{"title":"将潜在的腹部子宫切除术转化为阴道子宫切除术:腹腔镜辅助阴道子宫切除术。","authors":"Jyothi Shetty, Asha Shanbhag, Deeksha Pandey","doi":"10.1155/2014/305614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background. The idea of laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) is to convert a potential abdominal hysterectomy to a vaginal one, thus decreasing associated morbidity and hastening recovery. We compared intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between LAVH and abdominal hysterectomy, to find out if LAVH achieves better clinical results compared with abdominal hysterectomy. Material and methods. A total of 48 women were enrolled in the study. Finally 17 patients underwent LAVH (cases) and 20 underwent abdominal hysterectomy (controls). All surgeries were performed by a set of gynecologists with more or less same level of surgical experience and expertise. Results.None of the patients in LAVH required conversion to laparotomy. Mean operating time was 30 minutes longer in LAVH group as compared to abdominal hysterectomy group (167.06 + 31.97 min versus 135.25 + 31.72 min; P < 0.05). However, the mean blood loss in LAVH was 100 mL lesser than that in abdominal hysterectomy and the difference was found to be statistically significant (248.24 + 117.79 mL versus 340.00 + 119.86 mL; P < 0.05). Another advantage of LAVH was significantly lower pain scores on second and third postoperative days. Overall complications and postoperative hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups. </p>","PeriodicalId":45110,"journal":{"name":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2014/305614","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Converting potential abdominal hysterectomy to vaginal one: laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy.\",\"authors\":\"Jyothi Shetty, Asha Shanbhag, Deeksha Pandey\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2014/305614\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Background. The idea of laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) is to convert a potential abdominal hysterectomy to a vaginal one, thus decreasing associated morbidity and hastening recovery. We compared intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between LAVH and abdominal hysterectomy, to find out if LAVH achieves better clinical results compared with abdominal hysterectomy. Material and methods. A total of 48 women were enrolled in the study. Finally 17 patients underwent LAVH (cases) and 20 underwent abdominal hysterectomy (controls). All surgeries were performed by a set of gynecologists with more or less same level of surgical experience and expertise. Results.None of the patients in LAVH required conversion to laparotomy. Mean operating time was 30 minutes longer in LAVH group as compared to abdominal hysterectomy group (167.06 + 31.97 min versus 135.25 + 31.72 min; P < 0.05). However, the mean blood loss in LAVH was 100 mL lesser than that in abdominal hysterectomy and the difference was found to be statistically significant (248.24 + 117.79 mL versus 340.00 + 119.86 mL; P < 0.05). Another advantage of LAVH was significantly lower pain scores on second and third postoperative days. Overall complications and postoperative hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45110,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minimally Invasive Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2014/305614\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minimally Invasive Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/305614\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2014/3/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/305614","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/3/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
背景。腹腔镜辅助阴道子宫切除术(LAVH)的理念是将潜在的腹部子宫切除术转化为阴道子宫切除术,从而降低相关发病率并加速恢复。我们比较LAVH与腹式子宫切除术的术中、术后效果,探讨LAVH是否比腹式子宫切除术取得更好的临床效果。材料和方法。共有48名女性参加了这项研究。最后17例患者行LAVH(病例),20例患者行腹部子宫切除术(对照组)。所有手术均由一组具有相同手术经验和专业知识水平的妇科医生进行。结果。LAVH患者均无需转为剖腹手术。LAVH组平均手术时间比腹式子宫切除术组长30分钟(167.06 + 31.97 min vs 135.25 + 31.72 min);P < 0.05)。然而,LAVH组的平均失血量比腹式子宫切除术组少100 mL,差异有统计学意义(248.24 + 117.79 mL vs 340.00 + 119.86 mL;P < 0.05)。LAVH的另一个优点是术后第2天和第3天疼痛评分明显降低。两组总并发症及术后住院时间差异无统计学意义。
Background. The idea of laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) is to convert a potential abdominal hysterectomy to a vaginal one, thus decreasing associated morbidity and hastening recovery. We compared intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between LAVH and abdominal hysterectomy, to find out if LAVH achieves better clinical results compared with abdominal hysterectomy. Material and methods. A total of 48 women were enrolled in the study. Finally 17 patients underwent LAVH (cases) and 20 underwent abdominal hysterectomy (controls). All surgeries were performed by a set of gynecologists with more or less same level of surgical experience and expertise. Results.None of the patients in LAVH required conversion to laparotomy. Mean operating time was 30 minutes longer in LAVH group as compared to abdominal hysterectomy group (167.06 + 31.97 min versus 135.25 + 31.72 min; P < 0.05). However, the mean blood loss in LAVH was 100 mL lesser than that in abdominal hysterectomy and the difference was found to be statistically significant (248.24 + 117.79 mL versus 340.00 + 119.86 mL; P < 0.05). Another advantage of LAVH was significantly lower pain scores on second and third postoperative days. Overall complications and postoperative hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups.