scholarly journals Comparison of Single Incision and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Surgical Sterilization

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 22
Author(s):  
Yetkin Karasu ◽  
Duygu Kavak Comert
Keyword(s):  
Single Incision ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopic ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Entry Time ◽  
Total Operation Time ◽  
Surgical Sterilization ◽  
Peritoneal Entry

<p><strong>Objective:</strong> To compare the intraoperative characteristics and postoperative pain levels of single incision and conventional laparoscopic surgeries performed for surgical sterilization.</p><p><strong>Study Design:</strong> A single center prospective observational study was conducted to compare the conventional and single incision laparoscopic (SIL) partial salpingectomies performed for surgical tubal sterilization. In total of 110 women, 62 in the conventional laparoscopy and 48 in the SILS group participated in the study. The main outcome measures were peritoneal entry time, total operation time, amount of bleeding, intraoperative complications, post-operative pain scores, additional analgesic requirements, and length of hospital stay. Statistical analysis was accomplished using the chi-square test or Mann Whitney U test, where appropriate.</p><p><br />Results: Demographical findings did not differ between the two groups (p&gt;0.05). Similarly, total operation time, rates of intraoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, length of hospital stay, pre and postoperative hematocrit levels were not significantly different between the groups. Peritoneal entry time was shorter in the SIL group (7.1 min. vs. 4.8 min., p&lt;0.001). Additional analgesic requirements, postoperative pain scores in the recovery room and at 6th, 12th, and 24th hours were not different between the groups (p&gt;0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> SILS seems a safe and feasible alternative to conventional laparoscopy for surgical tubal sterilization.<br />Keywords: Partial salpingectomy, Tubal ligation, Contraception, Surgical sterilization, Single Incision Laparoscopy</p>

scholarly journals Comparison of Mini-Laparoscopic and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Tubal Ligation

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 139
Author(s):  
Servet Gencdal ◽  
Emre Ekmekci
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Tubal Ligation ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopy ◽  
Tubal Sterilization ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopic ◽  
Surgery Group

<p><strong>Objective:</strong> To compare the intraoperative characteristics and postoperative results of mini laparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic surgeries performed for surgical sterilization.</p><p><strong>Study Design:</strong> This retrospective study was conducted to compare the conventional and mini laparoscopic tubal ligation for surgical tubal sterilization. In total of 39 women, 22 in the conventional laparoscopy and 17 in the mini laparoscopic surgery group participated in the study. The main outcome measures were total operation time, amount of bleeding, intraoperative complications, skin scar formation with patient scale and observer scale and length of hospital stay. </p><p><strong>Results:</strong> Demographical findings did not differ between the two groups. Similarly, rates of intraoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, length of hospital stay, pre and postoperative hematocrit levels were not significantly different between the groups. Both patient and observer POSAS scores were better in mini laparoscopic surgery group. </p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> Mini laparoscopic surgery seems a safe and feasible alternative to conventional laparoscopy for surgical tubal sterilization.</p>

scholarly journals Single-Incision vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: An Update of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ye Yuan ◽  
Jianing Jian ◽  
Hailiang Jing ◽  
Ran Yan ◽  
Fengming You ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Single Incision ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Abdominal Incision ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Although the advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery have been reported in several meta-analyses, the low quality of studies included in the meta-analyses limits the reliability of such a conclusion. In recent years, the number of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of SILS in colorectal cancer has been on the rise. This update systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs aims to compare efficacy and safety of SILS and CLS in the patients with colorectal cancer.Methods: Relevant data was searched on the CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Sinomed, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from inception until February 5th, 2021. All RCTs comparing SILS and CLS were included. The main outcomes were 30 days of mortality, postoperative complications, intraoperative complications, whereas secondary outcomes were the number of lymph nodes removed, duration of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, abdominal incision length, reoperation, readmission, conversion to laparotomy, operation time and anastomotic leakage.Results: A total of 10 RCTs were included, involving 1,133 participants. The quality of the included studies was generally high. No significant difference was found between SILS and CLS in the 30 days mortality rate. The results showed that SILS group had a lower rate of postoperative complications (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49–0.92), higher rate of intraoperative complications (RR = 2.26, 95%CI: 1.00–5.10), shorter length of abdominal incision (MD = −2.01, 95% CI:−2.42–1.61) (cm), longer operation time (MD = 11.90, 95% CI: 5.37–18.43) (minutes), shorter hospital stay (MD = −1.12, 95% CI: −1.89–0.34) (days) compared with CLS group. However, intraoperative blood loss (MD = −8.23, 95% CI: −16.75–0.29) (mL), number of lymph nodes removed (MD = −0.17, 95% CI: −0.79–0.45), conversion to laparotomy (RR=1.31, 95% CI: 0.48–3.60), reoperation (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.30–3.33) and readmission (RR =1.15, 95% CI: 0.12–10.83) and anastomotic leakage were not significantly different between the two groups.Conclusion: These results indicate that SILS did not has a comprehensive and obvious advantage over the CLS. Surgeons and patients should carefully weigh the pros and cons of the two surgical procedures. Further RCTs are needed to prove long-term outcomes of SILS in colorectal cancer.

