Journal of minimally invasive gynecology · 2024
Tissue Retrieval of Laparoscopically Excised Adnexal Specimens in Gynecologic Surgery: Posterior Culdotomy Versus Abdominal Extraction.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Horton Toni S, Palin Hannah S, Chai Melinda H, Craver Emily C, Carrubba Aakriti R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in women undergoing removal of adnexal structures by either posterior culdotomy or abdominal extraction.
DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study conducted via medical record review. Demographic, clinical, and operative variables were abstracted from the medical records. Statistical analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and multivariable logistic regression models.
SETTING: Single academic tertiary care center between 2010 and 2022.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 718 patients were identified and included in our analysis who underwent minimally invasive ovarian cystectomy or oophorectomy. Patients were excluded if they underwent concomitant hysterectomy.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent minimally invasive oophorectomy or ovarian cystectomy, and specimens were extracted by either abdominal extraction (AE) or culdotomy extraction (CE).
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 718 patients who met inclusion criteria, 127 (17.7%) underwent CE, and 591 (82.3%) underwent abdominal extraction. The CE group had longer operative times (113 minutes vs 96 minutes, p <.001) and higher estimated blood loss (25 mL vs 10 mL, p <.001) compared to the abdominal extraction group. There were more malignancies in the CE than the abdominal extraction group (15.7% vs 8.1%, respectively, p <.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, those who underwent CE were more likely to have 2 or more clinic visits (OR 2.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-5.03; p <.001) and call or message the clinic (OR 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-3.20; p <.001). There were no incidences of cuff dehiscence, cuff cellulitis, or pelvic abscess in either group.
CONCLUSION: Removal of adnexal specimens via abdominal port site or posterior culdotomy incision is a feasible option for specimen extraction and can be individualized based on patient and surgeon preference and patient factors. Those undergoing CE may require more preoperative counseling due to higher rate of postoperative messages seen in our cohort.
DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study conducted via medical record review. Demographic, clinical, and operative variables were abstracted from the medical records. Statistical analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and multivariable logistic regression models.
SETTING: Single academic tertiary care center between 2010 and 2022.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 718 patients were identified and included in our analysis who underwent minimally invasive ovarian cystectomy or oophorectomy. Patients were excluded if they underwent concomitant hysterectomy.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent minimally invasive oophorectomy or ovarian cystectomy, and specimens were extracted by either abdominal extraction (AE) or culdotomy extraction (CE).
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 718 patients who met inclusion criteria, 127 (17.7%) underwent CE, and 591 (82.3%) underwent abdominal extraction. The CE group had longer operative times (113 minutes vs 96 minutes, p <.001) and higher estimated blood loss (25 mL vs 10 mL, p <.001) compared to the abdominal extraction group. There were more malignancies in the CE than the abdominal extraction group (15.7% vs 8.1%, respectively, p <.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, those who underwent CE were more likely to have 2 or more clinic visits (OR 2.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-5.03; p <.001) and call or message the clinic (OR 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-3.20; p <.001). There were no incidences of cuff dehiscence, cuff cellulitis, or pelvic abscess in either group.
CONCLUSION: Removal of adnexal specimens via abdominal port site or posterior culdotomy incision is a feasible option for specimen extraction and can be individualized based on patient and surgeon preference and patient factors. Those undergoing CE may require more preoperative counseling due to higher rate of postoperative messages seen in our cohort.