腹腔镜全子宫切除术与阴道子宫切除术治疗良性非脱垂子宫的比较

P. Mehendale, Aruna Menon, A. Kapur, S. Srinivas
{"title":"腹腔镜全子宫切除术与阴道子宫切除术治疗良性非脱垂子宫的比较","authors":"P. Mehendale, Aruna Menon, A. Kapur, S. Srinivas","doi":"10.7439/IJBAR.V9I1.4605","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background : Vaginal hysterectomy is a well established and time tested procedure which is being done since the last 150 years and thus has been refined to a great degree, but it has been less successful due to lack of experience and enthusiasm among Gynaecologists, due to a misconception that the abdominal route is safer and easier. Objective: The present study was undertaken to compare outcomes of conventional vaginal hysterectomy and total laparoscopic hysterectomy in women with benign non prolapsed uterus. Methods: Total 50 cases of non prolapsed uterus requiring hysterectomy were systematically allocated into two groups of 25 patients in each group, (Vaginal and total laparoscopic hysterectomy group). All patients underwent pelvic ultrasound (USG). Surgical techniques, operating time, estimated blood loss and/or episodes of accidental bleeding requiring intervention intra-or post-operatively were compared. Other factors such as post operative pain, post-operative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and length of hospital stay were also recorded for each case. Results: We found that blood loss in vaginal hysterectomy was more than in total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Post-operative pain and post complications were also more in the vaginal hysterectomy group. Operation time was however more in the total laparoscopic hysterectomy group but recovery time was less. Conclusion: In the present study, we found advantages of laparoscopic hysterectomy over vaginal hysterectomy in terms of lesser blood loss, postoperative pain and postoperative complications, a larger study with emphasis on long term effects may be essential to establish superiority of total laparoscopic hysterectomy over vaginal hysterectomy.","PeriodicalId":13848,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Biomedical and Advance Research","volume":"134 1","pages":"45-49"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of total laparoscopic Hysterectomy versus vaginal hysterectomy for benign non prolapsed uterus\",\"authors\":\"P. Mehendale, Aruna Menon, A. Kapur, S. Srinivas\",\"doi\":\"10.7439/IJBAR.V9I1.4605\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background : Vaginal hysterectomy is a well established and time tested procedure which is being done since the last 150 years and thus has been refined to a great degree, but it has been less successful due to lack of experience and enthusiasm among Gynaecologists, due to a misconception that the abdominal route is safer and easier. Objective: The present study was undertaken to compare outcomes of conventional vaginal hysterectomy and total laparoscopic hysterectomy in women with benign non prolapsed uterus. Methods: Total 50 cases of non prolapsed uterus requiring hysterectomy were systematically allocated into two groups of 25 patients in each group, (Vaginal and total laparoscopic hysterectomy group). All patients underwent pelvic ultrasound (USG). Surgical techniques, operating time, estimated blood loss and/or episodes of accidental bleeding requiring intervention intra-or post-operatively were compared. Other factors such as post operative pain, post-operative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and length of hospital stay were also recorded for each case. Results: We found that blood loss in vaginal hysterectomy was more than in total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Post-operative pain and post complications were also more in the vaginal hysterectomy group. Operation time was however more in the total laparoscopic hysterectomy group but recovery time was less. Conclusion: In the present study, we found advantages of laparoscopic hysterectomy over vaginal hysterectomy in terms of lesser blood loss, postoperative pain and postoperative complications, a larger study with emphasis on long term effects may be essential to establish superiority of total laparoscopic hysterectomy over vaginal hysterectomy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13848,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Biomedical and Advance Research\",\"volume\":\"134 1\",\"pages\":\"45-49\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Biomedical and Advance Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7439/IJBAR.V9I1.4605\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Biomedical and Advance Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7439/IJBAR.V9I1.4605","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

背景:阴道子宫切除术是一种建立良好且经过时间考验的手术,自过去150年以来一直在进行,因此在很大程度上得到了改进,但由于缺乏经验和妇科医生的热情,由于误解腹部路径更安全,更容易,因此不太成功。目的:比较传统阴道子宫切除术和腹腔镜全子宫切除术治疗良性非脱垂子宫的效果。方法:将50例需行子宫切除术的非脱垂子宫患者系统分为两组,每组25例(阴道和腹腔镜全子宫切除术组)。所有患者均行盆腔超声检查。比较手术技术、手术时间、估计失血量和/或术后需要干预的意外出血事件。其他因素如术后疼痛、术后并发症、转开腹手术和住院时间也被记录下来。结果:阴道子宫切除术出血量大于腹腔镜全子宫切除术出血量。阴道子宫切除术组术后疼痛和术后并发症也较多。腹腔镜全子宫切除术组手术时间较长,恢复时间较短。结论:在本研究中,我们发现腹腔镜子宫切除术在出血量、术后疼痛和术后并发症方面优于阴道子宫切除术,可能需要进行更大规模的研究,强调长期效果,以确定腹腔镜全子宫切除术优于阴道子宫切除术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of total laparoscopic Hysterectomy versus vaginal hysterectomy for benign non prolapsed uterus
Background : Vaginal hysterectomy is a well established and time tested procedure which is being done since the last 150 years and thus has been refined to a great degree, but it has been less successful due to lack of experience and enthusiasm among Gynaecologists, due to a misconception that the abdominal route is safer and easier. Objective: The present study was undertaken to compare outcomes of conventional vaginal hysterectomy and total laparoscopic hysterectomy in women with benign non prolapsed uterus. Methods: Total 50 cases of non prolapsed uterus requiring hysterectomy were systematically allocated into two groups of 25 patients in each group, (Vaginal and total laparoscopic hysterectomy group). All patients underwent pelvic ultrasound (USG). Surgical techniques, operating time, estimated blood loss and/or episodes of accidental bleeding requiring intervention intra-or post-operatively were compared. Other factors such as post operative pain, post-operative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and length of hospital stay were also recorded for each case. Results: We found that blood loss in vaginal hysterectomy was more than in total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Post-operative pain and post complications were also more in the vaginal hysterectomy group. Operation time was however more in the total laparoscopic hysterectomy group but recovery time was less. Conclusion: In the present study, we found advantages of laparoscopic hysterectomy over vaginal hysterectomy in terms of lesser blood loss, postoperative pain and postoperative complications, a larger study with emphasis on long term effects may be essential to establish superiority of total laparoscopic hysterectomy over vaginal hysterectomy.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信