Estudo comparativo de vias de acesso cirúrgico na contracepção cirúrgica feminina: Microlaparoscopia versus minilaparotomia

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Modotte, Waldir Pereira [UNESP]
Data de Publicação: 2006
Outros Autores: Dias, Rogerio [UNESP], Frei, Fernando [UNESP], Dias, Daniel Spadoto [UNESP], Fernandes, Flávio Ferreira [UNESP]
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-72032006000700005
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/68941
Resumo: Purpose: to compare in a retrospective way, 51 women who underwent tubal ligation, 30 through microlaparoascopy (Gmicrol) and 21 through minilaparotomy (Gminil). Methods: the analyzed parameters were: total time for accomplishment of the procedure and the surgical technique, time of hospital stay and return to the habitual activities after the surgery, postoperative pain, morbidity, satisfaction degree and esthetic effect, considering values of p<0,05 as significant, and also standard cost. Results: Gmicrol took less time to accomplish the surgery than the Gminil (43 against 57 minutes respectively, p<0,05), less time to accomplish the surgical technique (6.48 against 30.32 minutes respectively, p<0,05), and lower hospital stay (9,90 hours as against 41,7 hours respectively, p <0,05). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding time to return to the habitual activities after surgery. To evaluate postoperative pain, a scale of 0-10 it was applied. Gmicrol present a lower pain score on the 1st and 2nd postoperative days (1.13 and 0.26 to Gmicrol and 4.52 and 1.14 to Gminil, respectively, p<0,05). There was no significant difference between immediate postoperative the most common complaint being pain at the site of pain and that on the 3rd postoperative day. Gminil presented a higher morbidity rate incision. To evaluate the satisfaction degree and esthetic effect, numeric values were attributed to as good, regular, poor and very bad as answered by the patiets. Gmicrol presented a higher satisfaction degree (p<0,05) and better esthetic effect as compared to Gminil (p <0,05). The microlaparoscopy standard cost was R$ 109.30 being lower than that of minilaparotomy. Conclusions: tubal ligation by microlaparoscopy, under local anesthesia and conscious sedation presented some advantages compared to minilaparotomy.
id UNSP_6b7b1c8d1dff37ec20c83a99594f9202
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/68941
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Estudo comparativo de vias de acesso cirúrgico na contracepção cirúrgica feminina: Microlaparoscopia versus minilaparotomiaComparative study of female surgery contraception access: Microlaparoscopy versus minilaparotomyContraceptionLaparoscopy/methodsLaparotomy/methodsRetrospective studiesSterilizationTubal/methodsPurpose: to compare in a retrospective way, 51 women who underwent tubal ligation, 30 through microlaparoascopy (Gmicrol) and 21 through minilaparotomy (Gminil). Methods: the analyzed parameters were: total time for accomplishment of the procedure and the surgical technique, time of hospital stay and return to the habitual activities after the surgery, postoperative pain, morbidity, satisfaction degree and esthetic effect, considering values of p<0,05 as significant, and also standard cost. Results: Gmicrol took less time to accomplish the surgery than the Gminil (43 against 57 minutes respectively, p<0,05), less time to accomplish the surgical technique (6.48 against 30.32 minutes respectively, p<0,05), and lower hospital stay (9,90 hours as against 41,7 hours respectively, p <0,05). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding time to return to the habitual activities after surgery. To evaluate postoperative pain, a scale of 0-10 it was applied. Gmicrol present a lower pain score on the 1st and 2nd postoperative days (1.13 and 0.26 to Gmicrol and 4.52 and 1.14 to Gminil, respectively, p<0,05). There was no significant difference between immediate postoperative the most common complaint being pain at the site of pain and that on the 3rd postoperative day. Gminil presented a higher morbidity rate incision. To evaluate the satisfaction degree and esthetic effect, numeric values were attributed to as good, regular, poor and very bad as answered by the patiets. Gmicrol presented a higher satisfaction degree (p<0,05) and better esthetic effect as compared to Gminil (p <0,05). The microlaparoscopy standard cost was R$ 109.30 being lower than that of minilaparotomy. Conclusions: tubal ligation by microlaparoscopy, under local anesthesia and conscious sedation presented some advantages compared to minilaparotomy.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ginecologia, Obstetrícia e Mastologia Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio Mesquita Filho UNESP, Botucatu (SP)Bioestatística Faculdade de Ciências e Letras de Assis Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio Mesquita Filho UNESP, Assis (SP)Departamento de Ginecologia, Obstetrícia e Mastologia Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio Mesquita Filho UNESP, Botucatu (SP), R. Nagila Jubran - 40 - Jd. Europa, 19840-470 - Assis - SPPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ginecologia, Obstetrícia e Mastologia Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio Mesquita Filho UNESP, Botucatu (SP)Bioestatística Faculdade de Ciências e Letras de Assis Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio Mesquita Filho UNESP, Assis (SP)Departamento de Ginecologia, Obstetrícia e Mastologia Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio Mesquita Filho UNESP, Botucatu (SP)Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Modotte, Waldir Pereira [UNESP]Dias, Rogerio [UNESP]Frei, Fernando [UNESP]Dias, Daniel Spadoto [UNESP]Fernandes, Flávio Ferreira [UNESP]2014-05-27T11:21:53Z2014-05-27T11:21:53Z2006-07-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article403-409application/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-72032006000700005Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, v. 28, n. 7, p. 403-409, 2006.0100-7203http://hdl.handle.net/11449/6894110.1590/S0100-72032006000700005S0100-720320060007000052-s2.0-338455031102-s2.0-33845503110.pdf9476843874583499Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPporRevista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia0,292info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-08-16T14:07:22Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/68941Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-16T14:07:22Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Estudo comparativo de vias de acesso cirúrgico na contracepção cirúrgica feminina: Microlaparoscopia versus minilaparotomia
Comparative study of female surgery contraception access: Microlaparoscopy versus minilaparotomy
title Estudo comparativo de vias de acesso cirúrgico na contracepção cirúrgica feminina: Microlaparoscopia versus minilaparotomia
spellingShingle Estudo comparativo de vias de acesso cirúrgico na contracepção cirúrgica feminina: Microlaparoscopia versus minilaparotomia
Modotte, Waldir Pereira [UNESP]
Contraception
Laparoscopy/methods
Laparotomy/methods
Retrospective studies
Sterilization
Tubal/methods
title_short Estudo comparativo de vias de acesso cirúrgico na contracepção cirúrgica feminina: Microlaparoscopia versus minilaparotomia
title_full Estudo comparativo de vias de acesso cirúrgico na contracepção cirúrgica feminina: Microlaparoscopia versus minilaparotomia
title_fullStr Estudo comparativo de vias de acesso cirúrgico na contracepção cirúrgica feminina: Microlaparoscopia versus minilaparotomia
title_full_unstemmed Estudo comparativo de vias de acesso cirúrgico na contracepção cirúrgica feminina: Microlaparoscopia versus minilaparotomia
title_sort Estudo comparativo de vias de acesso cirúrgico na contracepção cirúrgica feminina: Microlaparoscopia versus minilaparotomia
author Modotte, Waldir Pereira [UNESP]
author_facet Modotte, Waldir Pereira [UNESP]
Dias, Rogerio [UNESP]
Frei, Fernando [UNESP]
Dias, Daniel Spadoto [UNESP]
Fernandes, Flávio Ferreira [UNESP]
author_role author
author2 Dias, Rogerio [UNESP]
Frei, Fernando [UNESP]
Dias, Daniel Spadoto [UNESP]
Fernandes, Flávio Ferreira [UNESP]
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Modotte, Waldir Pereira [UNESP]
Dias, Rogerio [UNESP]
Frei, Fernando [UNESP]
Dias, Daniel Spadoto [UNESP]
Fernandes, Flávio Ferreira [UNESP]
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Contraception
Laparoscopy/methods
Laparotomy/methods
Retrospective studies
Sterilization
Tubal/methods
topic Contraception
Laparoscopy/methods
Laparotomy/methods
Retrospective studies
Sterilization
Tubal/methods
description Purpose: to compare in a retrospective way, 51 women who underwent tubal ligation, 30 through microlaparoascopy (Gmicrol) and 21 through minilaparotomy (Gminil). Methods: the analyzed parameters were: total time for accomplishment of the procedure and the surgical technique, time of hospital stay and return to the habitual activities after the surgery, postoperative pain, morbidity, satisfaction degree and esthetic effect, considering values of p<0,05 as significant, and also standard cost. Results: Gmicrol took less time to accomplish the surgery than the Gminil (43 against 57 minutes respectively, p<0,05), less time to accomplish the surgical technique (6.48 against 30.32 minutes respectively, p<0,05), and lower hospital stay (9,90 hours as against 41,7 hours respectively, p <0,05). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding time to return to the habitual activities after surgery. To evaluate postoperative pain, a scale of 0-10 it was applied. Gmicrol present a lower pain score on the 1st and 2nd postoperative days (1.13 and 0.26 to Gmicrol and 4.52 and 1.14 to Gminil, respectively, p<0,05). There was no significant difference between immediate postoperative the most common complaint being pain at the site of pain and that on the 3rd postoperative day. Gminil presented a higher morbidity rate incision. To evaluate the satisfaction degree and esthetic effect, numeric values were attributed to as good, regular, poor and very bad as answered by the patiets. Gmicrol presented a higher satisfaction degree (p<0,05) and better esthetic effect as compared to Gminil (p <0,05). The microlaparoscopy standard cost was R$ 109.30 being lower than that of minilaparotomy. Conclusions: tubal ligation by microlaparoscopy, under local anesthesia and conscious sedation presented some advantages compared to minilaparotomy.
publishDate 2006
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2006-07-01
2014-05-27T11:21:53Z
2014-05-27T11:21:53Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-72032006000700005
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, v. 28, n. 7, p. 403-409, 2006.
0100-7203
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/68941
10.1590/S0100-72032006000700005
S0100-72032006000700005
2-s2.0-33845503110
2-s2.0-33845503110.pdf
9476843874583499
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-72032006000700005
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/68941
identifier_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, v. 28, n. 7, p. 403-409, 2006.
0100-7203
10.1590/S0100-72032006000700005
S0100-72032006000700005
2-s2.0-33845503110
2-s2.0-33845503110.pdf
9476843874583499
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
0,292
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 403-409
application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1808128162096218112