Obstetrics and gynecology · 1993
Comparison of laser-assisted anastomosis, laser welding, and microsurgical anastomosis of rabbit uterine tubes.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Kao L W, Giles H R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess laser-assisted anastomosis in fallopian tube reconstruction.
METHODS: Fifty-two rabbit uterine tubes were transected and subjected to laser welding or to microsurgical or laser-assisted anastomosis in a randomized paired design, and compared with the contralateral side. The time required for the procedure, patency of the uterine tubes, amount of adhesion formation, and quality of scar tissue (grossly and histologically) were evaluated 4 weeks after surgery.
RESULTS: Traditional microsurgical procedures required significantly longer operative time than laser-assisted anastomosis (64.4 +/- 2.2 versus 41.3 +/- 2.2 minutes) or laser welding (47.8 +/- 3.0 versus 24.5 +/- 3.0 minutes). Patency was established in all 52 uterine tubes. Adhesion formation was animal-dependent rather than procedure-dependent. All scars healed well and most were not visible beyond residue suture. Inflammatory cells were noted around the suture sites; however, gross observation revealed that all mucosal surfaces over the scars were smooth. One of 18 laser-welded uterine tubes developed dehiscence, whereas there was no dehiscence in laser-assisted or microsurgically anastomosed uterine tubes.
CONCLUSION: Laser-assisted anastomosis is superior to laser welding or microsurgical anastomosis in rabbit uterine tubes. Laser-assisted anastomosis has potential use in fallopian tube reconstruction.
METHODS: Fifty-two rabbit uterine tubes were transected and subjected to laser welding or to microsurgical or laser-assisted anastomosis in a randomized paired design, and compared with the contralateral side. The time required for the procedure, patency of the uterine tubes, amount of adhesion formation, and quality of scar tissue (grossly and histologically) were evaluated 4 weeks after surgery.
RESULTS: Traditional microsurgical procedures required significantly longer operative time than laser-assisted anastomosis (64.4 +/- 2.2 versus 41.3 +/- 2.2 minutes) or laser welding (47.8 +/- 3.0 versus 24.5 +/- 3.0 minutes). Patency was established in all 52 uterine tubes. Adhesion formation was animal-dependent rather than procedure-dependent. All scars healed well and most were not visible beyond residue suture. Inflammatory cells were noted around the suture sites; however, gross observation revealed that all mucosal surfaces over the scars were smooth. One of 18 laser-welded uterine tubes developed dehiscence, whereas there was no dehiscence in laser-assisted or microsurgically anastomosed uterine tubes.
CONCLUSION: Laser-assisted anastomosis is superior to laser welding or microsurgical anastomosis in rabbit uterine tubes. Laser-assisted anastomosis has potential use in fallopian tube reconstruction.