Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 325
Filtrar
1.
Int J Gynecol Cancer ; 34(5): 738-744, 2024 May 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38531541

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Same day discharge is safe after minimally invasive gynecology oncology surgery. Our quality improvement peri-operative program based on enhanced recovery after surgery principles led to an increase in same day discharge from 30% to 75% over a 12 month period. Twelve months after program implementation, we assessed the sustainability of same day discharge rates, determined post-operative complication rates, and evaluated factors affecting same day discharge rates. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of 100 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery at an academic cancer center from January to 2021 to December 2021. This cohort was compared with the active intervention cohort (n=102) from the implementation period (January 2020 to December 2020). Same day discharge rates and complications were compared. Multivariable analysis was performed to assess which factors remained associated with same day discharge post-intervention. RESULTS: Same day discharge post-intervention was 72% compared with 75% during active intervention (p=0.69). Both cohorts were similar in age (p=0.24) and body mass index (p=0.27), but the post-intervention cohort had longer operative times (p=0.001). There were no significant differences in 30-day complications, readmission, reoperation, or emergency room visits (p>0.05). There was a decrease in 30-day post-operative clinic visits from 18% to 5% in the post-intervention cohort (p=0.007), and unnecessary bowel prep use decreased from 35% to 14% (p<0.001). On multivariable analysis, start time (second case of the day) (OR 0.06; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35), and ward narcotic use (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42) remained associated with overnight admission. CONCLUSION: Same day discharge rate was sustained at 72%, 12 months after the implementation of a quality improvement program to optimize same day discharge rate after minimally invasive surgery, while maintaining low post-operative complications and reducing unplanned clinic visits. To maximize same day discharge, minimally invasive gynecologic oncology surgery should be prioritized as the first case of the day, and post-operative narcotic use should be limited.


Asunto(s)
Recuperación Mejorada Después de la Cirugía , Neoplasias de los Genitales Femeninos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos , Humanos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Neoplasias de los Genitales Femeninos/cirugía , Recuperación Mejorada Después de la Cirugía/normas , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/normas , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/rehabilitación , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos/métodos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/prevención & control , Anciano , Adulto , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Alta del Paciente
3.
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod ; 50(10): 102206, 2021 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34391952

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines from the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (CNGOF), based on the best currently available evidence, for the prophylactic procedures associated with gynecological surgery for benign disease such as superficial endometriosis lesions and adhesions. METHODS: The CNGOF has decided to adopt the AGREE II and GRADE systems for grading scientific evidence. Each recommendation for practice was allocated a grade that reflects the quality of evidence (QE) (clinical practice guidelines). RESULTS: Endometriosis and pelvic pain Superficial endometriosis can be entirely asymptomatic. Surgical treatment of asymptomatic superficial peritoneal endometriosis is not recommended in women of childbearing age for the prevention of pelvic pain, especially in case of proximity to noble organs (e.g., the ureters, rectum and sigmoid, and ovaries in nulligravida) as there is no evidence that the disease will progress to become symptomatic (low level of evidence). In case of accidental discovery of superficial endometriosis in women of childbearing age with pelvic pain, it is recommended that the lesions are excised, if surgically accessible. Removal of superficial endometriosis lesions in patients with painful symptoms improves quality of life and pain (low level of evidence). Endometriosis and infertility It appears that women with isolated superficial endometriosis diagnosed by laparoscopy with histological confirmation have a significantly higher incidence of primary infertility than patients without endometriosis. However, there is no data regarding the impact of treatment of these lesions on the fertility in these women or on the natural course of their disease (low level of evidence). It is recommended that excision is performed rather than monopolar coagulation of superficial endometriosis lesions in infertile women, as this results in a higher spontaneous pregnancy rate (low level of evidence). Adhesions and pelvic pain There is limited data in the literature regarding the benefit of performing systematic adhesiolysis during laparoscopy to prevent pelvic pain when incidental pelvic adhesions are discovered. For patients with pelvic pain, it is probably better not to perform adhesiolysis to prevent pelvic pain, although this can be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on the extent of the adhesions, the topography, and the type of surgery considered (low level of evidence). For asymptomatic patients, it is recommended not to perform adhesiolysis to prevent pelvic pain due to the lack of clear efficacy both short- or long-term and due to the increased risk of surgical injuries (low level of evidence). Adhesions and infertility There is limited data in the literature regarding the potential benefit of performing systematic adhesiolysis when there is an incidental discovery of pelvic adhesions during laparoscopy to prevent infertility. For infertile women, in the event of fortuitous discovery of adhesions at laparoscopy, it is probably better not to perform complex adhesiolysis. Only adhesiolysis of tubo-ovarian adhesions that are minimal or slight in terms of their extension and/or their nature may be useful to improve the chances of spontaneous pregnancy. However, it remains to be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on other potential causes of infertility (low level of evidence). For women without known infertility issues, it is probably better not to perform systematic adhesiolysis in order to improve their pregnancy chances, considering the balance between the unknown benefit and the risks of complications inherent to surgery (low level of evidence). CONCLUSION: Further investigations are needed in order to increase the quality of management regarding associated interventions such as the treatment of superficial endometriosis or adhesions performed during a gynecologic surgical procedure and, thereby, bolster these recommendations.


