5mm小切口腹腔镜单部位子宫切除术与传统腹腔镜单部位子宫切除术的临床比较

Ying Cao, Yilin Sun, Jiming Chen, Z. Dong, Yafeng Zheng, Yunfen Jiang, Ruxia Shi
{"title":"5mm小切口腹腔镜单部位子宫切除术与传统腹腔镜单部位子宫切除术的临床比较","authors":"Ying Cao, Yilin Sun, Jiming Chen, Z. Dong, Yafeng Zheng, Yunfen Jiang, Ruxia Shi","doi":"10.11648/J.JGO.20210901.15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To investigate the feasibility of 5mm mini-•incision Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy and Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy in terms of safety, postoperative pain and cosmetic effect. Methods: The medical records of 19 patients who underwent hysterectomy with 5mm mini-•incision Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery (LESS) or traditional Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Sugery in the Affiliated Changzhou No. 2 People’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from December 2017 to June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed, including 6 cases in the group of 5mm mini-•incision Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy through umbilical ordinary incision (5mm) and 13 cases in the group of traditional Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy through umbilical ordinary incision (1.5cm-3cm). Collect and compare the intraoperative blood loss, the operative time, the postoperative hemoglobin descender, the postoperative hospital stays, the probability of postoperative wound infection, the total cost, Visual analogue scale (VAS) of 12 hours after surgery, VAS of 24 hours after surgery and postoperative Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ, including Body Image scale, BIS and Cosmetic Score, CS) in the two groups. Results: There was no intraoperative complication happened, and there was no significant difference between the two groups in the forms of the intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative hospital stays, postoperative hemoglobin descender, the probability of postoperative wound infection, the total cost, VAS of 24 hours after surgery and CS (P > 0.05). But the VAS of 12 hours after surgery of the 5mm mini-•incision Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy was lower than traditional Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy (1.17±0.14 vs. 2.33±0.19), the BIS of the former was higher than the later (19.83±0.15 vs 19.16±0.28), and importantly the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Laparoendoscopic Single-Site through 5mm mini-incision is safe and feasible. Compared with traditional Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Hysterectomy through ordinary incision, it can not only significantly reduce postoperative pain, but also bring more satisfactory postoperative cosmetic effect.","PeriodicalId":77904,"journal":{"name":"Supplement to International journal of gynecology and obstetrics","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Comparison of 5mm Mini-incision Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Hysterectomy and Traditional Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Hysterectomy\",\"authors\":\"Ying Cao, Yilin Sun, Jiming Chen, Z. Dong, Yafeng Zheng, Yunfen Jiang, Ruxia Shi\",\"doi\":\"10.11648/J.JGO.20210901.15\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To investigate the feasibility of 5mm mini-•incision Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy and Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy in terms of safety, postoperative pain and cosmetic effect. Methods: The medical records of 19 patients who underwent hysterectomy with 5mm mini-•incision Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery (LESS) or traditional Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Sugery in the Affiliated Changzhou No. 2 People’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from December 2017 to June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed, including 6 cases in the group of 5mm mini-•incision Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy through umbilical ordinary incision (5mm) and 13 cases in the group of traditional Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy through umbilical ordinary incision (1.5cm-3cm). Collect and compare the intraoperative blood loss, the operative time, the postoperative hemoglobin descender, the postoperative hospital stays, the probability of postoperative wound infection, the total cost, Visual analogue scale (VAS) of 12 hours after surgery, VAS of 24 hours after surgery and postoperative Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ, including Body Image scale, BIS and Cosmetic Score, CS) in the two groups. Results: There was no intraoperative complication happened, and there was no significant difference between the two groups in the forms of the intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative