首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology >Randomized comparative study of conventional minilaparoscopy (5mm) versus modern minilaparoscopy (2.9mm) in patients of infertility
【24h】

Randomized comparative study of conventional minilaparoscopy (5mm) versus modern minilaparoscopy (2.9mm) in patients of infertility

机译:常规小木镜检查(5mm)对比较研究与不孕症患者的现代小木镜检查(2.9mm)

获取原文
           

摘要

Background: To compare diagnostic conventional minilaparoscopy (5mm) with diagnostic modern minilaparoscopy (2.9mm) in patients of infertility in terms of operating time, post-operative pain, hospital stay. Methods: A prospective randomized comparative study was done in a tertiary care centre involving eighty patients of infertility undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy. Diagnostic laparoscopy was done using 5mm laparoscope (Conventional minilaparoscope-Group I) in 40 patients and using 2.9mm laparoscope (Modern minilaparoscope-Group II) in 40 patients. Operating time was measured from the point of skin incision to closure, post op pain was assessed with VAS scoring system, total hours of hospital stay from shifting to day care recovery ward till discharge was noted. Results: Both conventional minilaroscope and modern minilaparoscopes were comparable to each other. Operating time in both groups was similar (7.7min in Group I vs 8.7min in Group II). In both groups, there was no statistically significant difference in post-operative pain as assessed by VAS scoring System (39 in Group I vs 38 in Group II had mild post-op pain and 1 in Group I vs 2 in Group II had moderate pain). The difference in duration of post-op hospital stay in both Group I and group II was not statistically significant (3.5 hours vs 3.3 hours). Conclusions: Both conventional minilaparoscopy (5mm laparoscope) and modern miniaparoscopy (2.9mm laparoscope) are comparable with respect operating time, post-op pain, hospital stay. Modern minilaparoscope is no better than conventional minilaparoscope.
机译:背景:在经营时间,术后疼痛,住院休息期间,将诊断常规小木镜检查(5mm)与诊断现代小木镜检查(2.9mm)进行诊断培养现代小木镜检查(2.9mm)。方法:在涉及诊断腹腔镜检查的八十次不孕症患者的三级护理中心进行了预期随机比较研究。在40名患者中使用5mm腹腔镜(常规MiniLaparosport-Group I)和40例患者使用2.9mm探伤镜(现代MiniLaparospord-adion II)进行诊断腹腔镜检查。操作时间从皮肤切口点测量到闭包,后op疼痛评估了VAS评分系统,总部分离为日常护理恢复病房直至排放。结果:常规矿镜和现代小型小木镜均均彼此相媲美。两组的操作时间相似(第II组中的7.7分钟为8.7min)。在这两组中,由于VAS评分系统评估(II族中的39族38中的39次,II组中,II组中,II组中的患者患者患者患者患者患者患者患者患者疼痛没有统计学显着差异)。 op后医院持续时间差异在I组和第II族中的差异没有统计学意义(3.5小时Vs 3.3小时)。结论:传统的小木镜检查(5mm腹腔镜)和现代微型诊断(2.9mm腹腔镜)与尊重操作时间相当,op op疼痛,住院住宿。现代小木木腔镜不比传统的小木木镜。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号