Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2016
Peritoneal closure during laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Eggemann Holm, Mitrik Nara Asbahr, Kabdebo Otto, Costa Serban Dan, Ignatov Atanas
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to compare postoperative pain and analgesic requirements regarding closure and non-closure of the peritoneum in women undergoing laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH).
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study was designed to investigate the impact of peritoneal closure for LSH. Postoperative pain was measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS) and analgesic requirements were assessed. Intra- and postoperative complications and operative time were recorded.
RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were enrolled. Fifty-two (50 %) women underwent a LSH with peritoneal closure and 52 (50 %) underwent LSH without closure. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups except for age; women undergoing LSH without peritoneal closure were significantly younger (p < 0.008, t test). The median operative time was 53 (26-105) minutes for LSH with peritoneal closure and 44 (24-83) minutes for LSH without peritoneal closure, a median reduction of 9 minutes (p = 0.007). No differences were found in uterine weight, intra- and post-operative complications, median haemoglobin drop or time in hospital when contrasting both groups. Both groups had similar VAS-pain scores and needed similar analgesic therapies.
CONCLUSIONS: The peritoneal closure at LSH provides no short-term postoperative advantages over a non-closure approach, and it prolongs the operative time and anaesthetic exposure. Our data suggest that peritoneal closure is not necessary in LSH.
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study was designed to investigate the impact of peritoneal closure for LSH. Postoperative pain was measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS) and analgesic requirements were assessed. Intra- and postoperative complications and operative time were recorded.
RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were enrolled. Fifty-two (50 %) women underwent a LSH with peritoneal closure and 52 (50 %) underwent LSH without closure. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups except for age; women undergoing LSH without peritoneal closure were significantly younger (p < 0.008, t test). The median operative time was 53 (26-105) minutes for LSH with peritoneal closure and 44 (24-83) minutes for LSH without peritoneal closure, a median reduction of 9 minutes (p = 0.007). No differences were found in uterine weight, intra- and post-operative complications, median haemoglobin drop or time in hospital when contrasting both groups. Both groups had similar VAS-pain scores and needed similar analgesic therapies.
CONCLUSIONS: The peritoneal closure at LSH provides no short-term postoperative advantages over a non-closure approach, and it prolongs the operative time and anaesthetic exposure. Our data suggest that peritoneal closure is not necessary in LSH.