American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2001
Challenging generally accepted contraindications to vaginal hysterectomy.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Doucette R C, Sharp H T, Alder S C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: A number of preexisting clinical conditions are generally accepted as contraindications to vaginal hysterectomy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of this concept.
STUDY DESIGN: The study vaginal hysterectomy group consisted of 250 consecutive patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy. These patients (1) had a large uterus (>180 g), (2) either were nulliparous or had no previous vaginal delivery, or (3) had a previous cesarean delivery or pelvic laparotomy. Three control groups used for comparison underwent (1) laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy, (2) vaginal hysterectomy, or (3) abdominal hysterectomy. The records for all patients were analyzed for age, weight, parity, primary diagnosis, uterine size, operative time, blood loss, analgesia, hospital stay, resumption of diet, incidence of morcellation, and surgical complications. Sample size calculations were based on previous studies of complications associated with vaginal hysterectomy (alpha =.05; beta =.20).
RESULTS: Hysterectomy was successfully completed by the intended vaginal route in all study patients. Major and minor complications (3.2%) were significantly less (P <.001) than in the other groups as follows: vaginal hysterectomy, 10.4%; laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy, 11.6%; and abdominal hysterectomy, 13.6%. The decrease in hematocrit was 5.7% in the study vaginal hysterectomy group compared with 6.2% for vaginal hysterectomy, 6.5% for abdominal hysterectomy (P =.009), and 6.6% for laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (P =.002). Hospital stay was shorter for the study group (2.1 days) than for vaginal hysterectomy (2.3 days; P <.001) and abdominal hysterectomy (2.7 days; P <.001). Operative time was shorter in the study vaginal hysterectomy group (49 minutes) than with laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (76 minutes; P <.001) or abdominal hysterectomy (61 minutes; P <.001), although morcellation was carried out more frequently in the study group (34%) than with vaginal hysterectomy (4%) or laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (11%).
CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that a large uterus, nulliparity, previous cesarean delivery, and pelvic laparotomy rarely constitute contraindications to vaginal hysterectomy.
STUDY DESIGN: The study vaginal hysterectomy group consisted of 250 consecutive patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy. These patients (1) had a large uterus (>180 g), (2) either were nulliparous or had no previous vaginal delivery, or (3) had a previous cesarean delivery or pelvic laparotomy. Three control groups used for comparison underwent (1) laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy, (2) vaginal hysterectomy, or (3) abdominal hysterectomy. The records for all patients were analyzed for age, weight, parity, primary diagnosis, uterine size, operative time, blood loss, analgesia, hospital stay, resumption of diet, incidence of morcellation, and surgical complications. Sample size calculations were based on previous studies of complications associated with vaginal hysterectomy (alpha =.05; beta =.20).
RESULTS: Hysterectomy was successfully completed by the intended vaginal route in all study patients. Major and minor complications (3.2%) were significantly less (P <.001) than in the other groups as follows: vaginal hysterectomy, 10.4%; laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy, 11.6%; and abdominal hysterectomy, 13.6%. The decrease in hematocrit was 5.7% in the study vaginal hysterectomy group compared with 6.2% for vaginal hysterectomy, 6.5% for abdominal hysterectomy (P =.009), and 6.6% for laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (P =.002). Hospital stay was shorter for the study group (2.1 days) than for vaginal hysterectomy (2.3 days; P <.001) and abdominal hysterectomy (2.7 days; P <.001). Operative time was shorter in the study vaginal hysterectomy group (49 minutes) than with laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (76 minutes; P <.001) or abdominal hysterectomy (61 minutes; P <.001), although morcellation was carried out more frequently in the study group (34%) than with vaginal hysterectomy (4%) or laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (11%).
CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that a large uterus, nulliparity, previous cesarean delivery, and pelvic laparotomy rarely constitute contraindications to vaginal hysterectomy.