Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2017
Comparison of single-port and three-port laparoscopic salpingectomy in the management for tubal pregnancy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Sun Hsu-Dong, Horng Huann-Cheng, Liu Chia-Hao, Hsiao Sheng-Mou, Chen Yi-Jen, Chang Wen-Hsun, Wang Peng-Hui
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To compare the short-term outcome of patients undergoing single-port laparoscopic salpingectomy (SP-LS) and conventional three-port laparoscopic salpingectomy (C-LS).
METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of 112 patients with tubal pregnancies treated by one surgeon at a single teaching hospital. Among these, 47 patients were treated with SP-LS and the remaining 65 were treated with C-LS.
RESULTS: The characteristics of patients were similar in both groups. There were no statistically significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss, intraoperative and immediate postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay between both groups. Time to bowel recanalization (6.2 ± 1.0 vs. 7.2 ± 1.4 h, p < 0.05) and postoperative visual analog scale for pain scores (3.0 ± 0.5 vs. 3.6 ± 0.6, p < 0.005) were significantly lower in the SP-LS group compared with those in the C-LS group.
CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated the feasibility to use the single-port laparoscopic salpingectomy in the management of women with tubal pregnancy, which showed the similar or better outcome compared with the use of conventional three-port laparoscopic salpingectomy.
METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of 112 patients with tubal pregnancies treated by one surgeon at a single teaching hospital. Among these, 47 patients were treated with SP-LS and the remaining 65 were treated with C-LS.
RESULTS: The characteristics of patients were similar in both groups. There were no statistically significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss, intraoperative and immediate postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay between both groups. Time to bowel recanalization (6.2 ± 1.0 vs. 7.2 ± 1.4 h, p < 0.05) and postoperative visual analog scale for pain scores (3.0 ± 0.5 vs. 3.6 ± 0.6, p < 0.005) were significantly lower in the SP-LS group compared with those in the C-LS group.
CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated the feasibility to use the single-port laparoscopic salpingectomy in the management of women with tubal pregnancy, which showed the similar or better outcome compared with the use of conventional three-port laparoscopic salpingectomy.