Journal of minimally invasive gynecology · 2024
Key Anatomical Concepts, Landmarks, and Proposed Terminology for Nerve-Sparing Gynecologic Surgery: A Narrative Review.
СтатьяОбзорПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kobylianskii Anna, Thiel Peter, McGrattan Meghan, Barbe Mary F, Lemos Nucelio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the terminology utilized in nerve-sparing surgical literature and propose standardized and nonconflicting terms to allow for consistent vocabulary.
DESIGN: We performed a literature search on PubMed using the search terms "pelvis" and "nerve-sparing." Nongynecologic surgery and animal studies were excluded. A narrative review was performed, focusing on nerves, fasciae, ligaments, and retroperitoneal spaces. Terms from included papers were discussed by all authors, who are surgeons versed in nerve-sparing procedures and one anatomist, and recommendations were made regarding the most appropriate terms based on the frequency of occurrence in the literature and the possibility of overlapping names with other structures.
RESULTS: 224 articles were identified, with 81 included in the full-text review. Overall, 48% of articles focused on cervical cancer and 26% on deeply infiltrating endometriosis. Findings were synthesized both narratively and visually. Inconsistencies in pelvic anatomical nomenclature were prevalent across publications. The structure with the most varied terminology was the rectal branch of the inferior hypogastric plexus with 14 names. A standardized terminology for pelvic autonomic nerve structures, fasciae, ligaments, and retroperitoneal spaces was proposed to avoid conflicting terms.
CONCLUSION: Surgeons and anatomists should use consistent terminology to facilitate increased uptake of nerve-sparing techniques in gynecologic surgery through a better understanding of surgical technique description. We have proposed a standardized terminology believed to facilitate this goal.
DESIGN: We performed a literature search on PubMed using the search terms "pelvis" and "nerve-sparing." Nongynecologic surgery and animal studies were excluded. A narrative review was performed, focusing on nerves, fasciae, ligaments, and retroperitoneal spaces. Terms from included papers were discussed by all authors, who are surgeons versed in nerve-sparing procedures and one anatomist, and recommendations were made regarding the most appropriate terms based on the frequency of occurrence in the literature and the possibility of overlapping names with other structures.
RESULTS: 224 articles were identified, with 81 included in the full-text review. Overall, 48% of articles focused on cervical cancer and 26% on deeply infiltrating endometriosis. Findings were synthesized both narratively and visually. Inconsistencies in pelvic anatomical nomenclature were prevalent across publications. The structure with the most varied terminology was the rectal branch of the inferior hypogastric plexus with 14 names. A standardized terminology for pelvic autonomic nerve structures, fasciae, ligaments, and retroperitoneal spaces was proposed to avoid conflicting terms.
CONCLUSION: Surgeons and anatomists should use consistent terminology to facilitate increased uptake of nerve-sparing techniques in gynecologic surgery through a better understanding of surgical technique description. We have proposed a standardized terminology believed to facilitate this goal.