Asunto(s)
Endometriosis/cirugía , Guías como Asunto , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/métodos , Adherencias Tisulares/prevención & control , Adulto , Endometriosis/complicaciones , Femenino , Francia , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/normas , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/tendencias , Ginecología/métodos , Ginecología/organización & administración , Ginecología/tendencias , Humanos , Embarazo , Adherencias Tisulares/etiología , Adherencias Tisulares/cirugía
4.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(30): e26731, 2021 Jul 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34397710

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT: The World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist was developed to improve communication in perioperative care, reduce mortality and complications of patients, and ensure the consistent use of procedures for safe surgery. Despite the increased awareness of the checklist, the implementation compliance is reported as low and the degree of completeness varies. This study aimed to explore the possible supportive factors for the effective implementation and to identify potential awareness and barriers to its implementation in gynecological and obstetrical operation.A survey using a cross-sectional design that included surgeons, anesthetists, and operating room nurses was performed. We used an online link to distribute the survey to all eligible surgical team members in our hospital. The survey contained various aspects of perceptions on the Surgical Safety Checklist and an open-ended question that allowed respondents to offer their opinions on the topic.The overall self-reported awareness of the checklist within each professional group was high. The awareness of surgeons was lower than that of operating room nurses, particularly in the Time-out section. Most participants believed that operating room nurses ranked the highest compliance to the protocols, while surgeons stayed the lowest. Active leadership with experienced operating room nurses, good training for surgical team members, and simplification of the checklist would be the positive factors for the effective implementation.Although there is a high acceptance and adequate self-reported awareness of the Surgical Safety Checklist, it is not always possible to implement it successfully. Our findings suggest that with experienced and effective leadership, barriers to implementation can be overcome. With positive perception and commitment, the Surgical Safety Checklist is easy to implement and it can make a profound improvement on the safety of surgical care. Moreover, a strategy of repetitive training and assessment on the part of the involved health care professionals may be necessary to further improve patients' safety during surgery.


Asunto(s)
Lista de Verificación , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/normas , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Obstétricos/normas , Grupo de Atención al Paciente/normas , Seguridad del Paciente/normas , Adulto , Concienciación , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto Joven
5.
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol ; 33(4): 262-269, 2021 08 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34183549