scholarly journals The Learning Curve of Computer-Assisted Free Flap Jaw Reconstruction Surgery Using 3D-Printed Patient-Specific Plates: A Cumulative Sum Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wang-yong Zhu ◽  
Wing Shan Choi ◽  
May Chun Mei Wong ◽  
Jingya Jane Pu ◽  
Wei-fa Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Curve ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Bone Graft ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Cumulative Sum ◽  
Jaw Reconstruction ◽  
Cumulative Sum Analysis ◽  
Total Operation Time ◽  
3D Printed

BackgroundComputer-assisted jaw reconstruction (CAJR) has benefits in reducing operation time and improving reconstruction accuracy, compared to conventional freehand jaw reconstruction. However, no information is available regarding learning curves in CAJR with the use of 3D-printed patient-specific surgical plates (PSSP). The purpose of this study was to assess surgical outcomes and learning curve for the first 58 consecutive CAJR using 3D-printed PSSP performed by a single surgical team in a single institution.MethodsIn a prospective study, consecutive patients who underwent free flap CAJR using 3D-printed PSSP were included. The determination of proficiency, based on the cumulative sum of surgical success (no major adjustment of 3D-printed PSSP, flap survival) passing the acceptable boundary line of cumulative sum analysis, was the primary outcome. To find out any potential factors influencing the learning curve, baseline characteristics of patients were compared before and after proficiency achievement. Secondary outcomes included inflexion points of the total operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and bone graft deviation, measured by the cumulative sum analysis.ResultsFrom December 2016 to November 2020, 58 consecutive cases underwent surgery performed by a single surgical team. The overall surgical success rate was 94.8% (55/58). A three-stage learning curve of primary outcome was observed. The proficiency was achieved after 23 cases. The proportions of advanced tumor staging and concomitant surgery after obtaining proficiency were significantly higher than those before achieving proficiency (p = 0.046 and p &lt; 0.001, respectively). Mean values of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and bone graft deviation were 532.5 ± 119.2 min, 1,006.8 ± 547.2 ml, 16.1 ± 6.3 days, and 0.9 ± 1.2 mm, respectively. Two trends of learning curve were observed in the CUSUM analyses of total operation time, length of hospital stay, and bone graft deviation, in which the first and second inflexion points occurred between 8 and 17 cases and between 43 and 46 cases, respectively.ConclusionOur results revealed a three-stage learning curve of CAJR with the use of PSSP, including initial learning, plateau, and overlearning. Based on CUSUM analysis, the surgical proficiency was achieved after 23 cases, and total operation time, length of hospital stay, and bone graft deviation stabilized after 8–17 cases.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernioplasty Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernioplasty

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shanshan Luo ◽  
Shike Wu ◽  
Hao Lai ◽  
Xianwei Mo ◽  
Jiansi Chen
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Single Incision ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Inguinal Hernioplasty ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopic

Purpose: Additional studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic inguinal hernioplasty (SILH) and conventional laparoscopic inguinal hernioplasty (CLH) have been published, and this study updates the meta-analysis of this subject. Methods: Two reviewers independently searched the PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library electronic databases to locate original articles that compared SILH and CLH for inguinal hernia that were published until October 2015. Operative time, conversions, complications, length of hospital stay, recurrence, postoperative pain at 24 hours, and postoperative pain at 7 days were compared using Stata software, version 12.0. Results: Sixteen studies were selected for this analysis, which included a total of 1672 patients (907 in SILH and 765 in CLH). SILH showed a longer operative time; however, conversions, complications, length of hospital stay, recurrence, postoperative pain at 24 hours, and postoperative pain at 7 days were similar between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis has shown that inguinal hernia repair using SILH is as safe as CLH. However, based on our evidence, we currently believe that SILH is not an efficacious surgical alternative to CLH for inguinal hernias due to the fact that it does not provide significant benefit in postoperative pain and cosmetic outcomes. However, large-scale, well-designed, and multicenter studies will be needed to further confirm the results of this study.

