Comparison of 2 minimally invasive routes for hysterectomy of large uteri
dc.contributor.author | Smorgick, Noam | |
dc.contributor.author | Dalton, Vanessa K. | |
dc.contributor.author | Patzkowsky, Kristin E. | |
dc.contributor.author | Hoffman, Mark R. | |
dc.contributor.author | Advincula, Arnold P. | |
dc.contributor.author | As‐sanie, Sawsan | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-01-10T19:05:09Z | |
dc.date.available | 2017-01-10T19:05:09Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2013-08 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Smorgick, Noam; Dalton, Vanessa K.; Patzkowsky, Kristin E.; Hoffman, Mark R.; Advincula, Arnold P.; As‐sanie, Sawsan (2013). "Comparison of 2 minimally invasive routes for hysterectomy of large uteri." International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 122(2): 128-131. | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0020-7292 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1879-3479 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/135283 | |
dc.description.abstract | ObjectiveTo compare the perioperative outcomes associated with 2 minimally invasive surgical routes for the hysterectomy of large fibroid uteri.MethodsRetrospective review of 84 women undergoing hysterectomy via minilaparotomy (n = 54) or robotâ assisted laparoscopy (n = 30) for uteri weighing at least 500 g. Outcome measures included hemorrhage (blood loss of 500 mL or more) and postoperative length of stay.ResultsUnadjusted mean blood loss (560.2 ± 507.4 mL versus 165.0 ± 257.5 mL, P < 0.001), rate of hemorrhage (40.7% versus 6.7%, P = 0.001, odds ratio 6.1 [95% confidence interval 1.5â 24.2]), and rate of blood transfusion (14.8% versus 0%, P = 0.03 ) were all higher with minilaparotomy than with robotâ assisted surgery, while the median postoperative stay was significantly shorter with robotic surgery (2 [range 1â 4] days versus 1 [range 0â 7] days, P < 0.01). After adjusting for differences in uterine weight using a multivariate linear regression analysis, the mean blood loss and the rate of hemorrhage were no longer significantly different between the 2 groups.ConclusionThe minilaparotomy approach may be used to remove very large uteri and does not require specialized and expensive equipment, or advanced endoscopic training. The robotic approach, when feasible, allows for early postoperative discharge. | |
dc.publisher | Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | |
dc.subject.other | Robotâ assisted laparoscopy | |
dc.subject.other | Minilaparotomy | |
dc.subject.other | Hysterectomy | |
dc.title | Comparison of 2 minimally invasive routes for hysterectomy of large uteri | |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Obstetrics and Gynecology | |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Health Center, Ann Arbor, USA | |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Montefiore Medical Center, Centennial Women’s Center, NY, USA | |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Celebration Hospital, Celebration, USA | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135283/1/ijgo128.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.03.011 | |
dc.identifier.source | International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Sarlos D., Kots L., Stevanovic N., von Felten S., Schär G. Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 120 (3): 2012; 604 â 611 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Garry R., Fountain J., Mason S., Hawe J., Napp V., Abbott J., et al. The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy. BMJ. 328 (7432): 2004; 129 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Cohen S.L., Einarsson J.I. Total and supracervical hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 38 (4): 2011; 651 â 661 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Lethaby A., Mukhopadhyay A., Naik R. Total versus subtotal hysterectomy for benign gynaecological conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 4: 2012; CD004993 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Nezhat C., Lavie O., Lemyre M., Unal E., Nezhat C.H., Nezhat F. Robotâ assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: scientific dream or reality?. Fertil Steril. 91 (6): 2009; 2620 â 2622 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Wood C., Maher P. Laparoscopic minilaparotomy hysterectomy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 35 (2): 1995; 204 â 207 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Küçüközkan T., à zkaya E., Uçar F.à ., Kara O.F. Hysterectomy for large symptomatic myomas: minilaparotomy versus midline vertical incision. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 284 (2): 2011; 421 â 425 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Payne T.N., Dauterive F.R., Pitter M.C., Giep H.N., Giep B.N., Grogg T.W., et al. Robotically assisted hysterectomy in patients with large uteri: outcomes in five community practices. Obstet Gynecol. 115 (3): 2010; 535 â 542 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Fiaccavento A., Landi S., Barbieri F., Zaccoletti R., Tricolore C., Ceccaroni M., et al. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy in cases of very large uteri: a retrospective comparative study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 14 (5): 2007; 559 â 563 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Wattiez A., Soriano D., Fiaccavento A., Canis M., Botchorishvili R., Pouly J., et al. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy for very enlarged uteri. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 9 (2): 2002; 125 â 130 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Bonilla D.J., Mains L., Whitaker R., Crawford B., Finan M., Magnus M. Uterine weight as a predictor of morbidity after a benign abdominal and total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Reprod Med. 52 (6): 2007; 490 â 498 | |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.