Cargando…

Randomized Comparison Between Two Microlaparoscopic Techniques for Partial Salpingectomy

OBJECTIVE: We compared 2 techniques for performing a partial salpingectomy by using microlaparoscopy and either bipolar coagulation or loop ligation. METHODS: A 3-mm transumbilical laparoscope with secondary midline port sites midway and suprapubically was used to perform a partial salpingectomy in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Siegle, John C., Bishop, Laura J., Rayburn, William F.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3015551/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15791966
_version_ 1782195542047064064
author Siegle, John C.
Bishop, Laura J.
Rayburn, William F.
author_facet Siegle, John C.
Bishop, Laura J.
Rayburn, William F.
author_sort Siegle, John C.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: We compared 2 techniques for performing a partial salpingectomy by using microlaparoscopy and either bipolar coagulation or loop ligation. METHODS: A 3-mm transumbilical laparoscope with secondary midline port sites midway and suprapubically was used to perform a partial salpingectomy in 109 women desiring permanent sterilization. Each patient was randomly assigned to undergo a tubal resection either after Pomeroy ligation (n=54) or after bipolar coagulation with Kleppinger forceps (n=55). Postoperative pain, as assessed using a 10-point visual analog scale, was the primary comparison endpoint. RESULTS: No technical difficulties with either technique required conversion to a minilaparotomy. The mean time to remove both tubal segments was not different between techniques (7 minutes, 21 seconds; range, 4 minutes, 25 seconds to 15 minutes, 43 seconds). Each segment (mean, 1.6 cm; range, 0.8 to 3.5 cm) was confirmed in the operating room, then histologically. Postoperative pain at 6 hours was scored similarly (median, ligation 4.6, coagulation 4.0 of 10). Outpatient recovery was the same, unless pelvic pain required overnight observation (ligation, 4 patients; coagulation, 2 patients). CONCLUSION: Partial salpingectomy, using microlaparos-copy with either bipolar coagulation or loop ligation, was performed with comparable ease, confirmation of the removed tube, and similar postoperative discomfort.
format Text
id pubmed-3015551
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2005
publisher Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30155512011-02-17 Randomized Comparison Between Two Microlaparoscopic Techniques for Partial Salpingectomy Siegle, John C. Bishop, Laura J. Rayburn, William F. JSLS Scientific Papers OBJECTIVE: We compared 2 techniques for performing a partial salpingectomy by using microlaparoscopy and either bipolar coagulation or loop ligation. METHODS: A 3-mm transumbilical laparoscope with secondary midline port sites midway and suprapubically was used to perform a partial salpingectomy in 109 women desiring permanent sterilization. Each patient was randomly assigned to undergo a tubal resection either after Pomeroy ligation (n=54) or after bipolar coagulation with Kleppinger forceps (n=55). Postoperative pain, as assessed using a 10-point visual analog scale, was the primary comparison endpoint. RESULTS: No technical difficulties with either technique required conversion to a minilaparotomy. The mean time to remove both tubal segments was not different between techniques (7 minutes, 21 seconds; range, 4 minutes, 25 seconds to 15 minutes, 43 seconds). Each segment (mean, 1.6 cm; range, 0.8 to 3.5 cm) was confirmed in the operating room, then histologically. Postoperative pain at 6 hours was scored similarly (median, ligation 4.6, coagulation 4.0 of 10). Outpatient recovery was the same, unless pelvic pain required overnight observation (ligation, 4 patients; coagulation, 2 patients). CONCLUSION: Partial salpingectomy, using microlaparos-copy with either bipolar coagulation or loop ligation, was performed with comparable ease, confirmation of the removed tube, and similar postoperative discomfort. Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2005 /pmc/articles/PMC3015551/ /pubmed/15791966 Text en © 2005 by JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits for noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not altered in any way.
spellingShingle Scientific Papers
Siegle, John C.
Bishop, Laura J.
Rayburn, William F.
Randomized Comparison Between Two Microlaparoscopic Techniques for Partial Salpingectomy
title Randomized Comparison Between Two Microlaparoscopic Techniques for Partial Salpingectomy
title_full Randomized Comparison Between Two Microlaparoscopic Techniques for Partial Salpingectomy
title_fullStr Randomized Comparison Between Two Microlaparoscopic Techniques for Partial Salpingectomy
title_full_unstemmed Randomized Comparison Between Two Microlaparoscopic Techniques for Partial Salpingectomy
title_short Randomized Comparison Between Two Microlaparoscopic Techniques for Partial Salpingectomy
title_sort randomized comparison between two microlaparoscopic techniques for partial salpingectomy
topic Scientific Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3015551/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15791966
work_keys_str_mv AT sieglejohnc randomizedcomparisonbetweentwomicrolaparoscopictechniquesforpartialsalpingectomy
AT bishoplauraj randomizedcomparisonbetweentwomicrolaparoscopictechniquesforpartialsalpingectomy
AT rayburnwilliamf randomizedcomparisonbetweentwomicrolaparoscopictechniquesforpartialsalpingectomy