Mini-Laparotomy Versus Laparoscopy for Gynecologic Conditions |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Service de Chirurgie Gynécologique et Cancérologique, Paris, France;2. Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris-Descartes, Paris, France;1. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia;2. Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC;3. Metro Health Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio;4. University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City;5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel |
| |
Abstract: | Study ObjectiveTo compare conversion rates, operative time, and estimated blood loss in patients undergoing mini-laparotomy (<4 cm vertical or transverse abdominal incision) versus laparoscopy for treatment of benign gynecologic conditions.DesignRetrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).SettingAcademic medical center.PatientsWomen who underwent laparoscopy or mini-laparotomy for treatment of gynecologic conditions from January 2002 to March 2011. Patients who underwent hysterectomy as part of the surgery, cancer staging procedure, pregnancy-related procedure, or diagnostic surgery alone were excluded.InterventionsMini-laparotomy or laparoscopy.Measurement and Main ResultsPrimary outcomes were operative time and estimated blood loss. Secondary outcomes were hospital readmission, repeat operation, overnight hospital admission, emergency room visits because of surgery-related signs or symptoms, and wound complications. Of 950 medical records examined, 493 patients (52%) met the inclusion criteria, of which 141 (29%) underwent mini-laparotomy and 352 (71%) underwent laparoscopy. The groups had similar indications for surgery and level of surgical assistant. Patients who underwent mini-laparotomy were older than those who underwent laparoscopy. In patients who underwent mini-laparotomy, mean operative time was significantly shorter (49.3 versus 91.5 minutes; p = .003), and estimated blood loss was less (20 versus 32 mL; p = .001). The cumulative secondary outcome rate was not statistically different between the 2 groups (15% versus 16%). When each secondary outcome (conversion, repeat operation, overnight hospital admission, readmission to the hospitalization, emergency department visit, and wound complication) was examined independently, only the wound complication rate was significantly higher in the mini-laparotomy group compared with the laparoscopy group (5 of 141 patients versus 1 of 352 patients; p = .008).ConclusionsMini-laparotomy is a safe alternative to traditional minimally invasive approaches in gynecology and offers the additional benefits of shorter intraoperative time and less blood loss; however, it is associated with a significantly higher rate of major wound complications. Mini-laparotomy is an important surgical approach and should be included in gynecologic surgical training. |
| |
Keywords: | Laparoscopy Mini-laparotomy Minimally invasive surgery |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|