首页> 外文期刊>Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology: the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology >Direct trocar insertion without previous pneumoperitoneum versus insertion after insufflation with Veress needle in laparoscopic gynecological surgery: a prospective cohort study
【24h】

Direct trocar insertion without previous pneumoperitoneum versus insertion after insufflation with Veress needle in laparoscopic gynecological surgery: a prospective cohort study

机译:直接套管针插入没有先前的肺腹膜与插入腹腔镜妇科手术中的Veress Preams inseration:一个未来的队列研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The aim of this study was to determine whether direct trocar entry without prior pneumoperitoneum at umbilical level (DTI) can be a safe alternative to access the abdominal cavity in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. We present a prospective observational analytical study of cohorts, comparing DTI with umbilical entry with trocar after previous insufflation with a Veress needle at umbilical level (V). The study period was performed from June 2013 to April 2016; data was collected on 600 patients who underwent gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences in the risk of suffering a complication during the access manoeuvres between DTI (6.49%) and V (7.39%), OR 0.89 (95% CI: 0.42-1.81). The duration of the access manoeuvres was 69 s in DTI and 193 s in V (p .05). We concluded that DTI is at least as safe as V, regarding the risk of suffering complications arising from access into the abdominal cavity. DTI has advantages with regard to V, such as: the shorter duration of access manoeuvres or the lesser number of unsuccessful entry or insufflation attempts.Impact statement What is already known on this subject? There are few international publications comparing DTI and V. When we conducted a search in PubMed for the terms 'Veress needle and direct trocar insertion', 51 publications were obtained. When we increased the restriction and added the terms 'laparoscopic entry and laparoscopy complications', 27 publications were obtained; thus, the uniqueness of our study. What do the results of this study add? We present a 3-year observational prospective study of cohorts that included 600 patients. The aim of this study was to determine that in laparoscopic gynaecological surgery, DTI is an access method to the abdominal cavity at least as safe as V, with respect to the risk of complications. On the other hand, DTI has some advantages such as the shorter duration of access manoeuvres or the lower number of failed entry attempts.
机译:本研究的目的是确定没有在脐水平(DTI)的前肺腹膜内的直接轨道进入是安全的,可以是进入妇科腹腔镜手术中的腹腔的安全替代方案。我们提出了群组的前瞻性观察分析研究,比较DTI与脐带的脐带,在脐带上用veress针(v)。研究期于2013年6月至2016年4月进行;在600名接受妇科腹腔镜手术的患者中收集了数据。在DTI(6.49%)和V(7.39%)或0.89(95%CI:0.42-1.81)之间的进入运动期间,患有并发症的患者的风险没有显着差异。在VI(P.05)中,进入动作的持续时间为69秒和193秒(p .05)。我们得出结论,DTI至少与v一样安全,关于从进入腹腔患有患有并发症的风险。 DTI关于V的优势,例如:访问手动持续时间较短或较少的不成功的入口或灭火尝试.impact语句在这个主题上已知的内容是什么?有很少的国际出版物比较DTI和V.当我们在PubMed中进行搜索时,获得了术语“验尸针和直接轨道插入”,获得了51个出版物。当我们增加限制并增加了术语“腹腔镜进入和腹腔镜检查并发症”时,获得了27个出版物;因此,我们研究的独特性。本研究的结果添加了什么?我们提出了一个3年的观察性前瞻性研究,包括600名患者。本研究的目的是确定在腹腔镜妇科手术中,DTI是腹腔的进入方法,至少与并发症的风险一样安全。另一方面,DTI具有一些优点,例如较短的访问手动持续时间或失败的进入尝试失败的较少数量。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 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