Salcido FJC, Pérez BGM, Hernández HS, Zavalza GAB

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 386-391
PDF size: 214.16 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Poor report of difficulties in using laparoscopic technique has limited the knowledge of its advantages and disadvantages.
Objective: To evaluate complications in patients treated with laparoscopic surgical procedures in a biologic reproductive service.
Material and methods: Retrospective study in 525 patients treated with conventional laparoscopy due to any gynecological procedure. All pre- and post-operative variables were considered.
Results: There were 16 (3%) complications within the 525 patients studied: six (37.5%) cases with uterine perforation, three (18.8%) with wall bleeding, and two (12.5%) with subcutaneous emphysema. The rest of complications (31.2%) were: post-puncture headache (1), anaphylactic reaction (1), perirectal serous laceration (1), anexial hematoma (1), and ovarian vessels bleeding (1). There was a case of wall hematoma and another with ovarian vessels injury that required a second intervention. Patient with anaphylactic shock required intensive care attention and mechanic ventilation. Mean physicians years of experience were 12 ± 7 (1 to 20 years). During the period of time of the study there were no dead due to gynecologic laparoscopic procedures.
Conclusion: Gynecological surgical laparoscopy is a viable alternative to traditional surgery due to less postoperative pain, minimal hospital stay, fast recovery, and better esthetic results and less infectious morbidity.

REFERENCES

1. Hulka J. Complications of laparoscopy. Curr Prob Obstet Gynecol 1980;1:1-63.

2. Rock JA, Warshaw JR. The history and future of operative laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170:7-11.

3. Hulka J, Peterson H, Phillips J, Surrey M. Operative laparoscopy: American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists 1993 Membership Survey. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1995;2:133-6.

4. Ville Y, Hyett J, Hecher K, Nicolaides K. Preliminary experience with endoscopic laser surgery for severe twin-twin transfusion syndrome. N Eng J Med 1995;332:224-7.

5. Sullivan E. Anesthesia for laparoscopic surgery. Surgical Clinics of North America 1992;72(5):1013-9.

6. Querleo D, Chapron Ch. Complications of gynecologic laparoscopic surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1995;7:257-61.

7. Chapron Ch, Querleo D, Bruhat MA, Madelant P, et al. Surgical complications of diagnostic and operative gyneacological laparoscopy; a series of 29 966 cases. Hum Reprod 1998;8:867-72.

8. Härkki-Sirén P, Kurki T. A nation wide analysis of laparoscopic complications. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:108-12.

9. Díaz D, Barrón J, Rojas G, Kably A. Laparoscopia ginecológica en el Hospital ABC. Análisis de 882 casos. Ginecol Obstet Mex 1998;66:395-9.

10. Mattei A, Giannone E, Di Renzo G, Gerli S. Laparoscopic removal of benign uterine and adnexal masses during pregnancy. Gynaecological Endoscopy 1999;8:21-23.

11. Brosens I, Gordon A. Bowel injuries during gynaecological laparoscopy: a multinational survey. Gynaecol Endosc 2001;10:141-5.

12. Coskun F. Anesthesia for gynecologic laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1999;6(3):245-58.

13. Millar JM, Rudkin GE, Hitchcock M. Practical Anaesthesia and Analgesia for day Surgery. Oxford: Bios Scientific Publishers, 1997.

14. Alexander JI. Pain after laparoscopy. Br J Anaesth 1997;79:369-78.

15. Perry CP, Tombrello R. Effect of fluid instillation on postlaparoscopy pain. J Reprod Med 1993;768-70.

16. Damaini G, Campo S, Dargenio R, Garcea N. Laparoscopic vs laparotomic ovarian cystectomy in reproductive age women: an economic evaluation. Gynaecol Endosc 1998;7:19-23.