scholarly journals Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in Patients with Large Uteri: Comparison of Uterine Removal by Transvaginal and Uterine Morcellation Approaches

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haibo Wang ◽  
Ping Li ◽  
Xiujuan Li ◽  
Licai Gao ◽  
Caihong Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Laparoscopic Hysterectomy ◽  
Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy ◽  
Postoperative Outcomes ◽  
Statistical Significant Difference ◽  
Removal Time ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Large Uterus

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) for large uterus with uterus size of 12 gestational weeks (g.w.) or greater through transvaginal or uterine morcellation approaches. We retrospectively collected the clinical data of those undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomies between January 2004 and June 2012. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between patients whose large uterus was removed through transvaginal or morcellation approaches. The morcellation group has significantly shorter mean operation time and uterus removal time and smaller incidence of intraoperative complications than the transvaginal group (allP<0.05). No statistical significant difference regarding the mean blood loss, uterine weight, and length of hospital stay was noted in the morcellation and transvaginal groups (allP>0.05). In two groups, there was one patient in each group who underwent conversion to laparotomy due to huge uterus size. With regard to postoperative complications, there was no statistical significant difference regarding the frequencies of pelvic hematoma, vaginal stump infection, and lower limb venous thrombosis in two groups (allP>0.05). TLH through uterine morcellation can reduce the operation time, uterus removal time, and the intraoperative complications and provide comparable postoperative outcomes compared to that through the transvaginal approaches.

scholarly journals COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SINGLE INCISION LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY AND CONVENTIONAL LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Vinaya Ambore ◽  
Sandeep Darbastwar ◽  
Nikhil Dhimole ◽  
Gurpreet Singh ◽  
Chidananda H
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Single Incision ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopic ◽  
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Group ◽  
Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery, is an alternative to conventional multi-port laparoscopic surgeries with the aim to reduce complications associated with multiple incisions and increase cosmesis. In this study we aim to compare the single incision approach vs the conventional approach for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Materials We conducted a prospective cohort study at a tertiary care set up, comparing 30 patients each undergoing conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy and single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Data recorded included demographics, intra-operative and post-operative course, duration of hospital stay, hospital cost and expenditure. Results We found out that single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with longer operative time (65 mins vs 55 mins), a longer hospital stay (5 days vs 2.5 days) and higher hospital expenditure. Intraoperative complications like bleeding and inadvertent gall bladder perforation were more in the single incision group (10% vs 3.3%), and on follow up, 2 patients from the single incision group had surgical site infection and port site herniation compared to none from the conventional laparoscopy group. The patients reported better cosmetic outcome in the single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. Conclusion Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is better than conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy with regards to final cosmesis and quality of life parameters, however, it comes with higher economic burden, longer operative times and untoward intra-operative and post-operative events.

scholarly journals Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy by Using a 2 mm Atraumatic Grasper without Trocar

HPB Surgery ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamil Gulpinar ◽  
Suleyman Ozdemir ◽  
S. Erpulat Ozis ◽  
Turgut Aydin ◽  
Atila Korkmaz
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Abdominal Wall ◽  
Single Incision ◽  
Single Port ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Scar Formation ◽  
Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ◽  
Skin Scar

Purpose. We present our experience in single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy by using a grasper directly without using a trocar in five patients. Methods and Results. The technique involves the use of Karl Storz 27290F grasper in order to perform gallbladder retraction in single port cholecystectomy. The grasper was introduced directly into the skin through abdominal wall without using any trocar and used to mobilize gallbladder whenever needed during surgery without causing any perforation or leakage of the gallbladder. There were no intraoperative and postoperative complications in 5 patients with the advantages of shorter operation time and almost invisible postoperative skin scar formation. Conclusion. We claim that the use of this instrument in SILS surgery might be advantageous than the conventional placement of sutures for the gallbladder mobilization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document