妇科手术中腹腔镜切除附件标本的组织检索:后阴道切开术与腹腔抽取术。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of minimally invasive gynecology Pub Date : 2024-09-04 DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2024.08.019
Toni S Horton, Hannah S Palin, Melinda H Chai, Emily C Craver, Aakriti R Carrubba
{"title":"妇科手术中腹腔镜切除附件标本的组织检索:后阴道切开术与腹腔抽取术。","authors":"Toni S Horton, Hannah S Palin, Melinda H Chai, Emily C Craver, Aakriti R Carrubba","doi":"10.1016/j.jmig.2024.08.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study is to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in women undergoing removal of adnexal structures by either posterior culdotomy or abdominal extraction.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This is a retrospective cohort study conducted via medical record review. Demographic, clinical, and operative variables were abstracted from the medical records. Statistical analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and multivariable logistic regression models.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Single academic tertiary care center between 2010 and 2022.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A total of 718 patients were identified and included in our analysis who underwent minimally invasive ovarian cystectomy or oophorectomy. Patients were excluded if they underwent concomitant hysterectomy.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients underwent minimally invasive oophorectomy or ovarian cystectomy, and specimens were extracted by either abdominal extraction (AE) or culdotomy extraction (CE).</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Of the 718 patients who met inclusion criteria, 127 (17.7%) underwent CE, and 591 (82.3%) underwent abdominal extraction. The CE group had longer operative times (113 minutes vs 96 minutes, p <.001) and higher estimated blood loss (25 mL vs 10 mL, p <.001) compared to the abdominal extraction group. There were more malignancies in the CE than the abdominal extraction group (15.7% vs 8.1%, respectively, p <.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, those who underwent CE were more likely to have 2 or more clinic visits (OR 2.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-5.03; p <.001) and call or message the clinic (OR 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-3.20; p <.001). There were no incidences of cuff dehiscence, cuff cellulitis, or pelvic abscess in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Removal of adnexal specimens via abdominal port site or posterior culdotomy incision is a feasible option for specimen extraction and can be individualized based on patient and surgeon preference and patient factors. Those undergoing CE may require more preoperative counseling due to higher rate of postoperative messages seen in our cohort.</p>","PeriodicalId":16397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tissue Retrieval of Laparoscopically Excised Adnexal Specimens in Gynecologic Surgery: Posterior Culdotomy versus Abdominal Extraction.\",\"authors\":\"Toni S Horton, Hannah S Palin, Melinda H Chai, Emily C Craver, Aakriti R Carrubba\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jmig.2024.08.019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study is to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in women undergoing removal of adnexal structures by either posterior culdotomy or abdominal extraction.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This is a retrospective cohort study conducted via medical record review. Demographic, clinical, and operative variables were abstracted from the medical records. Statistical analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and multivariable logistic regression models.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Single academic tertiary care center between 2010 and 2022.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A total of 718 patients were identified and included in our analysis who underwent minimally invasive ovarian cystectomy or oophorectomy. Patients were excluded if they underwent concomitant hysterectomy.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients underwent minimally invasive oophorectomy or ovarian cystectomy, and specimens were extracted by either abdominal extraction (AE) or culdotomy extraction (CE).</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Of the 718 patients who met inclusion criteria, 127 (17.7%) underwent CE, and 591 (82.3%) underwent abdominal extraction. The CE group had longer operative times (113 minutes vs 96 minutes, p <.001) and higher estimated blood loss (25 mL vs 10 mL, p <.001) compared to the abdominal extraction group. There were more malignancies in the CE than the abdominal extraction group (15.7% vs 8.1%, respectively, p <.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, those who underwent CE were more likely to have 2 or more clinic visits (OR 2.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-5.03; p <.001) and call or message the clinic (OR 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-3.20; p <.001). There were no incidences of cuff dehiscence, cuff cellulitis, or pelvic abscess in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Removal of adnexal specimens via abdominal port site or posterior culdotomy incision is a feasible option for specimen extraction and can be individualized based on patient and surgeon preference and patient factors. Those undergoing CE may require more preoperative counseling due to higher rate of postoperative messages seen in our cohort.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2024.08.019\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2024.08.019","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究旨在比较通过后涵道切开术或腹腔抽取术切除附件结构的妇女的术中和术后结果:这是一项通过病历审查进行的回顾性队列研究。人口统计学、临床和手术变量均摘自病历。统计分析包括描述性统计、费雪精确检验、Wilcoxon 秩和检验和多变量逻辑回归模型:2010年至2022年期间的单一学术三级医疗中心:共有 718 名患者接受了微创卵巢囊肿切除术或卵巢切除术,并纳入了我们的分析。如果患者同时接受了子宫切除术,则排除在外:干预措施:患者接受微创输卵管切除术或卵巢囊肿切除术,标本通过腹腔取材或肛门取材的方式提取:在符合纳入标准的718名患者中,127人(17.7%)接受了蝶窦切开取材术,591人(82.3%)接受了腹腔取材术。脐带切开取石术组的手术时间更长(113 分钟 vs 96 分钟,P=0.05),而腹腔取石术组的手术时间更短:通过腹腔端口部位或后方 culdotomy 切口取出附件标本是一种可行的标本取出方法,可根据患者和外科医生的偏好以及患者因素进行个性化选择。在我们的队列中,由于术后出现信息的比例较高,因此接受肛秆切开术取出标本的患者可能需要更多的术前咨询。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Tissue Retrieval of Laparoscopically Excised Adnexal Specimens in Gynecologic Surgery: Posterior Culdotomy versus Abdominal Extraction.

