RESUMO
Background. Surgical management of endometriosis is essential, and deep endometriosis involves the invasion of endometrial tissue into other organs such as the bladder, ureters, and rectum. In Latin American countries, significant expertise has been achieved in conventional laparoscopy (CL); however, there is less experience in robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) because of the high cost of this technique. For this reason, studies comparing CL and RAL for the treatment of deep endometriosis in patients are scarce, making this study the first to share the experience of Mexican patients. Aim. The efficacy of CL vs. RAL in the management of deep endometriosis in Mexican patients was compared. Materials and Methods. We performed a retrospective and comparative study. We considered all patients treated with minimally invasive surgery for deep endometriosis between 2015 and 2023. Results. A total of 93 patients were included; 56 patients were treated with CL, and 37 patients were treated with RAL. A significant difference (p < 0.05) was observed in the postoperative length of stay, which was longer in patients treated with CL compared with those treated with RAL. Additionally, postoperative pain was less frequent in patients treated with RAL than in those treated with CL (p < 0.05). We did not observe a significant difference in operative time, blood loss, or perioperative complications between the two surgical techniques (p < 0.05). Conclusions. CL and RAL are effective methods for managing endometriosis in Mexican patients; however, RAL is beneficial for the treatment of deep endometriosis because patients experience postoperative pain less frequently than CL patients and have a shorter postoperative length of stay.
RESUMO
Objetivo:Comparar las tres técnicas de abordaje para la apendicectomía: puerto único (APU), laparoscopia convencional (ALC) y laparotomía (AL) en pacientes con diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda. Métodos: se realizó AL por incisión de McBurney, ALC por tres puertos y APU. Para las cirugías por APU y ALC se utilizó pinza de LigaSure AtlasTM 37cms Hand de 10mm (Covidien®) para ligar el mesoapéndice, sutura crómico catgut® 0 o endoloop®para ligar la base de la apéndice, en abierta o laparoscopica, respectivamente. Para la APU se utilizó el SILS Port™ (Covidien®). Se realizó un estudio comparativo, prospectivo, monocéntrico, entre abril 2014 y octubre 2014, en pacientes con diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda en el Hospital General del Este "Dr. Domingo Luciani"y que cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. Resultados: Se realizaron 58 apendicectomías, 20 AL, 20 ALC y 18 APU. El tiempo quirúrgico y la estancia hospitalaria fueron menores en las ALC con promedio de 47 minutos y 33,6 horas, respectivamente. La incidencia de complicaciones intraoperatorias y postoperatorias fueron mayores el las AL estableciéndose una relación estadística-mente significativa entre la técnica quirúrgica y la infección del sitio operatorio (p < 0,05). La técnica quirúrgica influye en la manifestación de dolor en las primeras 08 horas de postoperatorio (p < 0,05). Conclusión: La decisión del abordaje quirúrgico será determinado por la experiencia del cirujano y la disponibilidad del instrumental quirúrgico, sin embargo, la evidencia actual sugiere que la ALC debe ser considerada como primera elección(AU)
Objective: To compare the three techniques approach appendectomy: single port (SPA), conventional laparoscopy (CLA) and laparotomy (LA) in patients with acute appendicitis. Methods: LA was performed by McBurney incision, CLA was performed with three ports and SPA. LigaSure clamp 10mm Hand AtlasTM 37cms (Covidien®) was used to cut the mesoappendix, chromic suture catgut® 0 or endoloop® to ensure the base of the appendix, in open or laparoscopic, respectively. The SILS™ Port (Covidien®) was used for the SPA. A comparative, prospective, single-center study was conducted between April 2014 and October 2014, in patients with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis in East General Hospital "Dr.Domingo Luciani" and who met the inclusion criteria. Results: 58 appendectomies, 20 LA, 20 CLA and 18 SPA were performed. The operative time and hospital stay were lower in the CLA average of 47 minutes and 33.6 hours, respectively. The incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications were higher on the LA establishing a statistically significant relationship between surgical technique and surgical site infection (p <0.05). The surgical technique influences the manifestation of pain in the first 08 hours postoperatively (p <0.05). Conclusion: The decision of surgical approach will be determined by the surgeon's experience and availability of surgical instruments, however, current evidence suggests that CLA should be considered as first choice(AU)