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article will review current guidelines regarding surgical protocols for elective and nonelective surgeries during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. RECENT FINDINGS: Perioperative management for surgical patients should be modified to promote the safety and wellbeing of patients and caregivers amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 testing should be performed preoperatively with subsequent preprocedure quarantine. Nonemergent or nonlife-threatening surgery should be postponed for COVID-19 positive patients. The consensus of surgical societies is to use a laparoscopic surgical approach for COVID-19 positive patients when appropriate and to avoid port venting at the end of procedures. For COVID-19 positive patients requiring an emergent procedure, the use of personal protective equipment is strongly recommended. SUMMARY: After over a year of the COVID-19 pandemic, effective protocols and precautions have been established to decrease the morbidity and mortality of patients undergoing surgery and to promote the safety of healthcare personnel. Continued investigations are necessary as cases of new, possibly more virulent, strains of the virus arise.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/prevención & control , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa/prevención & control , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/normas , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos/normas , Atención Perioperativa/normas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Femenino , Humanos , Laparoscopía , Equipo de Protección Personal , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol ; 58(1): 148-168, 2021 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33794043

RESUMEN

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors, including imaging techniques, biomarkers and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.


Declaración de consenso de ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE sobre el diagnóstico preoperatorio de los tumores de ovario La Sociedad Europea de Oncología Ginecológica (ESGO), la Sociedad Internacional de Ecografía en Obstetricia y Ginecología (ISUOG), el Grupo Internacional de Análisis de Tumores de Ovario (IOTA) y la Sociedad Europea de Endoscopia Ginecológica (ESGE) elaboraron conjuntamente declaraciones de importancia para la práctica clínica y con base empírica sobre el diagnóstico preoperatorio de los tumores de ovario, a partir de imágenes, biomarcadores y modelos de predicción, entre otras técnicas. La ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE designó a un grupo internacional multidisciplinar, que incluye a personas expertas de la práctica clínica y la investigación que han demostrado liderazgo y experiencia en el diagnóstico preoperatorio de los tumores de ovario y en el tratamiento de las pacientes con cáncer de ovario (19 personas expertas de toda Europa). También se incluyó en el grupo a una representante de las pacientes. Para garantizar que las declaraciones tenían una base empírica, se revisó la literatura actual y se valoró de forma crítica. Se redactaron declaraciones preliminares basadas en la revisión de la literatura pertinente. La totalidad del grupo debatió durante una teleconferencia cada declaración preliminar y se llevó a cabo una primera ronda de votaciones. Las declaraciones se eliminaron cuando no se obtuvo el consenso entre los miembros del grupo. Los votantes tuvieron la oportunidad de aportar comentarios/sugerencias a la par que sus votos. Las declaraciones se revisaron en consecuencia. Se llevó a cabo otra ronda de votaciones según las mismas reglas para que todo el grupo pudiera evaluar la versión revisada de las declaraciones. El grupo logró un consenso sobre 18 declaraciones. Esta Declaración de Consenso presenta estas declaraciones de la ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE sobre el diagnóstico preoperatorio de los tumores de ovario y la evaluación de la carcinomatosis, junto con un resumen de la evidencia que apoya cada declaración.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedades de los Anexos/diagnóstico , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia/normas , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/normas , Ginecología/normas , Neoplasias Ováricas/diagnóstico , Biomarcadores de Tumor/análisis , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Consenso , Femenino , Humanos , Periodo Preoperatorio , Sociedades Médicas
9.
Obstet Gynecol ; 137(4): 657-661, 2021 04 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33706362

RESUMEN

In this commentary, we describe historical and other influences that drive "double discrimination" in gynecologic surgery-lower pay in the area of surgery that boasts the largest proportion of female surgeons and is focused on female patients and explore how it results in potentially lower quality care. Insurers reimburse procedures for women at a lower rate than similar procedures for men, although there is no medically justifiable reason for this disparity. The wage gap created by lower reimbursement rates disproportionately affects female surgeons, who are disproportionately represented among gynecologic surgeons. This contributes to a large wage gap in surgery for women. Finally, poor reimbursement for gynecologic surgery pushes many obstetrics and gynecology surgeons to preferentially perform obstetric services, resulting in a high prevalence of low-volume gynecologic surgeons, a metric that is closely tied to higher complication rates. Creating equity in reimbursement for gynecologic surgery is one important and ethically required step forward to gender equity in medicine for patients and surgeons.


Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/economía , Calidad de la Atención de Salud , Salarios y Beneficios , Femenino , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/normas , Humanos , Médicos Mujeres , Estados Unidos
11.
J Obstet Gynaecol Can ; 43(4): 511-523.e1, 2021 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33548503

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To compare success and complication rates of apical suspension procedures for the surgical management of symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse. TARGET POPULATION: Women with symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse seeking surgical correction. OPTIONS: Interventions included abdominal apical reconstructive repairs (sacrocolpopexy, sacrohysteropexy, or uterosacral hysteropexy) via open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches; vaginal apical reconstructive repairs (vault suspensions or hysteropexy, sacrospinous, uterosacral, iliococcygeus, McCall's, or Manchester types); and vaginal obliterative procedures (with or without uterus in situ). Individual procedures or broad categories of procedures were compared: (1) vaginal versus abdominal routes for reconstruction, (2) abdominal procedures for reconstruction, (3) vaginal procedures for reconstruction, (4) hysterectomy and suspension versus hysteropexy for reconstruction, and (5) reconstructive versus obliterative options. OUTCOMES: The Urogynaecology Committee selected outcomes of interest: objective failure (obtained via validated pelvic organ prolapse [POP] quantification systems and defined as overall objective failure as well as failure rate by compartment); subjective failure (recurrence of bulge symptoms determined subjectively, with or without use of a validated questionnaire); reoperation for POP recurrence; complications of postoperative lower urinary tract symptoms (de novo or postoperative stress urinary incontinence; reoperation for persistent, recurrent, or de novo stress urinary incontinence; urge urinary incontinence; and voiding dysfunction); perioperatively recognized urinary tract injury (bladder or ureter); other complications (mesh exposure, defined as mesh being visible and exposed in the vagina, and non-sexual pelvic pain); and sexual function (de novo dyspareunia and sexual function score according to a validated questionnaire). BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: This guideline will benefit patients seeking surgical correction of apical POP by improving counselling on surgical treatment options and possible outcomes. It will also benefit surgical providers by improving their knowledge of various surgical approaches. Data presented could be used to develop frameworks and tools for shared decision-making. EVIDENCE: We searched Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase from 2002 to 2019. The search included multiple terms for apical POP surgical procedures, approaches, and complications. We excluded POP repairs using transvaginal mesh and studies that compared procedures without apical suspension. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective comparative studies. We limited language of publication to English and French and accessibility to full text. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. VALIDATION METHODS: The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and weak recommendations). INTENDED USERS: Gynaecologists, urologists, urogynaecologists, and other health care providers who assess, counsel, and care for women with POP. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: All statements refer to correction of apical vaginal prolapse in the short and medium term (up to 5 years), except when otherwise specified.


Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/normas , Prolapso de Órgano Pélvico/cirugía , Mallas Quirúrgicas , Prolapso Uterino/cirugía , Toma de Decisiones Conjunta , Femenino , Humanos , Sociedades Médicas , Resultado del Tratamiento
12.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(1): e23995, 2021 Jan 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33429761

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT: The Chinese government is attaching great importance to the development of ambulatory surgery in order to optimize the healthcare system in China. The study aims to examine the complications and quality indicators of patients who underwent gynecological ambulatory surgery at a tertiary hospital in China.This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent ambulatory surgery between July and September 2019 at the Department of Gynecology of the First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University. The patients were followed by phone at 30 days after discharge. The postoperative complications, mortality, unplanned re-operation, delayed discharge, unplanned re-hospitalization, and patient satisfaction were collected. The patients who underwent conventional hysteroscopic resection of uterine lesions during the same period were collected as controls for the economics analysis.A total of 392 patients who underwent ambulatory gynecological surgery were included. Fifteen patients had postoperative complications, and the total complication rate was 3.8% (15/392). Eight (8/392, 2.0%) patients had delayed discharge. There were no unplanned re-operations and deaths. There were two (2/392, 0.5%) cases of unplanned re-hospitalization. At 30 days after discharge, two patients were dissatisfied, and 390 cases were satisfied, for an overall satisfaction rate of 99.5%. Compared with conventional hysteroscopic resection of uterine lesions, ambulatory hysteroscopic surgery had a shorter hospital stay and lower total costs (P < .05) but similar surgery-related costs.Ambulatory gynecological surgery is feasible in China, with an acceptable complication profile and obvious economic and social benefits. Nevertheless, hospital management shall be reinforced.


Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/métodos , Adulto , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ambulatorios/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ambulatorios/normas , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ambulatorios/tendencias , China/epidemiología , Estudios de Factibilidad , Femenino , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/normas , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/tendencias , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Desarrollo de Programa/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos
13.
Gynecol Oncol ; 161(1): 46-55, 2021 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33388155

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefit of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) on length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, 30-day readmission, and cost in gynecologic oncology. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science for all peer-reviewed cohort studies and controlled trials on ERAS involving gynecologic oncology patients. Abstracts, commentaries, non-controlled studies, and studies without specific data on gynecologic oncology patients were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed on the primary endpoint of LOS. Subgroup analyses were performed based on risk of bias of the studies included, number of ERAS elements, and ERAS compliance. Secondary endpoints were readmission rate, complications, and cost. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies (6703 patients) were included: 5 randomized controlled trials, and 26 cohort studies. Meta-analysis of 27 studies (6345 patients) demonstrated a decrease in LOS of 1.6 days (95% confidence interval, CI 1.2-2.1) with ERAS implementation. Meta-analysis of 21 studies (4974 patients) demonstrated a 32% reduction in complications (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.83) and a 20% reduction in readmission (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-0.99) for ERAS patients. There was no difference in 30-day postoperative mortality (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23-1.6) for ERAS patients compared to controls. No difference in the odds of complications or reduction in LOS was observed based on number of included ERAS elements or reported compliance with ERAS interventions. The mean cost savings for ERAS patients was $2129 USD (95% CI $712 - $3544). CONCLUSIONS: ERAS protocols decrease LOS, complications, and cost without increasing rates of readmission or mortality in gynecologic oncology surgery. This evidence supports implementation of ERAS as standard of care in gynecologic oncology.


Asunto(s)
Recuperación Mejorada Después de la Cirugía , Neoplasias de los Genitales Femeninos/cirugía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos de Citorreducción/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos de Citorreducción/normas , Femenino , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/normas , Humanos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Resultado del Tratamiento
14.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol ; 28(2): 179-203, 2021 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32827721

RESUMEN

This is the first Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guideline dedicated to standardizing and optimizing perioperative care for women undergoing minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. The guideline was rigorously formulated by an American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists Task Force of US and Canadian gynecologic surgeons with special interest and experience in adapting ERAS practices for patients requiring minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. It builds on the 2016 ERAS Society recommendations for perioperative care in gynecologic/oncologic surgery by serving as a more comprehensive reference for minimally invasive endoscopic and vaginal surgery for both benign and malignant gynecologic conditions. For example, the section on preoperative optimization provides more specific recommendations derived from the ambulatory surgery and anesthesia literature for the management of anemia, hyperglycemia, and obstructive sleep apnea. Recommendations pertaining to multimodal analgesia account for the recent Food and Drug Administration warnings about respiratory depression from gabapentinoids. The guideline focuses on workflows important to high-value care in minimally invasive surgery, such as same-day discharge, and tackles controversial issues in minimally invasive surgery, such as thromboprophylaxis. In these ways, the guideline supports the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists and our collective mission to elevate the quality and safety of healthcare for women through excellence in clinical practice.


