Clermont-Ferrand versus Vectec uterine manipulator for total laparoscopic hysterectomy

Objective: To compare the operation time and performance of two uterine manipulators used for total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH).

Material and methods: Design: Retrospective cohort analysis. Design classification: Canadian Task Force Classification II-2. Setting: Tertiary-care university-based teaching hospital and academic affiliated private hospital. Patients: All consecutive patients who underwent for TLH between January 2014 and June 2017. All operations were performed by two expert endoscopic surgeons using one of the following uterine manipulators depending on surgeon preferences: Clermont-Ferrand (CF) or Vectec (VT) MAUT60. Patients were excluded if additional surgeries such as urogynecological procedures were performed, TLH was converted to laparotomy prior to colpotomy, and when their operation records could not be obtained. A total of 169 patients were added to final analysis. Operation time, colpotomy time and the subjective performance of manipulators such as movement of the uterus, visualization of the vaginal fornices, and maintenance of pneumoperitoneum were evaluated by watching un-edited operation videos.

Results: A total of 169 patients (83 patients in CF group; 86 patients in VT group) were included in the final analysis. Patients’ baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Operation time and time required for colpotomy were significantly shorter in the VT group. Lateral movements of the manipulators and elevation of the uterus were better with VT compared to CF (p?=?.001 for both). Compared to the CF, VT was superior for visualization of the vaginal fornices (p?=?.004) and maintenance of pneumoperitoneum (p?<?.001). Both surgeons had perfect agreement on the performance grading of manipulators (p?<?.001, Kappa values were between 0.86–0.92). There was no difference between groups in estimated blood loss and duration of hospital stay. Reinsertion or the need to change the manipulator was not required in either group. No pelvic or vaginal abscess, cuff cellulitis, dehiscence, or hematoma formations were noted.

Conclusion: Laparoscopic hysterectomy assisted with the VT uterine manipulator is associated with shorter operation and colpotomy time. Furthermore, the movements of uterus, visualization of the vaginal fornices, and maintenance of pneumoperitoneum were significantly better with VT compared to the CF manipulator.     

非同步处理肾蒂血管技术在后腹腔镜复杂性肾癌肾盂癌根治术中的应用探讨

目的:探讨经后腹腔入路行腹腔镜复杂性肾癌肾盂癌根治术肾蒂血管非同步处理技巧。方法:2010年1月至2018 年 4月就诊于我科的109例肾癌、肾盂癌患者接受腹膜后入路腹腔镜根治性肾切除术。根据肾蒂血管处理方式的差异分别纳入非同步组和同步组。非同步组患者61例，其中肾癌43例，肾盂癌18例；同步组患者48例，其中肾癌33例，肾盂癌15例；均采用3套管技术，从腹膜后入路，显露肾蒂，非同步组优先处理肾动脉，游离肾脏，最后结扎肾静脉。同步组先游离出肾动脉及肾静脉予以结扎，最后游离肾脏。分别对两组患者的手术时间、术中失血量进行统计分析。结果:非同步组1例男性患者因左肾肉瘤浸润腰大肌、腹膜及结肠，粘连严重转为开放手术，予以排除，两组其余患者均顺利完成手术。非同步组与同步组手术时间分别为:肾癌（94.3±28.1）min vs （113.3±40.3）min，肾盂癌（135.2±43.3）min vs （168.2±37.2）min；术中出血量分别为:肾癌（68.4±56.8）ml vs （100.7±93.1）ml，肾盂癌（105.4±37.3）ml vs （131.3±36.3）ml。比较两组患者病种间手术时间及术中出血量均有统计学差异（P<0.05）。结论:肾蒂血管的处理是复杂性肾癌、肾盂癌经后腹腔镜根治切除的关键，术中灵活的肾血管处理应对尤为重要，非同步肾蒂血管处理技巧有助于减少术中出血量，缩短手术时间，增加手术安全性。     

