腹腔镜宫颈上子宫切除术的总手术时间与腹腔镜宫颈上子宫切除术的总手术时间比较

IF 1.7 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.52054/FVVO.14.1.006
H. Krentel, G. Tchartchian, L. A. Torres de la Roche, R. D. De Wilde
{"title":"腹腔镜宫颈上子宫切除术的总手术时间与腹腔镜宫颈上子宫切除术的总手术时间比较","authors":"H. Krentel, G. Tchartchian, L. A. Torres de la Roche, R. D. De Wilde","doi":"10.52054/FVVO.14.1.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background A possible solution to the problem of cell dissemination through laparoscopic uncontained morcellation during laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) is the use of laparoscopic in-bag morcellation. One criticism regarding the use of in-bag morcellation is the additional surgical time associated with this procedure. Objectives In this retrospective study we compared the total surgical time in LASH with laparoscopic in-bag morcellation (107 cases from 2016-2018) and LASH with uncontained morcellation (47 cases from 2015-2017). Materials and Methods All surgeries were performed in the same department of minimally invasive gynaecological surgery by a total of three experienced surgeons for the indication of bleeding disorder and / or dysmenorrhea. Main outcome measures We measured and compared total surgical time, surgical outcome, blood loss and complications in LASH with in-bag morcellation and with uncontained morcellation. Results Total surgical time in both procedures do not show a significant difference. Considering the learning curve in laparoscopic bag use, the total surgical time in LASH with laparoscopic in-bag morcellation is shorter than total surgical time in LASH with uncontained morcellation. Laparoscopic in-bag morcellation consumes time for bag use and handling, but saves time as it eliminates the need for meticulous sampling of lost tissue fragments and the complex lavage of the peritoneal cavity after morcellation. There is no difference between both groups in terms of blood loss, complications and surgical results. Conclusion/What is new? We conclude that LASH with in-bag morcellation is not related to additional surgical time when compared to LASH with uncontained morcellation.","PeriodicalId":46400,"journal":{"name":"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn","volume":"14 1","pages":"59 - 68"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Total surgical time in laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with laparoscopic in-bag-morcellation compared to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with uncontained morcellation\",\"authors\":\"H. Krentel, G. Tchartchian, L. A. Torres de la Roche, R. D. De Wilde\",\"doi\":\"10.52054/FVVO.14.1.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background A possible solution to the problem of cell dissemination through laparoscopic uncontained morcellation during laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) is the use of laparoscopic in-bag morcellation. One criticism regarding the use of in-bag morcellation is the additional surgical time associated with this procedure. Objectives In this retrospective study we compared the total surgical time in LASH with laparoscopic in-bag morcellation (107 cases from 2016-2018) and LASH with uncontained morcellation (47 cases from 2015-2017). Materials and Methods All surgeries were performed in the same department of minimally invasive gynaecological surgery by a total of three experienced surgeons for the indication of bleeding disorder and / or dysmenorrhea. Main outcome measures We measured and compared total surgical time, surgical outcome, blood loss and complications in LASH with in-bag morcellation and with uncontained morcellation. Results Total surgical time in both procedures do not show a significant difference. Considering the learning curve in laparoscopic bag use, the total surgical time in LASH with laparoscopic in-bag morcellation is shorter than total surgical time in LASH with uncontained morcellation. Laparoscopic in-bag morcellation consumes time for bag use and handling, but saves time as it eliminates the need for meticulous sampling of lost tissue fragments and the complex lavage of the peritoneal cavity after morcellation. There is no difference between both groups in terms of blood loss, complications and surgical results. Conclusion/What is new? We conclude that LASH with in-bag morcellation is not related to additional surgical time when compared to LASH with uncontained morcellation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46400,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"59 - 68\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52054/FVVO.14.1.006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52054/FVVO.14.1.006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景腹腔镜宫颈上子宫切除术(LASH)中腹腔镜无包膜分碎术可能解决细胞播散的问题,即腹腔镜袋内分碎术。关于使用袋内粉碎术的一个批评是与该手术相关的额外手术时间。目的在本回顾性研究中,我们比较了2016-2018年腹腔镜袋内分碎术(107例)和2015-2017年非包内分碎术(47例)的总手术时间。材料与方法所有手术均在同一妇科微创外科由3名经验丰富的外科医生以出血性疾病和/或痛经为指征进行。我们测量并比较了袋内分块术和非包膜分块术的总手术时间、手术结果、出血量和并发症。结果两种手术方式的总手术时间差异无统计学意义。考虑到腹腔镜袋使用的学习曲线,腹腔镜袋内分碎术的总手术时间要短于腹腔镜袋内分碎术的总手术时间。腹腔镜袋内分碎术虽然使用袋子和搬运时间较长,但由于不需要对丢失的组织碎片进行细致的取样和分碎后腹腔的复杂灌洗,节省了时间。两组在出血量、并发症和手术结果方面没有差异。结论/什么是新的?我们的结论是,与袋内粉碎术相比,袋内粉碎术与额外的手术时间无关。
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
Total surgical time in laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with laparoscopic in-bag-morcellation compared to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with uncontained morcellation
Background A possible solution to the problem of cell dissemination through laparoscopic uncontained morcellation during laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) is the use of laparoscopic in-bag morcellation. One criticism regarding the use of in-bag morcellation is the additional surgical time associated with this procedure. Objectives In this retrospective study we compared the total surgical time in LASH with laparoscopic in-bag morcellation (107 cases from 2016-2018) and LASH with uncontained morcellation (47 cases from 2015-2017). Materials and Methods All surgeries were performed in the same department of minimally invasive gynaecological surgery by a total of three experienced surgeons for the indication of bleeding disorder and / or dysmenorrhea. Main outcome measures We measured and compared total surgical time, surgical outcome, blood loss and complications in LASH with in-bag morcellation and with uncontained morcellation. Results Total surgical time in both procedures do not show a significant difference. Considering the learning curve in laparoscopic bag use, the total surgical time in LASH with laparoscopic in-bag morcellation is shorter than total surgical time in LASH with uncontained morcellation. Laparoscopic in-bag morcellation consumes time for bag use and handling, but saves time as it eliminates the need for meticulous sampling of lost tissue fragments and the complex lavage of the peritoneal cavity after morcellation. There is no difference between both groups in terms of blood loss, complications and surgical results. Conclusion/What is new? We conclude that LASH with in-bag morcellation is not related to additional surgical time when compared to LASH with uncontained morcellation.
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
Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn
Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
自引率
15.00%
发文量
59
期刊最新文献
Artificial Intelligence, the ChatGPT Large Language Model: Assessing the Accuracy of Responses to the Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgical Education and Assessment (GESEA) Level 1-2 knowledge tests. Comparison between learning curves of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery in gynaecology: a systematic review. Complete bicorporeal uterus, double cervix, longitudinal obstructing vaginal septum: an integrated approach for one-stop diagnosis and ultrasound-guided endoscopic hymen-sparing treatment. Complications of electrosurgery: mechanisms and prevention strategies. European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) Good Practice Recommendations on surgical techniques for Removal of Fibroids: Part 2 Hysteroscopic Myomectomy.
×
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