[Non-randomised, comparative, prospective study of transvaginal endoscopic cholecystectomy versus transparietal laparoscopic cholecystectomy]. / Estudio comparativo, prospectivo y no aleatorizado de la colecistectomía endoscópica transvaginal frente a la colecistectomía laparoscópica transparietal.

INTRODUCTION: We present a non-randomised comparative study of two patients series followed up prospectively, in which convention laparoscopic cholecystectomy is compared with transvaginal cholecystectomy, a hybrid transluminal endoscopic procedure, with the objective of assessing the clinical safety of the procedures and its efficacy in the resolution of cholelithiasis. PATIENTS AND METHOD: A non-randomised prospective clinical series of 40 female patients, operated on for cholelithiasis using endoscopic surgery, 20 with a conventional laparoscopic approach and 20 using a transvaginal endoscopic approach. Surgical wound infection, urinary infection, evisceration, eventration, mortality and other complications. RESULTS: Scheduled operations were performed on the 40 patients as indicated. There were no complications during the operations. There was no mortality associated with the procedures and there was only one post-surgical complication, a urinary tract infection in one patient operated on by the transvaginal approach. The mean follow up was the same in both groups (9 months). The mean hospital stay was less than 0.8 days in both groups. The duration of the surgery was longer in the transvaginal approach group, with a mean of 69.5 min, compared to 46.2 min in the laparoscopy group. CONCLUSIONS: Although the cosmetic benefit is obvious, no differences were found as regards parietal problems in this series. The duration of the transvaginal surgery is higher than that of the transparietal, but the times of both are acceptable. In this study, the non-inferiority in the safety and efficacy of the transvaginal approach is able to be assessed.

Estudio comparativo, prospectivo y no aleatorizado de la colecistectomía endoscópica transvaginal frente a la colecistectomía laparoscópica transparietal / Non-randomised, comparative, prospective study of transvaginal endoscopic cholecystectomy versus transparietal laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Introducción: Presentamos un estudio comparativo no aleatorizado de dos series seguidas de manera prospectiva en las que se compara la colecistectomía laparoscópica convencional con la colecistectomía transvaginal, procedimiento endoscópico transluminal híbrido, con el objetivo de valorar la seguridad clínica del procedimiento y su eficacia en la resolución de la colelitiasis. Pacientes y método: Serie clínica prospectiva no aleatorizada de 40 mujeres intervenidas por colelitiasis mediante cirugía endoscópica, 20 con abordaje laparoscópico convencional y 20 mediante abordaje endoscópico transvaginal. Se analizaron como variables la infección de herida quirúrgica, la infección urinaria, la evisceración, la eventración, la mortalidad y otras complicaciones. Resultados: Se realizó la intervención prevista en las 40 pacientes a quienes se indicó. No hubo complicaciones intraoperatorias. No hubo ningún caso de mortalidad relacionada con los procedimientos y sólo se produjo una complicación postoperatoria, infección del tracto urinario, en una paciente operada por vía transvaginal. El seguimiento medio ha sido el mismo en ambos grupos (9 meses). La estancia media fue en ambos grupos<0,8 días. La duración de la cirugía fue mayor en el grupo con abordaje transvaginal, con 69,5min de media frente a 46,2min en el grupo laparoscópico. Conclusiones: Si bien la ventaja estética es patente, en esta serie no se han encontrado diferencias en relación con problemas parietales. La duración de la cirugía transvaginal es mayor que la de la transparietal, pero los tiempos medios de ambas son aceptables. En este estudio se puede valorar la no inferioridad en eficacia y seguridad del abordaje transvaginal(AU)

Introduction: We present a non-randomised comparative study of two patients series followed up prospectively, in which convention laparoscopic cholecystectomy is compared with transvaginal cholecystectomy, a hybrid transluminal endoscopic procedure, with the objective of assessing the clinical safety of the procedures and its efficacy in the resolution of cholelithiasis. Patients and method: A non-randomised prospective clinical series of 40 female patients, operated on for cholelithiasis using endoscopic surgery, 20 with a conventional laparoscopic approach and 20 using a transvaginal endoscopic approach. Surgical wound infection, urinary infection, evisceration, eventration, mortality and other complications. Results: Scheduled operations were performed on the 40 patients as indicated. There were no complications during the operations. There was no mortality associated with the procedures and there was only one post-surgical complication, a urinary tract infection in one patient operated on by the transvaginal approach. The mean follow up was the same in both groups (9 months). The mean hospital stay was less than 0.8 days in both groups. The duration of the surgery was longer in the transvaginal approach group, with a mean of 69.5min, compared to 46.2min in the laparoscopy group. Conclusions: Although the cosmetic benefit is obvious, no differences were found as regards parietal problems in this series. The duration of the transvaginal surgery is higher than that of the transparietal, but the times of both are acceptable. In this study, the non-inferiority in the safety and efficacy of the transvaginal approach is able to be assessed(AU)