腹腔镜肝切除联合脾动脉结扎术治疗肝癌合并门脉高压症的疗效分析

目的 探讨腹腔镜肝切除联合脾动脉结扎术治疗肝癌合并门脉高压症患者的安全性及有效性。方法 2018年2月至2020年2月我院共手术治疗的28例原发性肝细胞肝癌合并肝炎后肝硬化、门脉高压症及脾功能亢进患者,在腹腔镜下先行脾动脉主干结扎、然后再行肝癌的切除,其中局部不规则切除19例、左肝外叶切除9例。回顾性分析患者的一般资料、手术过程、术后恢复及随访结果进行。结果 28例手术均获成功,手术平均时间（102±40）min,术中出血量（71.07±79.41）mL,术后平均住院日（6.93±2.90）d。围手术期无死亡病例。术后无脾脓肿及肝衰竭等并发症发生,有5例腹水、2例胸腔积液、1例胆瘘、1例肺炎,均经非手术治疗后好转出院。白细胞及血小板计数术后1周恢复正常,至术后12个月仍维持在正常范围。截至2021年2月,门诊及电话随访12~36月,肝脏肿瘤再发3例次行射频消融治疗,多发肝内外转移死亡1例,上消化道出血死亡1例,失访1例。结论 腹腔镜下肝癌切除联合脾动脉结扎术治疗肝功能相对较差的肝癌合并门静脉高压症脾功能亢进患者是安全可行的,且具有微创的优势。     

Health Care Professionals’ Assessment of Patient Discomfort After Abdominal Surgery

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to classify elements of patients' discomfort in the resuscitation room after open or laparoscopic abdominal surgery as per health care professionals’ perceptions.DesignA prospective cross-sectional study at a tertiary hospital in Spain.MethodsResuscitation room nurses administered the Postoperative Discomfort Inventory to physicians and nurses with >1 year experience working closely with patients who had undergone abdominal surgery, asking them to score nine items related to patients' discomfort in the first 8 hours after surgery on an 11-point scale (0 = absent to 10 = very severe). Interobserver agreement among proxy reporters was measured with the Spearman's ρ; correlations >0.35 was considered adequate agreement.FindingsOf 125 eligible professionals, 116 (93%) participated (63 [54%] nurses and 53 [46%] physicians; mean age, 38 ± 12 years; 86 [74%] women). Professionals' perception of discomfort differed significantly between patients undergoing open surgery and those undergoing laparoscopic surgery; after open surgery, the most common types were pain (7.1 ± 1.8), movement restriction (7 ± 1.75), and dry mouth (6.6 ± 2.6), whereas after laparoscopic surgery, the most common types were dry mouth (5.85 ± 2.8), abdominal bloating (5.3 ± 2.5), and pain (5 ± 2.2). The Spearman's ρ correlations were inadequate for all items except for dry mouth in open surgery (r = 0.40).ConclusionsPain, movement restriction, abdominal bloating, and dry mouth were the main causes of discomfort. Our findings highlight the need to be vigilant for all manifestations of discomfort after abdominal surgery to enable timely treatment.     

Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common condition which can have a profound effect on health-related quality of life. The lifetime risk of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse for all women is around 10–12%, making prolapse surgery one of the most commonly performed operations of all. Surgery is generally offered only to women to do not respond to conservative measures such as physiotherapy and/or vaginal pessaries. It is very important to ensure excellent clinical governance around the decision-making process for this elective surgical problem, and this may include the use of written information, face to face and telephone consultations, patient reported outcome measures and patient decision aids. This chapter will cover all the different techniques for prolapse surgery including conventional approaches using native tissue, uterus conserving prolapse surgery and surgery for post-hysterectomy vault prolapse. This will also include laparoscopic prolapse surgery. The role of mesh in prolapse surgery will also be discussed and this chapter will cover important topics including patient selection and preparation for prolapse surgery, shared decision making and how best to facilitate this, patient preparation before prolapse surgery and follow-up post operation.