Journals / JAREM / 2015 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 3

Diagnostic and Operative Laparoscopy: Experience in a Teaching Hospital

Diagnostik ve Operatif Laparoskopi: Bir Eğitim Hastanesinin Deneyimi

Journal
JAREM
Pages
97–101
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)

However, the physician must be an expert in its application and must have adequate knowledge to overcome complications

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The objective of this study was to determine under the view literature, the indications, findings, and complications of diagnostic and operative laparoscopy performed at a teaching hospital.Methods: A total of 503 cases for which the laparoscopy was performed for diagnostic and operative purposes was included into this study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Demographic characteristics, length of operative time, length of hospital stay, conversion rate to open procedure, and complication rates were evaluated.Results: In our clinic, operative laparoscopy was performed in 405 out of 503 cases.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, the physician must be an expert in its application and must have adequate knowledge to overcome complications
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine under the view literature, the indications, findings, and complications of diagnostic and operative laparoscopy performed at a teaching hospital.Methods: A total of 503 cases for which the laparoscopy was performed for diagnostic and operative purposes was included into this study. Demographic characteristics, length of operative time, length of hospital stay, conversion rate to open procedure, and complication rates were evaluated.Results: In our clinic, operative laparoscopy was performed in 405 out of 503 cases. The mean age, gravida, parity, and living child numbers of cases were 32.97±7.29 years, 1.06±1.72, 0.47±1.11, and 0.6±1.15, respectively. Indications of patients undergoing laparoscopy were as follows: diagnostic purpose, tubal obstructions, polycystic ovary syndrome, myoma uteri, adnexial mass, habitual abortion, tubal ligation, adhesions, ectopic pregnancy, amenorrhea, decensus uteri, intrauterine device extraction, chronic pelvic pain, repair of uterine perforation, which occurred during hysteroscopy. Laparotomy was required in seven cases while performing laparoscopy. The complications were reported in 17 of 503 patients with diagnostic and operative laparoscopy. Conclusion: Laparoscopic procedures have become the choice of treatment for most gynecological diseases. Avoidance of laparotomy, smaller incisions, lesser perioperative problems, minimal tissue damage, and shorter duration of hospitalization are well-known advantages of laparoscopy. However, the physician must be an expert in its application and must have adequate knowledge to overcome complications

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, bir eğitim hastanesinde gerçekleştirilen diagnostik ve operatif laparoskopi operasyonlarını literatür eşliğinde gözden geçirerek endikasyonlarımızı, bulgularımızı ve komplikasyonları tespit etmektir ve değerlendirmektir.Yöntemler: Tanısal ve operatif amaçlı laparoskopi uygulanan toplam 503 olgu çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hastalar demografik özellikleri, operasyon süresi, açık yönteme dönüş oranları, hastanede kalış süreleri, komplikasyonları açısından incelendi.Bulgular: Kliniğimizde uygulanan 503 laparoskopinin 405'inde operatif işlem uygulanmıştır. Olguların ortalama yaşları 32,97±7,29 yıl, gravida 1,06±1,72, parite 0,47±1,11 abort sayısı 0,60±1,15 olarak hesaplandı. Adezyolizis, endometriozis odaklarının koterizasyonu, adneksiyal kitle, infertilite, polikistik over sendromu, habituel abort, tubal ligasyon isteği, desensus uteri, ria çıkartılması, tubal obstrüksiyon, amenore, kronik pelvik ağrı, myom enükleasyonu, kist sıvısı aspirasyonıı ve/veya ekstirpasyonu, ektopik gebelik, histeroskopi sırasında uterus perforasyonu gibi endikasyonlarla operatif laparoskopi girişiminde bulunduk. Olguların 7'sinde laparatomiye geçildi. Toplam 17 olguda (%3,37) komplikasyon gelişti. Sonuç: Laparoskopik prosedürler jinekolojik pek çok patolojide seçilen tedavi şekli haline gelmiştir. Laparotomiden kaçınma, daha küçük insizyonlar, daha az perioperatif rahatsızlıklar, minimal doku travması, hastanede kalma süresinin kısa olması laparoskopinin iyi bilinen avantajlarıdır. Bununla birlikte kullanımı uzmanlık gerektirir ve komplikasyonları bilen bir cerrahın uygulamasında yarar vardır

🔖

Cite This Article

KUMBASAR, S., AKIN, H., SALMAN, S., YUMRU, A. E., SEVER, E., ÖZDEMİR, M. E. (2015). Diagnostic and Operative Laparoscopy: Experience in a Teaching Hospital. JAREM, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 3, 97–101. https://ajindex.com/articles/206730

References (9)

  1. Nezhat C, Nezhat F, Nezhat C. Operative laparoscopy (minimally invasive surgery): state of the art. J Gynecol Surg 1992; 8: 111-41. [CrossRef] Camanni M, Bonino L, Delpiano EM, Migliaretti G, Berchalla P, Del- tetto F. Laparoscopy and body mass index: feasility and outcome in obese patients treated for gynecologic diseases. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010; 17: 576-82. [CrossRef] Jadoul P, Donnez J. Complications of laparoscopic surgery in gyne- cology. In: Donnez J, ed. Atlas of Operative Laparoscopy and Hyste- roscopy. 3rd ed. London: Informa Healthcare 2007; 425-46.
  2. Philips J, Hulka J, Keith D, Hulka B, Keith L. Laparoscopic procedu- res: a nationalsurvey for 1975. J Reprod Med 1977; 18: 219-26.
  3. Loffer FD, Pent D. Indications, contra-indications and complications of laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol Survey 1970; 30: 407-27. [CrossRef] Gordon AG, Magos AL. The development of laparoscopic surgery. Ballieres CIin Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 3: 429-50. [CrossRef] Frenkel Y, Oelsner G, Ben-Baruch G, Menczer J. Major surgical complications of laparoscopy. Etir J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Bid 1981; 12: 107-11. [CrossRef] Semm K. Statistical survey of gynaecological laparoscopy/pelvis- copy in Germany till 1977. Endoscopy 1977; 2: 101-6.
  4. Lecuru F, Darles C, Robin F, Huss M, Ruscillo MM, Taurelle R. Morbi- dity of routine gynaecological laparoscopy: a report of a seriesof 283 procedures. Gynaecol Endosc 1996; 5: 79-82.
  5. Riedel HH, Lehmann-Willenbrock E, Mecke H, Semm K. The fiequ- encydistribution of various pelviscopic (laparoscopic) operations, including complications rates-statistics of the Federal Republic of Germany in the years 1983-1985. Zentrabl Gynakol 1989; 3: 78-91. Yuzpe AA. Pneumoperitoneum needle and troicart injuries in lapa- roscopy. A survey on possible contributing factors and prevention. J Reprod Med 1990; 35: 485-90.
  6. Peterson HB, Hulka JF, Phillipps JM. American Association of Gyne- cologic Laparoscopists' 1988 membership survey on operative lapa- roscopy. J Reprod Med 1990; 35: 587-9.
  7. Lehmann-Willenbrock E, Riedel HH, Mecke H, Semm K. Pelviscopy/ laparoscopy and its complications in Germany, 1949-1988. J Reprod Med 1992; 37: 671-7.
  8. Chapron C, Querleu D, Mage G, Madelenat P, Dubuisson JB, Aude- bert A, et al. Complications of gynecologic laparoscopy. Multicentric study of 7,604 laparoscopies. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 1992; 21: 207-13.
  9. Querleu D, Chapron C, Chevallier L, Bruhat MA. Complications ofg- ynaecologic laparoscopic surgery-a French multicenter colla