The Journal of reproductive medicine · 1996
Laparoscopy vs. laparotomy for gynecologic procedures. Impact on resident training.
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.
Sultana C J, Sogor L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare laparoscopic approaches to traditional ones for operative procedures.
STUDY DESIGN: Operating residents collected data on all abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic vaginal hysterectomies, myomectomies, cystectomies/oophorectomies and ectopics between December 1, 1992, and July 31, 1993. Statistical analysis included Student's t test for interval data and chi (2)/Fisher's exact test for categorical data.
RESULTS: Leiomyomas were the major indications for all three types of hysterectomy. Patients selected for vaginal hysterectomy had significantly higher parity and older age than those scheduled for abdominal hysterectomy or laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH). Abdominal hysterectomy uteri were larger than those using vaginal or LAVH procedures. LAVH procedures were significantly longer when failed laparoscopic procedures were excluded. Abdominal hysterectomy patients used twice as much morphine as vaginal and LAVH patients, and the length of stay was longer. LAVH was significantly more expensive than vaginal hysterectomy. There was no difference in operating time for nonhysterectomy cases, but the cost and length of stay were less for laparoscopy.
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy can be advantageous for certain procedures but has little advantage for hysterectomy and may make fewer vaginal hysterectomies available for resident education since the patients selected for LAVH and total vaginal hysterectomy are more similar to each other than to patients selected for total abdominal hysterectomy.
STUDY DESIGN: Operating residents collected data on all abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic vaginal hysterectomies, myomectomies, cystectomies/oophorectomies and ectopics between December 1, 1992, and July 31, 1993. Statistical analysis included Student's t test for interval data and chi (2)/Fisher's exact test for categorical data.
RESULTS: Leiomyomas were the major indications for all three types of hysterectomy. Patients selected for vaginal hysterectomy had significantly higher parity and older age than those scheduled for abdominal hysterectomy or laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH). Abdominal hysterectomy uteri were larger than those using vaginal or LAVH procedures. LAVH procedures were significantly longer when failed laparoscopic procedures were excluded. Abdominal hysterectomy patients used twice as much morphine as vaginal and LAVH patients, and the length of stay was longer. LAVH was significantly more expensive than vaginal hysterectomy. There was no difference in operating time for nonhysterectomy cases, but the cost and length of stay were less for laparoscopy.
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy can be advantageous for certain procedures but has little advantage for hysterectomy and may make fewer vaginal hysterectomies available for resident education since the patients selected for LAVH and total vaginal hysterectomy are more similar to each other than to patients selected for total abdominal hysterectomy.