SavedAdd your journal

Journals / GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine / 2018 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of Single Incision and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Surgical Sterilization

Yetkin KARASU
Duygu KAVAK CÖMERT
Pages
22–26
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)

CONCLUSION: Single incision laparoscopic surgery seems a safe and feasible alternative to conventional laparoscopy for surgical tubal sterilization.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: To compare the intraoperative characteristics and postoperative pain levels of single incision and conventional laparoscopic surgeries performed for surgical sterilization.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In total of 110 women, 62 in the conventional laparoscopy and 48 in the single incision laparoscopic surgery group participated in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CONCLUSION: Single incision laparoscopic surgery seems a safe and feasible alternative to conventional laparoscopy for surgical tubal sterilization.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

OBJECTIVE: To compare the intraoperative characteristics and postoperative pain levels of single incision and conventional laparoscopic surgeries performed for surgical sterilization. STUDY DESIGN: A single center prospective observational study was conducted to compare the conventional and single incision laparoscopic partial salpingectomies performed for surgical tubal sterilization. In total of 110 women, 62 in the conventional laparoscopy and 48 in the single incision laparoscopic surgery group participated in the study. The main outcome measures were peritoneal entry time, total operation time, amount of bleeding, intraoperative complications, post-operative pain scores, additional analgesic requirements, and length of hospital stay. Statistical analysis was accomplished using the chisquare test or Mann Whitney U test, where appropriate. RESULTS: Demographical findings did not differ between the two groups (p>0.05). Similarly, total operation time, rates of intraoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, length of hospital stay, pre and postoperative hematocrit levels were not significantly different between the groups. Peritoneal entry time was shorter in the single incision laparoscopic group (7.1 min. vs. 4.8 min., p 0.05). CONCLUSION: Single incision laparoscopic surgery seems a safe and feasible alternative to conventional laparoscopy for surgical tubal sterilization.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARASU, Y., CÖMERT, D. K. (2018). Comparison of Single Incision and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Surgical Sterilization. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 1, 22–26. https://ajindex.com/articles/161826

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Tasdemir N, Abali R, Celik C, Aksu E, Akkus D. Singleincision- two port laparoscopic tubal ligation: A cost comparison and technique description. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2015;16(1):30-1
  2. Santos Filho AS, Noviello MB, Damasceno RC, Patricio Edo C, Felix LR, Giostri PG, et al. Single-site laparoscopy in gynecology: preliminary study of a series of 50 cases. Rev Assoc Med Bras 2014;60(6):548-54
  3. Ulker K, Huseyinoglu U. Comparison of tubal sterilization procedures performed by keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery and conventional CO2 laparoscopy: a case controlled clinical study. TheScientificWorldJournal 2013;2013:963615
  4. Guido RS, Brooks K, McKenzie R, Gruss J, Krohn MA. A randomized, prospective comparison of pain after gasless laparoscopy and traditional laparoscopy. The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists 1998;5(2):149-53
  5. Song T, Kim MK, Kim ML, Yoon BS, Seong SJ. Would fewer port numbers in laparoscopy produce better cosmesis? Prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014; 21(1):68-73
  6. Yoo EH, Shim E. Single-port access compared with threeport laparoscopic adnexal surgery in a randomized controlled trial. J Int Med Res 2013;41(3):673-80
  7. Fader AN, Levinson KL, Gunderson CC, Winder AD, Escobar PF. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynaecology: A new frontier in minimally invasive surgery. J Minim Access Surg 2011;7(1):71-7
  8. Song T, Cho J, Kim TJ, Kim IR, Hahm TS, Kim BG, et al. Cosmetic outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site hysterectomy compared with multi-port surgery: randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013;20(4): 460-7
  9. Jennings AJ, Spencer RJ, Hanks L, Barroilhet L, Kushner D, Rose S, et al. The Feasibility and Safety of Adopting Single-incision Laparoscopic Surgery into Gynecologic Oncology Practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016;23(3):358-63
  10. Dursun P, Caglar M, Akilli H, Ayhan A. Large conization and laparoendoscopic single-port pelvic lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer for fertility preservation. Case Rep Surg 2013;2013:207191
  11. Iacoponi S, De Santiago J, Diestro MD, Hernandez A, Zapardiel I. Single-port laparoscopic extraperitoneal paraaortic lymphadenectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2013;23 (9):1712-6
  12. Boruta DM, 2nd, Growdon WB, Schorge JO. Single-incision laparoscopic staging for endometrial cancer. J Am Coll Surg 2011;212(1):e1-5
  13. Fagotti A, Boruta DM, 2nd, Scambia G, Fanfani F, Paglia A, Escobar PF. Fir