Journal of minimally invasive gynecology · 2016
A Comparative Study of Transvaginal Repair and Laparoscopic Repair in the Management of Patients With Previous Cesarean Scar Defect.
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.
Zhang Ying
Аннотация
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to compare transvaginal intervention and laparoscopic repair for correcting the uterine defect in patients with previous cesarean scar defect (PCSD).
DESIGN: Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification).
SETTING: Previous studies have reported that transvaginal surgery and laparoscopic surgery are available treatment options for patients with PCSD. However, the two methods have not been compared before.
PATIENTS: A total of 124 patients with PCSD were included in the retrospective study between December 2010 and December 2014.
INTERVENTIONS: In the study, 65 patients received transvaginal repair, and 59 patients received laparoscopic repair.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Operation time, blood loss, hospital stay length and hospitalization expense, clinical syndromes and healing of uterine defect 3 months postoperatively were compared between the two surgical approaches. Patients receiving transvaginal repair exhibited significantly shorter operation time and lower hospitalization expenses than the patients receiving laparoscopic repair. Follow-up data showed that prolonged menstrual bleeding syndrome was obviously improved in 89% of patients undergoing transvaginal intervention and 86% of patients undergoing laparoscopic repair. The uterine defect disappeared or was substantially reduced in 87% of patients undergoing transvaginal intervention and 86% of patients undergoing laparoscopic repair. The differences between the two surgical approaches were insignificant.
CONCLUSION: Transvaginal repair is comparably effective to the laparoscopic repair and may be a more cost-effective and convenient surgical approach in the management of patients with PCSD.
DESIGN: Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification).
SETTING: Previous studies have reported that transvaginal surgery and laparoscopic surgery are available treatment options for patients with PCSD. However, the two methods have not been compared before.
PATIENTS: A total of 124 patients with PCSD were included in the retrospective study between December 2010 and December 2014.
INTERVENTIONS: In the study, 65 patients received transvaginal repair, and 59 patients received laparoscopic repair.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Operation time, blood loss, hospital stay length and hospitalization expense, clinical syndromes and healing of uterine defect 3 months postoperatively were compared between the two surgical approaches. Patients receiving transvaginal repair exhibited significantly shorter operation time and lower hospitalization expenses than the patients receiving laparoscopic repair. Follow-up data showed that prolonged menstrual bleeding syndrome was obviously improved in 89% of patients undergoing transvaginal intervention and 86% of patients undergoing laparoscopic repair. The uterine defect disappeared or was substantially reduced in 87% of patients undergoing transvaginal intervention and 86% of patients undergoing laparoscopic repair. The differences between the two surgical approaches were insignificant.
CONCLUSION: Transvaginal repair is comparably effective to the laparoscopic repair and may be a more cost-effective and convenient surgical approach in the management of patients with PCSD.