Journals / GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine / 2019 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of Different Surgical Approaches for Hysterectomy: A Single-Institution Experience

Pages
44–48
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

CONCLUSIONS: When technically feasible, multiport access laparoscopic hysterectomy, and single- port access laparoscopic hysterectomy may be performed instead f total abdominal hysterectomy because of rapid recovery and shorter hospitalization however, there is longer operating time.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare surgical outcomes and postoperative complications among differ- ent hysterectomy approaches such as total abdominal hysterectomy, vaginal hysterectomy, multiport ac- cess laparoscopic hysterectomy, and single-port access laparoscopic hysterectomy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We evaluated 86 con- secutive patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign gynecological conditions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CONCLUSIONS: When technically feasible, multiport access laparoscopic hysterectomy, and single- port access laparoscopic hysterectomy may be performed instead f total abdominal hysterectomy because of rapid recovery and shorter hospitalization however, there is longer operating time.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare surgical outcomes and postoperative complications among differ- ent hysterectomy approaches such as total abdominal hysterectomy, vaginal hysterectomy, multiport ac- cess laparoscopic hysterectomy, and single-port access laparoscopic hysterectomy. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective, single institution, case - control study was carried out at the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of Baskent University in Ankara, Turkey. We evaluated 86 con- secutive patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign gynecological conditions. RESULTS: A total of 86 women underwent hysterectomy: 20 (23.3%) total abdominal hysterectomy, 20 (23.3%) vaginal hysterectomy, 27 (31.3%) multiport access laparoscopic hysterectomy, and 19 (22.1%) single-port access laparoscopic hysterectomy using a transumbilical single-port system. There was no sig- nificant difference in uterine size between groups (Z=5.705; p=0.127). A statistically significant (p<0.001) difference in operation time (duration of surgery) was observed among the following groups. The duration of surgery for the multiport access laparoscopic hysterectomy, and single-port access laparoscopic hys- terectomy groups were similar, with these two laparoscopic procedures requiring significantly more time than total abdominal hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy procedures. There was no statistically significant difference between hemoglobin levels before and after operation between groups. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in intraoperative and postoperative complications. Six patients experienced complications, one intraoperative and five postoperative. The Intraoperative com- plication was ureter injury in single-port access laparoscopic hysterectomy group. The postoperative com- plication rate was 5.8% (5 cases) in 86 patients. Perirectal abscess in one patient and wound infection in two patients occurred in total abdominal hysterectomy group (15%). Urinary tract infection in one patient and vaginal cuff cellulitis in one patient occurred in vaginal hysterectomy group (4%). No complications were reported in multiport access laparoscopic hysterectomy, and single-port access laparoscopic hys- terectomy groups. Post-surgery, all patients who underwent single-port access laparoscopic hysterec- tomy reported that they were satisfied with their incision and cosmetic results. CONCLUSIONS: When technically feasible, multiport access laparoscopic hysterectomy, and single- port access laparoscopic hysterectomy may be performed instead f total abdominal hysterectomy because of rapid recovery and shorter hospitalization however, there is longer operating time.

🔖

Cite This Article

TOHMA, Y. A., TUNÇ, M., GÜNAKAN, E., KUCUKYILDIZ, I., KARAKAS, L. A., MORAN, U., AKYOL, M., ZEYNELOĞLU, H. B., DURSUN, P. (2019). Comparison of Different Surgical Approaches for Hysterectomy: A Single-Institution Experience. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 1, 44–48. https://ajindex.com/articles/161120

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Kreuninger JA, Cohen SL, Meurs EAIM, Cox M, Vitonis A, Jansen FW, et al. Trends in readmission rate by route of hysterectomy-a single-center experience. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97(3):285-93.
  2. Borahay MA, Tapisiz OL, Alanbay I, Kilic GS. Outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for benign conditions in obese patients. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2018;19(2):72-7.
  3. Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(3):CD003677. Cassis C, Mukhopadhyay S, Sule MM, Kuruba N. Feasibility of early discharge following vaginal hysterec- tomy with a bipolar electrocoagulation device. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;142(2):182-6. Sutton C. Hysterectomy: a historical perspective. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;11(1):1-22. Reich H. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1992;2(1):85-8.
  4. Walsh CA, Walsh SR, Tang TY, Slack M. Total abdominal hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;144(1):3-7.
  5. Perron-Burdick M, Calhoun A, Idowu D, Pressman A, Zaritsky E. Minilaparotomy vs. laparoscopic hysterec- tomy: comparison of length of hospital stay. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(4):619-23.
  6. Fader AN, Cohen S, Escobar PF, Gunderson C. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;22(4):331-8.
  7. Escobar PF, Starks D, Fader AN, Catenacci M, Falcone T. Laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice surgery in gynecology. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(7):2497-502.
  8. Sun HD, Horng HC, Liu CH, Hsiao SM, Chen YJ, Chang WH, et al. Comparison of single-port and three-port la- paroscopic salpingectomy in the management for tubal pregnancy. J Chin Med Assoc. 2018;81(5):469-74.
  9. Song T, Kim ML, Jung YW, Yoon BS, Joo WD, Seong SJ. Laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparo- scopic gynecologic surgery: a metaanalysis of random- ized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209 (4):317 e1-9. Kim SM, Park EK, Jeung IC, Kim CJ, Lee YS. Abdominal, multi-port and single-port total laparoscopic hysterectomy: eleven-year trends comparison of surgical outcomes complications of 936 cases. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291(6):1313-9.
  10. Makinen J, Johansson J, Tomás C, Tomás E, Heinonen PK, Laatikainen T, et al. Morbidity of 10 110 hysterec- tomies by type of approach. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(7): 1473-8.
  11. Istre O, Snejbjerg D. Complicat