Harika Yumru Çeliksoy, Muhterem Melis Cantürk, Hamdullah Sözen, Engin Çelik, Hatice Merve Baktıroğlu, Yavuz Salihoğlu, Samet Topuz
{"title":"Comparison of transumbilical and periumbilical median incisions in ovarian cancer surgery","authors":"Harika Yumru Çeliksoy, Muhterem Melis Cantürk, Hamdullah Sözen, Engin Çelik, Hatice Merve Baktıroğlu, Yavuz Salihoğlu, Samet Topuz","doi":"10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2022.2022-3-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The umbilicus is traditionally circumvented while performing a vertical midline abdominal incision. There is a gap in knowledge pertaining to avoiding the umbilicus. Our aim was to investigate whether a transumbilical (TU) or periumbilical (PU) midline incision conferred any advantage to the patient.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This was a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing ovarian cancer surgery with a midline incision, from the pubic tubercle to the xiphoid. All surgery was performed by the same team of gyneacological oncologists. Patients were classified into two groups according to the midline incision used, TU or PU. The primary endpoint was the incision wound complication rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>TU and PU midline incisions were performed in 54 and 68 patients, respectively. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of patient characteristics and operative details. The two groups had comparable rates of complications, including wound infection (7.4% vs. 10.3%, p=0.75), deep surgical site infection (11.1% vs. 4.4%, p=0.18), evisceration (3.7% vs. 4.4%, p=0.99) and incisional hernia (33.3% vs. 33.8%, p=0.99).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that circumventing the umbilicus during laparotomy did not have any advantage. Future prospective randomized trials are warranted to validate this finding.</p>","PeriodicalId":17440,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10702266/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2022.2022-3-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Objective: The umbilicus is traditionally circumvented while performing a vertical midline abdominal incision. There is a gap in knowledge pertaining to avoiding the umbilicus. Our aim was to investigate whether a transumbilical (TU) or periumbilical (PU) midline incision conferred any advantage to the patient.
Material and methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing ovarian cancer surgery with a midline incision, from the pubic tubercle to the xiphoid. All surgery was performed by the same team of gyneacological oncologists. Patients were classified into two groups according to the midline incision used, TU or PU. The primary endpoint was the incision wound complication rate.
Results: TU and PU midline incisions were performed in 54 and 68 patients, respectively. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of patient characteristics and operative details. The two groups had comparable rates of complications, including wound infection (7.4% vs. 10.3%, p=0.75), deep surgical site infection (11.1% vs. 4.4%, p=0.18), evisceration (3.7% vs. 4.4%, p=0.99) and incisional hernia (33.3% vs. 33.8%, p=0.99).
Conclusion: Our findings suggest that circumventing the umbilicus during laparotomy did not have any advantage. Future prospective randomized trials are warranted to validate this finding.
目的:传统上,在进行垂直腹部中线切口时绕过脐。关于避免脐带的知识有一个缺口。我们的目的是研究经脐(TU)或脐周(PU)中线切口是否对患者有任何好处。材料和方法:这是一项回顾性队列研究,患者接受卵巢癌手术中线切口,从耻骨结节到剑突。所有手术均由同一组妇科肿瘤学家进行。根据采用中线切口将患者分为TU组和PU组。主要终点为切口并发症发生率。结果:TU中线切口54例,PU中线切口68例。两组在患者特征和手术细节方面没有差异。两组的并发症发生率相当,包括伤口感染(7.4% vs. 10.3%, p=0.75)、深部手术部位感染(11.1% vs. 4.4%, p=0.18)、内脏取出(3.7% vs. 4.4%, p=0.99)和切口疝(33.3% vs. 33.8%, p=0.99)。结论:我们的研究结果表明,在剖腹术中绕过脐部没有任何优势。未来的前瞻性随机试验将证实这一发现。
期刊介绍:
Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association is the official, open access publication of the Turkish-German Gynecological Education and Research Foundation and Turkish-German Gynecological Association and is published quarterly on March, June, September and December. It is an independent peer-reviewed international journal printed in English language. Manuscripts are reviewed in accordance with “double-blind peer review” process for both reviewers and authors. The target audience of Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association includes gynecologists and primary care physicians interested in gynecology practice. It publishes original works on all aspects of obstertrics and gynecology. The aim of Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association is to publish high quality original research articles. In addition to research articles, reviews, editorials, letters to the editor, diagnostic puzzle are also published. Suggestions for new books are also welcomed. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association does not charge any fee for article submission or processing.