4.2 Article

Comparison of three techniques for ovarian pedicle hemostasis during laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy

期刊

VETERINARY SURGERY
卷 36, 期 6, 页码 541-547

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2007.00280.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To describe the safety, surgical time, and complications associated with 3 techniques for achieving hemostasis during laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy (LAOVH). Study Design-Prospective, randomized clinical trial. Animals-Female dogs (n = 30). Methods-Dogs were randomly assigned to I of 3 methods for achieving ovarian pedicle hemostasis during LAOVH: extracorporeal modified Roeder knot application (suture group), metal clip application using a multifire 10 mm laparoscopic clip applier (clip group), or use of a novel 5 mm bipolar vessel-sealing device (vessel-sealing group). In all dogs a 3 median portal technique was used. Results-Con trolling for the dogs' bodyweights, there was a significant association between surgical time and which method for hemostasis was used. This association was different when comparing the first 5 procedures using each method to the second 5. For a 20 kg dog, the surgical time (95% CI) for the first 5 procedures was 80 (69-91), 68 (57-79), and 33 (21-45) minutes for the suture, clip, and vessel-sealing groups, respectively. For the second 5 procedures surgical time was 71 (60-81), 50 (3960), and 40 (29-51) minutes. Pedicle hemorrhage occurred in all dogs in the clip group, 3 dogs in the suture group, and none of the dogs in the vessel-sealing group although in all cases was considered hemodynamically inconsequential. All dogs recovered uneventfully. Conclusions-All methods of hemostasis were safe for pedicle sectioning. A learning curve exists for clip and suture methods. Clinical Relevance-Use of a vessel-sealing device significantly shortens surgical time and provides excellent hemostasis during LAOVH. (c) Copyright 2007 by The American College of Veterinar Surgeons.

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