DOI 10.1097/lgt.0000000000000439
Comparison of Electrosurgical Devices for Cervical Conization: Novel Monopolar Scalpel (VIO) Versus Ultrasonic Scalpel.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes associated with the use of a novel monopolar scalpel with those associated with the use of an ultrasonic scalpel for cervical conization of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
MATERIALS AND
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study in patients treated in our institute between April 2010 and March 2017. We used either the VIO monopolar scalpel (VIO) or Harmonic ultrasonic scalpel (HS) for cervical conization. We analyzed operative outcomes, postoperative complications, and pathological findings associated with the use of the 2 devices.
RESULTS
In 500 patients treated with cervical conization, VIO and HS were used in 249 and 251 patients, respectively. No significant difference in patient background was found between the groups. The mean operative time was shorter with VIO than with HS (18.2 min vs. 27.4 min). The mean estimated blood loss was greater with VIO (7.2 g vs. 3.1 g), but the postoperative bleeding rate was higher with HS (5% vs. 20%). Regarding other complications, cervical stenosis was only noted with VIO (4 cases, 1.6%). The positive margin (11% vs. 16%) and positive endocervical curettage rates (7% vs 10%) were not significantly different between the groups. No significant differences were also found in the pathological results and need for additional treatment (the rate of the additional treatment: 20% vs. 23%).
CONCLUSIONS
Considering short operating time and less postoperative bleeding, VIO was preferred to HS. However, the excessive coagulation in VIO is considered to lead to cervical stenosis.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.