OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of microlaparoscopy and laparoscopy in the assessment of pelvic region in infertile women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 47 patients (aged 24-35) had microlaparoscopy and subsequent laparoscopy performed in order to diagnose the cause of infertility. Pelvic region assessment was performed in both procedures and the results were afterwards compared in regard to duration of the operations and findings reported by independent surgeons. The data was statistically analyzed using Statistica for Windows 5.1. RESULTS: There were no major differences in the assessment of the pelvic region and found abnormalities in the analyzed postoperative protocols. All the diagnosed abnormalities were described similarly by both surgeons; the differences referred only to subjectively evaluated sizes of findings. The assessment of the pelvic region during microlaparoscopy was fully satisfactory in all cases, none required earlier than scheduled conversion to laparoscopy. The duration of endoscopic procedures was calculated from the moment of trocars insertion into the peritoneal cavity. The average duration time of microlaparoscopic evaluation was 6'20"+/-45", while in laparoscopy - 3'40"+/-32" (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Microlaparoscopy and laparoscopy are of similar efficacy in the assessment of small pelvis organs and in detecting pathological changes. Both procedures differ significantly only in regard to the duration.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of microlaparoscopy and laparoscopy in the assessment of pelvic region in infertile women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 47 patients (aged 24-35) had microlaparoscopy and subsequent laparoscopy performed in order to diagnose the cause of infertility. Pelvic region assessment was performed in both procedures and the results were afterwards compared in regard to duration of the operations and findings reported by independent surgeons. The data was statistically analyzed using Statistica for Windows 5.1. RESULTS: There were no major differences in the assessment of the pelvic region and found abnormalities in the analyzed postoperative protocols. All the diagnosed abnormalities were described similarly by both surgeons; the differences referred only to subjectively evaluated sizes of findings. The assessment of the pelvic region during microlaparoscopy was fully satisfactory in all cases, none required earlier than scheduled conversion to laparoscopy. The duration of endoscopic procedures was calculated from the moment of trocars insertion into the peritoneal cavity. The average duration time of microlaparoscopic evaluation was 6'20"+/-45", while in laparoscopy - 3'40"+/-32" (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Microlaparoscopy and laparoscopy are of similar efficacy in the assessment of small pelvis organs and in detecting pathological changes. Both procedures differ significantly only in regard to the duration.