Literature DB >> 10226125

Adhesion formation after microlaparoscopic and laparoscopic ovarian coagulation for polycystic ovary disease.

O Taskin1, S Sadik, A Onoglu, R Gokdeniz, I Yilmaz, F Burak, J M Wheeler.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of microlaparoscopy and decreased CO2 exposure on peritoneal microcirculation and potential adhesion formation after ovarian surgery with those of conventional operative laparoscopy.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study (Canadian Task Force classification I).
SETTING: Teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Eighteen women with polycystic ovary disease.
INTERVENTIONS: Microlaparoscopic or laparoscopic ovarian coagulation of the ovaries.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Approximately 10 to 12 coagulation points were applied to each ovary. Two to 3 weeks after the initial surgery second-look microlaparoscopy was performed to determine the extent of adhesions in both groups. The frequency of adhesion formation and changes in glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and glutathione (GSH) levels were studied in homogenized peritoneal tissues obtained during surgery in each group. RESULTS: Clinical profiles were similar between groups. Mean exposure, amount, and pressure of CO2 were significantly less in the microlaparoscopy group (p <0.05). The laparoscopy group had significantly more adhesions than the microlaproscopy group (24% vs 48%, p <0.05). The GSH-Px, SOD, CAT, and GSH levels were significantly lower in the laparoscopy group (0. 425 micromol, 1.2 ng, 37.55 micromol, and 0.9 nmol vs 0.755 micromol, 2.l ng, 625 micromol, and 2.6 nmol, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Reduced exposure to and amount of CO2 during microlaparoscopy may result in decreased adhesion formation compared with conventional laparoscopy. This effect may possibly be due to lack of or minimal adverse effects on peritoneal microcirculation and cell-protective systems, which are proposed mechanisms for adhesion formation and closely related to peritoneal injury. In addition, microlaparoscopy may be a cost-effective alternative to conventional laparoscopy. (J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 6(2):159-163, 1999)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10226125     DOI: 10.1016/s1074-3804(99)80095-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc        ISSN: 1074-3804


  6 in total

Review 1.  Peritoneal damage: the inflammatory response and clinical implications of the neuro-immuno-humoral axis.

Authors:  Tarik Sammour; Arman Kahokehr; Mattias Soop; Andrew G Hill
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Impact of pressure and gas type on adhesion formation and biomaterial integration in laparoscopy.

Authors:  R Rosch; M Binnebösel; C D Klink; J Otto; K Junge; U P Neumann
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-06-04       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Serum Levels of Anti-histone and Anti-double-Strand DNA Antibodies Before and After Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling in Women with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome.

Authors:  Dehaghani Alamtaj Samsami; Parisa Razmjoei; Mohammad Ebrahim Parsanezhad
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2013-09-25

4.  The influence of pre-emptive analgesia on postoperative analgesia and its objective evaluation.

Authors:  Jitka Fricova; Martin Vejražka; Pavel Stopka; Jana Krizova; Jaromír Běláček; Richard Rokyta
Journal:  Arch Med Sci       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 3.318

5.  Adequacy of ovarian diathermy under ultrasound control: an experimental model.

Authors:  Anita Mylius Pimentel; Lucia Maria Kliemann; Daniela Dos Santos Brum; Fábio Gallas Leivas; Paulo Roberto Stefani Sanches; Edison Capp; Helena von Eye Corleta
Journal:  J Ovarian Res       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 4.234

Review 6.  What is the evidence for the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum? A systematic review.

Authors:  Denise M D Özdemir-van Brunschot; Kees C J H M van Laarhoven; Gert-Jan Scheffer; Sjaak Pouwels; Kim E Wever; Michiel C Warlé
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-08-15       Impact factor: 4.584

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.