Asunto(s)
Recuperación Mejorada Después de la Cirugía/normas , Enfermedades de los Genitales Femeninos/cirugía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/rehabilitación , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/normas , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos/rehabilitación , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ambulatorios/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ambulatorios/rehabilitación , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ambulatorios/normas , Anestesia/métodos , Anestesia/normas , Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Consenso , Consejo Dirigido/métodos , Consejo Dirigido/normas , Femenino , Enfermedades de los Genitales Femeninos/rehabilitación , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/métodos , Ginecología/organización & administración , Ginecología/normas , Humanos , Laparoscopía/métodos , Laparoscopía/rehabilitación , Laparoscopía/normas , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos/normas , Alta del Paciente/normas , Educación del Paciente como Asunto/métodos , Educación del Paciente como Asunto/normas , Atención Perioperativa/métodos , Atención Perioperativa/normas , Periodo Preoperatorio , Sociedades Médicas/organización & administración , Sociedades Médicas/normas , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/prevención & control , Tromboembolia Venosa/prevención & control
15.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol ; 28(3): 386, 2021 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32871275

RESUMEN

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate different techniques, and detail the considerations for obtaining primary laparoscopic access in gynecologic surgery. DESIGN: Video demonstration of the techniques with narrated discussion of each method. SETTING: The methods for primary entry in laparoscopy vary by location and technique [1,2]. There are inherent risks with any mode of primary entry, and the risks are also specific to each technique [3-6]. The choice for primary entry depends on the patient's anatomy, surgical history, pathology, and surgeon preference [1,2]. INTERVENTIONS: This video reviews considerations for choosing the safest entry point and tips for proper entry technique [4,7-10]. The entry sites reviewed include the umbilicus, left upper quadrant, right upper quadrant, and supraumbilical [11]. The entry technique can be either open (Hasson), closed (Veress), or by direct laparoscopic visualization [9,10,12-14]. CONCLUSION: No single laparoscopic entry technique is superior [3]. The safest and most successful entry method will vary by case characteristics and surgeon training.


Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/métodos , Laparoscopía/métodos , Femenino , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/instrumentación , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/normas , Humanos , Laparoscopía/instrumentación , Laparoscopía/normas , Instrumentos Quirúrgicos , Ombligo/cirugía
16.
Eur J Surg Oncol ; 47(2): 360-366, 2021 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32863097

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: In 2016, the European Society of Gynecology Oncology (ESGO) published indicators defining the quality of surgical management of advanced ovarian cancer. The objective of the study was to assess the quality of ovarian cancer patient management in regional centers authorized for gynecological cancer, based on the ESGO list of quality indicators. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective observational cohort study was conducted from January 1 to June 30, 2016. The following quality indicators 1 "rate of complete surgical resection", 4 "center participating in clinical trials in gynecologic oncology", 5 "treatment planned and reviewed at a multidisciplinary team meeting", 6 "required preoperative workup", 8 "minimum required elements in operative reports" and 9 "minimum required elements in pathology reports" were selected. RESULTS: 91 patients were evaluated in 16 centers. The required preoperative workup was incomplete in 25% of cases. Treatment was not planned at a multidisciplinary team meeting for 24%. An evaluation score of peritoneal involvement was included in 40% of the operative reports and the quality of surgical resection was reported in 72%. Primary surgery was most often performed in a peripheral hospital (48%), interval surgery in a private center (37%), and closure surgery in a regional cancer center (43%). No institution respected the six quality indicators evaluated. One regional cancer center respected five items and two private centers did not respect any. CONCLUSION: Whilst the ESGO quality indicators provide objective, validated and evaluable support which centers can use to improve quality of care, we observed heterogeneous practices amongst the centers evaluated.


Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/normas , Neoplasias Ováricas/cirugía , Garantía de la Calidad de Atención de Salud/métodos , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Francia , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud , Estudios Retrospectivos
17.
Urology ; 150: 194-200, 2021 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32439554

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To analyze inaccuracies in the news media reporting of the 2019 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ban on surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: We queried the NexisUni media database for English-language news articles about "transvaginal mesh" or "FDA" published before and after the ban. Content analysis was based on discussion of the ban, indications for surgical mesh, and assessment of bias. We characterized public interest in transvaginal mesh using Google Trends. RESULTS: Of 290 news articles reviewed, 42 articles were included for analysis. Public interest in transvaginal mesh increased 4-fold after the FDA announcement. While 15 articles (38%) accurately reported that mesh was used in both POP and incontinence repairs, a plurality (18, 43%) only described using mesh for POP. The majority (30, 71%) of articles did not specify that the FDA ban applied to only transvaginal repair of POP and not to incontinence. Despite multiple professional societies affirming the use of mesh for incontinence, only 2 (5%) articles cited these evidence-based recommendations. About half of the articles had an overtly biased tone; articles with an anti-mesh bias were significantly less likely to identify the mesh indications relevant to the ban (P <.01). CONCLUSION: Seventy percent of news reports about the 2019 FDA ban on transvaginal mesh for POP failed to distinguish between the clinical indications for mesh impacted by the ban. The findings raise concern about patient perceptions of and future access to mesh surgery, regardless of indication.


Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/normas , Difusión de la Información , Prolapso de Órgano Pélvico/cirugía , Mallas Quirúrgicas/normas , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislación & jurisprudencia , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/instrumentación , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/métodos , Humanos , Medios de Comunicación de Masas/estadística & datos numéricos , Mallas Quirúrgicas/efectos adversos , Estados Unidos
18.
Urology ; 150: 116-124, 2021 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32739307

RESUMEN

While gynecologic malignancy is uncommon in women with conditions such as pelvic organ prolapse and bladder cancer, urologists should be acquainted with the relevant gynecologic literature as it pertains to their surgical care of female patients. While taking the patient history, urologists should be aware of prior cervical cancer screening and ask about vaginal bleeding, which can be a sign of uterine cancer. Urologic surgeons should also discuss the role of concomitant prophylactic oophorectomy and/or salpingectomy for ovarian cancer risk reduction at the time of pelvic surgery. An understanding of basic tests, such as a transvaginal sonogram, can help urologists provide comprehensive care.


Asunto(s)
Detección Precoz del Cáncer/normas , Neoplasias de los Genitales Femeninos/diagnóstico , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Femenino , Neoplasias de los Genitales Femeninos/prevención & control , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/normas , Salud Holística/normas , Humanos , Anamnesis/normas , Prolapso de Órgano Pélvico/cirugía , Rol Profesional , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Profilácticos/normas , Cirujanos/normas , Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria/cirugía , Urólogos/normas
20.
J Obstet Gynaecol Can ; 43(3): 376-389.e1, 2021 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33373697

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits and risks of laparoscopic surgery and provide clinical direction on entry techniques, technologies, and their associated complications in gynaecological surgery. TARGET POPULATION: All patients, including pregnant women and women with obesity, undergoing laparoscopic surgery for various gynaecological indications. OPTIONS: The laparoscopic entry techniques and technologies reviewed in formulating this guideline included the closed (Veress needle-pneumoperitoneum-trocar) technique, direct trocar insertion, open (Hasson) technique, visual entry systems, and disposable shielded and radially expanding trocars. OUTCOMES: Implementation of this guideline should optimize decision-making in the selection of entry technique for laparoscopic surgery. EVIDENCE: We searched English-language articles from September 2005 to December 2019 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, and Cochrane Library using the following MeSH search terms alone or in combination: laparoscopic entry, laparoscopy access, pneumoperitoneum, Veress needle, open (Hasson), direct trocar, visual entry, shielded trocars, radially expanded trocars, and laparoscopic complications. VALIDATION METHODS: The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care approach (Appendix A). INTENDED AUDIENCE: Surgeons performing laparoscopic gynaecological surgery. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS.


Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ginecológicos/normas , Laparoscopía/métodos , Laparoscopía/normas , Canadá , Femenino , Ginecología , Humanos , Laparoscopía/efectos adversos , Obstetricia , Sociedades Médicas , Instrumentos Quirúrgicos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...