Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Surg Endosc ; 25(10): 3209-13, 2011 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21487854

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: An important fact when facing new technologies is their cost for the Health Publishes. The purpose of this paper is to compare the costs of performing TEM with harmonic scalpel and classic monopolar scalpel and to analyze complications. METHODS: Operation time, blood loss, and hospital stay were recorded to determine the cost of the TEM procedure. We also recorded early and late complications. Patients were divided in two groups: harmonic scalpel group (UC) and monopolar scalpel group (MS). RESULTS: TEM for curative intention was used in 330 rectal tumors from January 1997 to January 2010. A total of 229 patients met the criteria for this study: UC group (n = 87) and MS group (n = 142). Patients from the UC group developed fewer complications (16%) than patients from the MS group (23%). The difference of mean stay between groups was 1.5 days (95% confidence interval, 0.7; 2.2 days; P < 0.001) in favor of the UC group. CONCLUSIONS: Harmonic scalpel provides a safer, easier, and more precise surgical section through clean, bloodless, and better visualized operative field. The additional cost of UC was compensated with the decrease in the health resources (mainly hospital stay).


Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/surgery , Microsurgery/instrumentation , Rectal Neoplasms/surgery , Surgical Instruments , Ultrasonic Therapy/instrumentation , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Blood Loss, Surgical/statistics & numerical data , Chi-Square Distribution , Female , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
2.
Br J Surg ; 97(12): 1772-83, 2010 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20949554

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of robotic, open and conventional laparoscopic surgery in gynaecological surgery was assessed in a systematic review of the literature. This will enable the general surgical community to understand where robotic surgery stands in gynaecology. METHODS: A search was made for previous systematic reviews in the Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment, Cochrane Collaboration and Hayes Inc. databases. In addition, the MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched for primary studies. The quality of studies was assessed and meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included in the review. All were controlled but none was randomized. The majority were retrospective with historical controls. The settings in which robotic surgery was used included hysterectomy for malignant and benign disease, myomectomy, sacrocolpopexy, fallopian tube reanastomosis and adnexectomy. Robotic surgery achieved a shorter hospital stay and less blood loss than open surgery. Compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery achieved reduced blood loss and fewer conversions during the staging of endometrial cancer. No clinically significant differences were recorded for the other indications tested. CONCLUSION: The available evidence shows that robotic surgery offers limited advantages with respect to short-term outcomes. However, the clinical outcomes should be interpreted with caution owing to the methodological quality of the studies.


Subject(s)
Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/methods , Laparoscopy , Robotics , Epidemiologic Methods , Female , Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Humans , Technology Assessment, Biomedical
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL