furthermore, quality of life (bladder, bowel, and sexual functions) was also evaluated. Materials and methods: A prospective randomized study among 30 patients with benign uterine pathology for hysterectomy was included in the study. Patients were divided randomly into LSH (n = 15) and TLH (n = 15) groups. Intraoperative outcome measures, such as operation time, blood loss, and visceral injuries were noted. Postoperative outcome measures included absolute change in hemoglobin (Hb), duration of hospital stay, pain, urinary complaints (retention, dysuria), and bladder, bowel and sexual functions for 6 months. Results: Demographic data were comparable in both groups. The operating time and blood loss were more in LSH than TLH group, (p = 0.29 and 0.37). The absolute change in hemoglobin was more in LSH group than TLH group (p = 0.001). Postoperative pain was indifferent in both the groups on postoperative day 0 and day 7 but it was significantly less in LSH group on day 1 (p = 0.03). Duration of hospital stay was similar in both groups. No patient required readmission. Patients in TLH group took a lesser number of days to return to routine activity compared to LSH group. The postoperative bladder, bowel, and sexual functions were comparable. The incidence of post-LSH vaginal bleeding was 13.3%. No vault prolapse was noted at the end of 6 months follow-up. Conclusion: Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy is safe and efficacious as TLH for benign uterine pathologies but has no extra benefits rather is associated with a persistent risk of developing cervical diseases and malignancy.","PeriodicalId":38741,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1442","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ab s t r Ac t Background: Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) is a minimally invasive alternative to total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH), which is a common procedure in developed countries. The study aimed to evaluate the safety (risks vs benefits) of LSH in the Indian scenario when compared with TLH in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcome measures. Furthermore, quality of life (bladder, bowel, and sexual functions) was also evaluated. Materials and methods: A prospective randomized study among 30 patients with benign uterine pathology for hysterectomy was included in the study. Patients were divided randomly into LSH (n = 15) and TLH (n = 15) groups. Intraoperative outcome measures, such as operation time, blood loss, and visceral injuries were noted. Postoperative outcome measures included absolute change in hemoglobin (Hb), duration of hospital stay, pain, urinary complaints (retention, dysuria), and bladder, bowel and sexual functions for 6 months. Results: Demographic data were comparable in both groups. The operating time and blood loss were more in LSH than TLH group, (p = 0.29 and 0.37). The absolute change in hemoglobin was more in LSH group than TLH group (p = 0.001). Postoperative pain was indifferent in both the groups on postoperative day 0 and day 7 but it was significantly less in LSH group on day 1 (p = 0.03). Duration of hospital stay was similar in both groups. No patient required readmission. Patients in TLH group took a lesser number of days to return to routine activity compared to LSH group. The postoperative bladder, bowel, and sexual functions were comparable. The incidence of post-LSH vaginal bleeding was 13.3%. No vault prolapse was noted at the end of 6 months follow-up. Conclusion: Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy is safe and efficacious as TLH for benign uterine pathologies but has no extra benefits rather is associated with a persistent risk of developing cervical diseases and malignancy.
全腹腔镜子宫切除术与腹腔镜颈上子宫切除术治疗良性子宫疾病的比较评价
背景:腹腔镜宫颈上子宫切除术(LSH)是腹腔镜全子宫切除术(TLH)的一种微创替代方法,TLH在发达国家是一种常见的手术。该研究旨在评估在印度情况下LSH与TLH在术中和术后结果测量方面的安全性(风险与益处)。此外,生活质量(膀胱、肠道和性功能)也被评估。材料与方法:选取30例子宫良性病变行子宫切除术的患者作为前瞻性随机研究对象。患者随机分为LSH组(n = 15)和TLH组(n = 15)。记录术中结果指标,如手术时间、出血量和内脏损伤。术后结局指标包括6个月血红蛋白(Hb)的绝对变化、住院时间、疼痛、尿潴留、排尿困难、膀胱、肠道和性功能。结果:两组人口统计学数据具有可比性。LSH组手术时间和出血量明显多于TLH组,差异有统计学意义(p = 0.29和0.37)。LSH组血红蛋白的绝对变化大于TLH组(p = 0.001)。两组患者术后第0天和第7天疼痛无差异,但LSH组患者术后第1天疼痛明显减轻(p = 0.03)。两组患者住院时间相似。没有病人需要再入院。与LSH组相比,TLH组患者恢复日常活动所需的天数更短。术后膀胱、肠道和性功能具有可比性。lsh后阴道出血发生率为13.3%。随访6个月后未见拱顶脱垂。结论:腹腔镜宫颈上子宫切除术作为TLH治疗良性子宫病变是安全有效的,但没有额外的益处,而是与发生宫颈疾病和恶性肿瘤的持续风险相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书