Journal of minimally invasive gynecology · 2007
Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus minilaparotomy hysterectomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное 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.
Muzii Ludovico, Basile Stefano, Zupi Errico, Marconi Daniela, Zullo Marzio Angelo, Manci Natalina, Bellati Filippo, Angioli Roberto, Benedetti Panici Pierluigi
Аннотация
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare operative and early postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) and minilaparotomy in a randomized clinical trial including patients undergoing total hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease and having 1 or more of the generally considered contraindications to vaginal route.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, multicenter trial (Canadian Task Force classification I).
SETTING: Departments of Gynecology from 3 major university hospitals in Rome.
PATIENTS: Eighty-one patients who were candidates for abdominal hysterectomy.
INTERVENTIONS: Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and minilaparotomy hysterectomy.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty patients were randomized to LAVH and 41 to minilaparotomy. Characteristics of patients and indications for surgery in the 2 arms were comparable. In the minilaparotomy group, complications were as follows: 1 case (2.4%) of delayed laparotomy with 2 units of red blood cell transfusion, 2 cases (4.8%) of wound infection, and 3 cases (7.3%) of fever of unknown origin. No minor or major complications were observed in the LAVH group. Postoperative visual analog scale pain scores at days 1 and 2 were significantly lower in the LAVH group (p <.05). The complication rate between the 2 groups was significantly lower for LAVH (p = .026).
CONCLUSION: Because LAVH was associated with significantly lower early postoperative pain scores and complication rates, in general LAVH should be preferred to minilaparotomy hysterectomy when the vaginal approach cannot be used.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, multicenter trial (Canadian Task Force classification I).
SETTING: Departments of Gynecology from 3 major university hospitals in Rome.
PATIENTS: Eighty-one patients who were candidates for abdominal hysterectomy.
INTERVENTIONS: Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and minilaparotomy hysterectomy.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty patients were randomized to LAVH and 41 to minilaparotomy. Characteristics of patients and indications for surgery in the 2 arms were comparable. In the minilaparotomy group, complications were as follows: 1 case (2.4%) of delayed laparotomy with 2 units of red blood cell transfusion, 2 cases (4.8%) of wound infection, and 3 cases (7.3%) of fever of unknown origin. No minor or major complications were observed in the LAVH group. Postoperative visual analog scale pain scores at days 1 and 2 were significantly lower in the LAVH group (p <.05). The complication rate between the 2 groups was significantly lower for LAVH (p = .026).
CONCLUSION: Because LAVH was associated with significantly lower early postoperative pain scores and complication rates, in general LAVH should be preferred to minilaparotomy hysterectomy when the vaginal approach cannot be used.