BIPOLAR VAGINAL HYSTERECTOMY IN THE FUTURE AND PRESENT

A. I Slobodyanyuk; Anton A. Ishchenko; A. I Ishchenko; B. A Slobodyanyuk

doi:10.18821/2313-8726-2018-5-2-93-96

V.F.Snegirev Archives of Obstetrics and Gynecology ›› 2018, Vol. 5 ›› Issue (2) : 93 -96. DOI: 10.18821/2313-8726-2018-5-2-93-96

Original study articles

research-article

BIPOLAR VAGINAL HYSTERECTOMY IN THE FUTURE AND PRESENT

Author information +

History +

PDF

Abstract

Vaginal hysterectomy seems to be the optimal access, but this method does not take a worthy place in operative gynecology. In this study, a prospective comparison of 2 different techniques of vaginal hysterectomy was performed in 125 patients with the use of vicryl ligatures and 215 patients using bipolar coagulation devices (Gyrus and Emed) in different clinics. In the analysis of immediate and remote results, in the group with electrosurgery, blood loss, operation time and pain syndrome at 4 and 48 hours were found to be statistically significantly less. Also, we did not discern any differences in the number of postoperative complications, which allows us to make conclusions regarding the safety and effectiveness of the use of modern bipolar coagulation devices by experienced surgeons.

Keywords

vaginal hysterectomy / bipolar coagulation / omission of the walls of the vagina

Cite this article

Download citation ▾

A. I Slobodyanyuk, Anton A. Ishchenko, A. I Ishchenko, B. A Slobodyanyuk. BIPOLAR VAGINAL HYSTERECTOMY IN THE FUTURE AND PRESENT. V.F.Snegirev Archives of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2018, 5(2): 93-96 DOI:10.18821/2313-8726-2018-5-2-93-96

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户忘记密码

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within

[1]	Kovac S.R. Hysterectomy outcomes in patients with similar indications. Obstet. Gynecol. 2000; 95: 787-93.

[2]	Wu J.M., Wechter M.E., Geller E.J., Nguyen T.V., Visco A.G. Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003. Obstet. Gynecol. 2007; 110: 1091-5.

[3]	Aart J.W., Nieboer T.E., Johnson N., Tavender E., Garry R., Mol B.J., Kluivers K.B. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological diseases. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015; 8; CD003677; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5.

[4]	Choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009; 114: 1156-8.

[5]	Отт Д.О. Оперативная гинекология. Санкт-Петербург; 1914.

[6]

Fitz-Gerald A.L., Tan J., Chan K.W., Polyakov A., Edwards G.N., Najjar H., Tsaltas J., Vollenhoven B. Comparison of ultrasonic shears and traditional suture ligature for vaginal hysterectomy: randomized controlled trial. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2013; 20(6): 853-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.05.019.

[7]	Chekan E.G., Davison M.A., Singleton D.W., Mennone J.Z., Hinoul P. Consistency and sealing of advanced bipolar tissue sealers. Med. Devices (Auckl). 2015; 8: 193-9. doi: 10.2147/MDER.S79642.

[8]	Macario A., Dexter F., Sypal J., Cosgriff N., Heniford В.Т. Operative time and other outcomes of the electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing system (LigaSure) versus other methods for surgical hemostasis: a meta-analysis. Surg. Innov. 2008; 15(4): 284-91.

[9]	Breivik H., Borchgrevink P.C., Allen S.M., Rosseland L.A., Romimdstad L., Hals E.K. et al. Assessment of pain. Br. J. Anaesth. 2008; 101 (1): 17-24. doi: 10.1093/bja/aen103.

[10]	Zakaria М.А., Levy B.S. Outpatient vaginal hysterectomy: optimizing perioperative management for same-day discharge. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 120(6): 1355-61.