Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2010
Tubal ligation via colpotomy or laparoscopy: a retrospective comparative study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Chang Wei-Hsi, Liu Jah-Yao, Yeh Yu-Chi, Wu Gwo-Jang, Chiang Yung-Jong, Yu Mu-Hsien, Chen Chi-Huang
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare transvaginal with laparoscopic tubal sterilization with respect to invasiveness and outcomes.
METHOD: The outcomes of 103 patients who received interval tubal sterilization were compared. Group A (n = 38) underwent the transvaginal approach, group B (n = 38) a laparoscopic approach, and group C (n = 27) underwent mini-laparotomy due to difficulties encountered in one of the other procedures.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patient age between the groups. There was no significant difference in operative time or blood loss between groups A and B. Operative time was significantly longer in group C (120 ± 35 min) than group A (40 ± 5 min) or group B (45 ± 9 min) (p < 0.05). Blood loss was significantly greater in group C (120 ± 30 ml) than in group A (10 ± 2 ml) or group B (10 ± 1 ml) (p < 0.05). The cost of transvaginal tubal sterilization was the lowest, and that of mini-laparotomy was the highest. There was no contraception failure in any group.
CONCLUSIONS: Transvaginal tubal sterilization is technically more difficult, but when correctly performed it is not associated with an increased complication rate, and is less costly than laparoscopic sterilization.
METHOD: The outcomes of 103 patients who received interval tubal sterilization were compared. Group A (n = 38) underwent the transvaginal approach, group B (n = 38) a laparoscopic approach, and group C (n = 27) underwent mini-laparotomy due to difficulties encountered in one of the other procedures.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patient age between the groups. There was no significant difference in operative time or blood loss between groups A and B. Operative time was significantly longer in group C (120 ± 35 min) than group A (40 ± 5 min) or group B (45 ± 9 min) (p < 0.05). Blood loss was significantly greater in group C (120 ± 30 ml) than in group A (10 ± 2 ml) or group B (10 ± 1 ml) (p < 0.05). The cost of transvaginal tubal sterilization was the lowest, and that of mini-laparotomy was the highest. There was no contraception failure in any group.
CONCLUSIONS: Transvaginal tubal sterilization is technically more difficult, but when correctly performed it is not associated with an increased complication rate, and is less costly than laparoscopic sterilization.