Comparison between transumbilical and transvaginal morcellation of a large uterus during single-port-access total laparoscopic hysterectomy.
Adenomyosis
Hysterectomy
Laparoscopy
Minimally invasive surgical procedures
Myoma
Journal
Obstetrics & gynecology science
ISSN: 2287-8572
Titre abrégé: Obstet Gynecol Sci
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101602614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2020
May 2020
Historique:
received:
16
07
2019
revised:
28
10
2019
accepted:
07
11
2019
entrez:
4
6
2020
pubmed:
4
6
2020
medline:
4
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare the perioperative outcomes of transumbilical morcellation (TUM) and transvaginal morcellation (TVM) of a large uterus (≥500 g) during single-port-access total laparoscopic hysterectomy (SPA-TLH). A total of 57 patients who underwent SPA-TLH for a large uterine myoma and/or adenomyosis (uterine weight ≥500 g) between March 2013 and July 2017 were included. For specimen retrieval, TUM was performed for 30 patients and TVM for 27 patients. Perioperative outcomes, including total operative time, tissue extraction time, extension of skin incision length, estimated volume of blood loss, changes in postoperative hemoglobin level, length of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative pain, and uterine weight, were compared between the 2 groups. No significant differences were observed in the baseline characteristics except for a history of cesarean section (TUM vs. TVM: 83.3% vs. 14.8%, TUM during SPA-TLH is a feasible technique for extracting large uteri weighing ≥500 g. This procedure is suitable for patients without a history of vaginal delivery or a narrow vaginal cavity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32489984
doi: 10.5468/ogs.2020.63.3.379
pmc: PMC7231941
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
379-386Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Korean Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Références
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Jan;23(1):101-6
pubmed: 26371370
Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Summer;3(3):133-9
pubmed: 21364865
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2010 Sep 1;16(5):257-262
pubmed: 21603077
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017 May - Jun;24(4):617-625
pubmed: 28179197
N J Med. 1991 Oct;88(10):721-6
pubmed: 1836254
BJOG. 2008 Sep;115(10):1316-20
pubmed: 18715419
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Sep-Oct;23(6):903-8
pubmed: 27058770
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Mar;57(1):58-71
pubmed: 24351441
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002 Aug;42(3):282-4
pubmed: 12230064
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011 Nov;63 Suppl 11:S240-52
pubmed: 22588748
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Sep-Oct;23(6):847-8
pubmed: 27393284
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jun;204(6):566.e1-2
pubmed: 21752759
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Aug;207(2):112.e1-6
pubmed: 22704765
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Dec;50(4):411-4
pubmed: 22212310
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:8784601
pubmed: 27419141
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008 Sep-Oct;15(5):559-65
pubmed: 18657481
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013 Jul;169(2):366-9
pubmed: 23664457