Objective: The objective of this study is to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in women undergoing removal of adnexal structures by either posterior culdotomy or abdominal extraction.

Design: This is a retrospective cohort study conducted via medical record review. Demographic, clinical, and operative variables were abstracted from the medical records. Statistical analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and multivariable logistic regression models.

Setting: Single academic tertiary care center between 2010 and 2022.

Participants: A total of 718 patients were identified and included in our analysis who underwent minimally invasive ovarian cystectomy or oophorectomy. Patients were excluded if they underwent concomitant hysterectomy.

Interventions: Patients underwent minimally invasive oophorectomy or ovarian cystectomy, and specimens were extracted by either abdominal extraction (AE) or culdotomy extraction (CE).

Measurements and main results: Of the 718 patients who met inclusion criteria, 127 (17.7%) underwent CE, and 591 (82.3%) underwent abdominal extraction. The CE group had longer operative times (113 minutes vs 96 minutes, p <.001) and higher estimated blood loss (25 mL vs 10 mL, p <.001) compared to the abdominal extraction group. There were more malignancies in the CE than the abdominal extraction group (15.7% vs 8.1%, respectively, p <.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, those who underwent CE were more likely to have 2 or more clinic visits (OR 2.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-5.03; p <.001) and call or message the clinic (OR 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-3.20; p <.001). There were no incidences of cuff dehiscence, cuff cellulitis, or pelvic abscess in either group.

Conclusion: Removal of adnexal specimens via abdominal port site or posterior culdotomy incision is a feasible option for specimen extraction and can be individualized based on patient and surgeon preference and patient factors. Those undergoing CE may require more preoperative counseling due to higher rate of postoperative messages seen in our cohort.

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
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
7.30%
发文量
272
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, formerly titled The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, is an international clinical forum for the exchange and dissemination of ideas, findings and techniques relevant to gynecologic endoscopy and other minimally invasive procedures. The Journal, which presents research, clinical opinions and case reports from the brightest minds in gynecologic surgery, is an authoritative source informing practicing physicians of the latest, cutting-edge developments occurring in this emerging field.
期刊最新文献
Endoscopic closure of rectosigmoid injury with OTS clip after laparoscopic surgery for extensive endometriosis. Cover 1 Editorial Board Accessory Obturator Nerve During vNOTES Pelvic Lymphadenectomy Retroperitoneal Cystic Endometriosis Incidentally Found at Time of Hysterectomy
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1