Feasibility and Compatibility of Minilaparotomy Hysterectomy in a Low-Resource Setting

Introduction. Minilaparotomy hysterectomy (MLH) relies on the simplicity of the traditional open technique of abdominal hysterectomy, imparts cosmesis and faster recovery of laparoscopic hysterectomy yet avoids the long learning curve and cost of expensive setup and instrumentation associated with t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Abhilasha Agarwal, Jyothi Shetty, Deeksha Pandey, Gazal Jain
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2018-01-01
Series:Obstetrics and Gynecology International
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/8354272
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850208218984218624
author Abhilasha Agarwal
Jyothi Shetty
Deeksha Pandey
Gazal Jain
author_facet Abhilasha Agarwal
Jyothi Shetty
Deeksha Pandey
Gazal Jain
author_sort Abhilasha Agarwal
collection DOAJ
description Introduction. Minilaparotomy hysterectomy (MLH) relies on the simplicity of the traditional open technique of abdominal hysterectomy, imparts cosmesis and faster recovery of laparoscopic hysterectomy yet avoids the long learning curve and cost of expensive setup and instrumentation associated with the minimally invasive approaches, namely, laparoscopy and robotics. In the present study, we tried to ascertain whether the results obtained with MLH can be compared to LAVH in terms of its feasibility, intraoperative variables, and complications. The null hypothesis was that both MLH and LAVH are comparable techniques; thus, where cost and surgeon’s experience are the confining issues, patients can be reassured that MLH gives comparable results. Materials and Methods. This was a prospective observational study done over a period of two years at a university teaching hospital. A total of 65 patients were recruited, but only 52 (MLH: 27; LAVH: 25) could be included in final analysis. All surgeries were performed by one of the two gynecologists with almost equal surgical competence, and outcomes were compared. Results. MLH is a feasible option for benign gynecological pathologies as none of the patients required increase in the initial incision (4–6 cm). MLH could be done for larger uteri (MLH: 501.30 ± 327.96 g versus LAVH: 216.60 ± 160.01 g; p<0.001), in shorter duration (MLH: 115.00 ± 21.43 min versus LAVH 172.00 ± 27.91 min; p<0.001), with comparable blood loss (MLH: 354.63 ±227.96 ml; LAVH: 402.40 ± 224.02 ml; p=0.334), without serious complications when compared to LAVH. Conclusion. The technique of MLH should be mastered and encouraged to be used in low-resource setting to get results comparable to laparoscopic surgery. This trial is registered with NCT03548831.
format Article
id doaj-art-9922b4fd75b040f5a080f7813d87e47d
institution OA Journals
issn 1687-9589
1687-9597
language English
publishDate 2018-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Obstetrics and Gynecology International
spelling doaj-art-9922b4fd75b040f5a080f7813d87e47d2025-08-20T02:10:17ZengWileyObstetrics and Gynecology International1687-95891687-95972018-01-01201810.1155/2018/83542728354272Feasibility and Compatibility of Minilaparotomy Hysterectomy in a Low-Resource SettingAbhilasha Agarwal0Jyothi Shetty1Deeksha Pandey2Gazal Jain3Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, IndiaKasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, IndiaKasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, IndiaKasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, IndiaIntroduction. Minilaparotomy hysterectomy (MLH) relies on the simplicity of the traditional open technique of abdominal hysterectomy, imparts cosmesis and faster recovery of laparoscopic hysterectomy yet avoids the long learning curve and cost of expensive setup and instrumentation associated with the minimally invasive approaches, namely, laparoscopy and robotics. In the present study, we tried to ascertain whether the results obtained with MLH can be compared to LAVH in terms of its feasibility, intraoperative variables, and complications. The null hypothesis was that both MLH and LAVH are comparable techniques; thus, where cost and surgeon’s experience are the confining issues, patients can be reassured that MLH gives comparable results. Materials and Methods. This was a prospective observational study done over a period of two years at a university teaching hospital. A total of 65 patients were recruited, but only 52 (MLH: 27; LAVH: 25) could be included in final analysis. All surgeries were performed by one of the two gynecologists with almost equal surgical competence, and outcomes were compared. Results. MLH is a feasible option for benign gynecological pathologies as none of the patients required increase in the initial incision (4–6 cm). MLH could be done for larger uteri (MLH: 501.30 ± 327.96 g versus LAVH: 216.60 ± 160.01 g; p<0.001), in shorter duration (MLH: 115.00 ± 21.43 min versus LAVH 172.00 ± 27.91 min; p<0.001), with comparable blood loss (MLH: 354.63 ±227.96 ml; LAVH: 402.40 ± 224.02 ml; p=0.334), without serious complications when compared to LAVH. Conclusion. The technique of MLH should be mastered and encouraged to be used in low-resource setting to get results comparable to laparoscopic surgery. This trial is registered with NCT03548831.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/8354272
spellingShingle Abhilasha Agarwal
Jyothi Shetty
Deeksha Pandey
Gazal Jain
Feasibility and Compatibility of Minilaparotomy Hysterectomy in a Low-Resource Setting
Obstetrics and Gynecology International
title Feasibility and Compatibility of Minilaparotomy Hysterectomy in a Low-Resource Setting
title_full Feasibility and Compatibility of Minilaparotomy Hysterectomy in a Low-Resource Setting
title_fullStr Feasibility and Compatibility of Minilaparotomy Hysterectomy in a Low-Resource Setting
title_full_unstemmed Feasibility and Compatibility of Minilaparotomy Hysterectomy in a Low-Resource Setting
title_short Feasibility and Compatibility of Minilaparotomy Hysterectomy in a Low-Resource Setting
title_sort feasibility and compatibility of minilaparotomy hysterectomy in a low resource setting
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/8354272
work_keys_str_mv AT abhilashaagarwal feasibilityandcompatibilityofminilaparotomyhysterectomyinalowresourcesetting
AT jyothishetty feasibilityandcompatibilityofminilaparotomyhysterectomyinalowresourcesetting
AT deekshapandey feasibilityandcompatibilityofminilaparotomyhysterectomyinalowresourcesetting
AT gazaljain feasibilityandcompatibilityofminilaparotomyhysterectomyinalowresourcesetting