View clinical trials related to Benign Gynecologic Neoplasm.
Filter by:The kind of equipment used during laparoscopic surgery may have an effect on how quickly resident surgeons improve their skills. The effects of these technologies on various general and specialized procedures have been the subject of numerous research, all of which have produced comparable results in terms of efficacy and safety. Although a minimally invasive laparoscopy represents the gold standard method in over 70% of procedures for uterine and adnexal benign diseases, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the potential advantages or disadvantages of such kinds of devices in gynecologic laparoscopy. Based on this, the purpose of this study was to determine whether using a hemostatic surgical device affects how quickly gynecology residents learn to execute simple laparoscopic procedures and how well they perform surgically.
This study's primary goal is to compare the efficacy and safety of the novel advanced hemostatic device(AHD), Vi-Sealer, with conventional AHDs in laparoscopic total hysterectomy for patients with benign gynecologic neoplasm.
Studies evaluating the effectiveness of continuous wound infusion (CWI) to manage postoperative pain following laparoscopy are markedly lacking. Especially, there was no study comparing CWI and placebo in treating gynecologic laparoscopy. Therefore, the investigators conducted this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to investigate whether CWI of local anesthetics was an effective strategy for enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), compared with placebo in patients undergoing benign gynecologic laparoscopy.
Minilaparotomy hysterectomy (MLH) relies on the simplicity of traditional open technique of abdominal hysterectomy, imparts cosmesis and faster recovery of laparoscopic hysterectomy yet avoids the long learning curve, cost of expensive setup and instrumentation associated with the minimally invasive approaches namely laparoscopy and robotics. In the present study, we tried to ascertain if 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, so where cost and surgeon's experience are the confining issues, patients can be reassured that MLH gives comparable results.
Mechanical bowel preparation aims to decrease the volume fecal content in the colon, which thereby decreases the total colony count of bacteria, thus, decreasing peritoneal contamination in case of bowel injury, improving the access to the surgical field and facilitating intraoperative bowel manipulation