4.2 Article

Comparative Evaluation of Conventional and Transvaginal Laparoscopic Ovariohysterectomy in Dogs

期刊

VETERINARY SURGERY
卷 41, 期 6, 页码 755-758

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2012.01023.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Council of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tehran
  2. Center of Excellence for Veterinary Research on Indigenous Domestic Animals
  3. Minimally Invasive Surgery Research Center, Rasoul Akram Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To evaluate the feasibility and safety of a transvaginal approach for laparoscopic ovariohysterectomy (OVH) in dogs and to compare it with conventional laparoscopic OVH. Study Design Prospective study. Animals Adult healthy female mixed breed dogs (n = 24). Methods Dogs (weighing 1417 kg) were anesthetized and positioned in dorsal recumbency for ovariohysterectomy. Dogs were prepared for either conventional (n = 12) or transvaginal (n = 12) laparoscopic OVH. For conventional laparoscopic OVH, 3 midline abdominal portals were used and for the transvaginal approach, 2 midline abdominal portals and one vaginal portal were used. The transected ovarian pedicles, broad ligament, and uterus were removed through the umbilical region in the conventional method and through the vagina in the transvaginal method. Mean surgical time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, clinical and hematologic findings, and wound complications were compared. Results OVH was successfully performed without complications using both methods. Mean +/- SD surgical times were similar between conventional (34.2 +/- 4.03 min) and transvaginal (37.0 +/- 3.56 min) methods. No significant differences, hematologic and clinical variables, were found between groups. The vaginal port could limit surgical maneuvers ergonomically during manipulation of the uterine body. Conclusions Transvaginal approach for laparoscopic OVH is a feasible technique with the advantage of requiring one less abdominal portal.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据