赢8娱乐糖果配对游戏-官方网站[welcome]


+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Single-port vs. conventional multi-port access laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: comparison of surgical outcomes and complications



Single-port vs. conventional multi-port access laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: comparison of surgical outcomes and complications



European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 169(2): 366-369



To compare surgical outcomes and complications between single-port access (SPA) and multi-port access (MPA) laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH). A retrospective review of medical records was performed in patients who underwent LAVH for non-malignant gynaecological diseases at Eun Hospital between April 2010 and April 2012. One hundred and twenty women underwent SPA LAVH using a transumbilical three-channel single-port system and 130 women underwent conventional MPA LAVH. Surgical outcomes and complications were compared between the two groups. The outcomes of the SPA-LAVH group vs. the conventional MPA-LAVH group were as follows: mean±standard deviation total operative time (73.1±24.3 vs. 70.3±22.1min, p=0.349), largest dimension of uterus (10.7±2.3 vs. 10.8±2.8cm, p=0.847), weight of extirpated uterus (311±185 vs. 339±234g, p=0.298) and change in haemoglobin (1.7±0.8 vs. 2.0±0.9g/dl, p=0.025). The incidence of complications was similar in each group (20 vs. 16 patients, p=0.327). Unplanned intra-operative laparotomy was not necessary in either group, and there were no cases of bowel injury or main vessel injury in either group. In total, there were three bladder injuries: one in the SPA-LAVH group and two in the MPA-LAVH group. The postoperative course was uneventful in most patients, but six patients had a transient paralytic ileus (four in the SPA-LAVH group and two in the MPA-LAVH group) and 10 patients had a pelvic haematoma (five in each group), all of whom recovered following conservative management. Port-related complications were rare, but one patient in the SPA-LAVH group had a port-site umbilical hernia. Use of SPA and MPA LAVH has similar results in terms of surgical outcomes and complications.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 036884305

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23664457

DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.03.026


Related references

Operative outcomes of single-port-access laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy compared with single-port-access total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 53(4): 486-489, 2014

Single-port-access laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a comparison of perioperative outcomes. Surgical Endoscopy 24(9): 2248-2252, 2010

Abdominal, multi-port and single-port total laparoscopic hysterectomy: eleven-year trends comparison of surgical outcomes complications of 936 cases. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 291(6): 1313-1319, 2015

Is single-port access laparoscopy less painful than conventional laparoscopy for adnexal surgery? A comparison of postoperative pain and surgical outcomes. Surgical Innovation 20(1): 46-54, 2013

Single Port Laparoscopy-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy, Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy, and Laparoscopy-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy in the Treatment of Benign Uterin Disease. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 19(6): S153-S154, 2012

Single-port access laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: our initial experiences with 100 cases. Minimally Invasive Surgery 2012: 543627-543627, 2012

Single-port access versus conventional multi-port access total laparoscopic hysterectomy for very large uterus. Obstetrics and Gynecology Science 58(3): 239-245, 2015

A prospective comparison of single-port laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy using transumbilical GelPort access and multiport laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 158(2): 0-297, 2011

A comparison of postoperative pain after transumbilical single-port access and conventional three-port total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 94(12): 1290-1296, 2015

Transumbilical single-port access versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy: surgical outcomes. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 203(1): 26.E1-6, 2010

Does surgical platform impact recurrence and survival? A?study of utilization of multiport, single-port, and robotic-assisted laparoscopy in endometrial cancer?surgery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 221(3): 243.E1-243.E11, 2019

Vaginal vault drainage after complicated single-port access laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy 6(2): 58-62, 2017

What is the learning curve for single-port access laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy?. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 158(1): 93-96, 2011

Comparison of Single Port Access Versus Multiple Port Access Systems in Elective Laparoscopy: 98 Dogs (2005-2014). Veterinary Surgery 44(7): 895-899, 2016

Does conventional or single port laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy affect female sexual function?. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 90(12): 1410-1415, 2011





赢8娱乐糖果配对游戏 <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <文本链> <文本链> <文本链> <文本链> <文本链> <文本链>