hospital stays, postoperative hemoglobin descender, the probability of postoperative wound infection, the total cost, VAS of 24 hours after surgery and CS (P > 0.05). But the VAS of 12 hours after surgery of the 5mm mini-•incision Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy was lower than traditional Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy (1.17±0.14 vs. 2.33±0.19), the BIS of the former was higher than the later (19.83±0.15 vs 19.16±0.28), and importantly the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Laparoendoscopic Single-Site through 5mm mini-incision is safe and feasible. Compared with traditional Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Hysterectomy through ordinary incision, it can not only significantly reduce postoperative pain, but also bring more satisfactory postoperative cosmetic effect.\",\"PeriodicalId\":77904,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Supplement to International journal of gynecology and obstetrics\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Supplement to International journal of gynecology and obstetrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11648/J.JGO.20210901.15\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Supplement to International journal of gynecology and obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11648/J.JGO.20210901.15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:探讨5mm小切口腹腔镜单点子宫切除术与腹腔镜单点子宫切除术在安全性、术后疼痛及美容效果方面的可行性。方法:回顾性分析南京医科大学附属常州第二人民医院2017年12月至2020年6月行5mm小切口腹腔镜单部位手术(LESS)或传统腹腔镜单部位手术(traditional腹腔镜Single-Site Surgery)的19例患者的病历。其中5mm小切口经脐普通切口(5mm)腹腔镜单部位子宫切除术组6例,传统经脐普通切口(1.5cm ~ 3cm)腹腔镜单部位子宫切除术组13例。收集并比较两组患者术中出血量、手术时间、术后血红蛋白下降、术后住院时间、术后伤口感染概率、总费用、术后12小时视觉模拟评分(VAS)、术后24小时视觉模拟评分(VAS)和术后身体形象问卷(BIQ,包括身体形象评分、BIS和美容评分(CS))。结果:两组无术中并发症发生,两组术中出血量、手术时间、术后住院时间、术后血红蛋白下降、术后伤口感染概率、总费用、术后24 h VAS及CS比较,差异均无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。但5mm小切口腹腔镜单部位子宫切除术术后12 h VAS低于传统腹腔镜单部位子宫切除术(1.17±0.14∶2.33±0.19),BIS高于传统腹腔镜单部位子宫切除术(19.83±0.15∶19.16±0.28),差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论:经5mm小切口单部位腹腔镜检查是安全可行的。与传统经普通切口的腹腔镜单部位子宫切除术相比,不仅能明显减轻术后疼痛,而且能带来更满意的术后美容效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical Comparison of 5mm Mini-incision Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Hysterectomy and Traditional Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Hysterectomy
Objective: To investigate the feasibility of 5mm mini-•incision Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy and Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy in terms of safety, postoperative pain and cosmetic effect. Methods: The medical records of 19 patients who underwent hysterectomy with 5mm mini-•incision Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery (LESS) or traditional Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Sugery in the Affiliated Changzhou No. 2 People’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from December 2017 to June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed, including 6 cases in the group of 5mm mini-•incision Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy through umbilical ordinary incision (5mm) and 13 cases in the group of traditional Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy through umbilical ordinary incision (1.5cm-3cm). Collect and compare the intraoperative blood loss, the operative time, the postoperative hemoglobin descender, the postoperative hospital stays, the probability of postoperative wound infection, the total cost, Visual analogue scale (VAS) of 12 hours after surgery, VAS of 24 hours after surgery and postoperative Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ, including Body Image scale, BIS and Cosmetic Score, CS) in the two groups. Results: There was no intraoperative complication happened, and there was no significant difference between the two groups in the forms of the intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative hospital stays, postoperative hemoglobin descender, the probability of postoperative wound infection, the total cost, VAS of 24 hours after surgery and CS (P > 0.05). But the VAS of 12 hours after surgery of the 5mm mini-•incision Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy was lower than traditional Laparoendoscopic Single-Site hysterectomy (1.17±0.14 vs. 2.33±0.19), the BIS of the former was higher than the later (19.83±0.15 vs 19.16±0.28), and importantly the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Laparoendoscopic Single-Site through 5mm mini-incision is safe and feasible. Compared with traditional Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Hysterectomy through ordinary incision, it can not only significantly reduce postoperative pain, but also bring more satisfactory postoperative cosmetic effect.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信