medigraphic.com
Órgano Oficial del Hospital Angeles Health System

2021, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Acta Med 2021; 19 (1)

Comparison of the results of laparoscopic management of ectopic pregnancy with the use of advanced bipolar energy versus hybrid (ultrasonic plus bipolar)

Ayala PBF, Hernández ?C

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 9-14
PDF size: 176.69 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the results of laparoscopic management of ectopic pregnancy with the use of advanced bipolar versus hybrid energy. Material and methods: An observational, descriptive, case series study was conducted, based on records of patients with tubal ectopic pregnancy confirmed. These patients underwent laparoscopic salpingectomy using advanced bipolar or hybrid energy (ultrasonic plus bipolar) at the Hospital Angeles Pedregal during 2013 to 2019. Outcomes were compared between groups considering significant a p value < 0.05. Results: In total 101 cases of ectopic pregnancy were treated. In 60 out of 101 procedures, hybrid energy (59.4%) was used and in 41 advanced bipolar energy was employed (40.6%). In patients with ruptured ectopic pregnancy the complication rate in the hybrid energy group was 8.4 versus 7.1% in the bipolar energy group (p = 0.760). In patients with not-ruptured ectopic pregnancy the complication rate was 0% in the hybrid energy group and 3.7% in the bipolar energy group (p = 0.429). Patients in the hybrid energy group had a significant reduction in hemoglobin levels after the operation (p = 0.011). Conclusion: The use of hybrid energy is associated with greater hemoglobin reduction during the postoperative period without increasing other complications or hospital stay in patients with ectopic pregnancy.


REFERENCES

  1. Park JE, Yuk JS, Cho IA, Baek JC, Lee JH, Park JK. Ectopic pregnancy incidence in the Republic of Korea in 2009-2015: A population-based cross-sectional study. Sci Rep. 2018; 8 (1): 17308.

  2. Newbatt E, Beckles Z, Ullman R, Lumsden MA; Guideline Development Group. Ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2012; 345: e8136. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8136.

  3. Escobar-Padilla B, Perez-López CA, Martínez-Puon H. Factores de riesgo y características clínicas del embarazo ectópico. Rev Med Inst Mex Seg Soc. 2017; 55 (3): 278-285.

  4. Parashi S, Moukhah S, Ashrafi M. Main risk factors for ectopic pregnancy: a case-control study in a sample of Iranian women. Int J Fertil Steril. 2014; 8 (2): 147-154.

  5. Gaskins AJ, Missmer SA, Rich-Edwards JW, Williams PL, Souter I, Chavarro JE. Demographic, lifestyle, and reproductive risk factors for ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2018; 110 (7): 1328-1337.

  6. Marion LL, Meeks GR. Ectopic pregnancy: history, incidence, epidemiology, and risk factors. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 55 (2): 376-386.

  7. van Mello NM, Mol F, Ankum WM, Mol BW, van der Veen F, Hajenius PJ. Ectopic pregnancy: how the diagnostic and therapeutic management has changed. Fertil Steril. 2012; 98 (5): 1066-1073.

  8. Duggal BS, Tarneja P, Sharma RK, Rath SK, Wadhwa RD. Laparoscopic management of ectopic pregnancies. Med J Armed Forces India. 2004; 60 (3): 220-223.

  9. Alkatout I, Honemeyer U, Strauss A, Tinelli A, Malvasi A, Jonat W et al. Clinical diagnosis and treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2013; 68 (8): 571-581.

  10. Ding DC, Chu TY, Kao SP, Chen PC, Wei YC. Laparoscopic management of tubal ectopic pregnancy. JSLS. 2008; 12 (3): 273-276.

  11. Lyons SD, Law KS. Laparoscopic vessel sealing technologies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013; 20 (3): 301-307.

  12. Sankaranarayanan G, Resapu RR, Jones DB, Schwaitzberg S, De S. Common uses and cited complications of energy in surgery. Surg Endosc. 2013; 27 (9): 3056-3072.

  13. Law KS, Lyons SD. Comparative studies of energy sources in gynecologic laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013; 20 (3): 308-318.

  14. Olympus Corporation. Thunderbeat plataforma de tratamiento de tejidos: Guía de consulta para profesionales sanitarios. Miami: 2018.

  15. Jaiswal A, Huang KG. Energy devices in gynecological laparoscopy - Archaic to modern era. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2017; 6 (4): 147-151.

  16. Dalsgaard Jensen T, Penninga L. Non-operative treatment of ruptured ectopic pregnancy. BMJ Case Rep. 2016; 2016: bcr2016215311.

  17. Milsom J, Trencheva K, Monette S, Pavoor R, Shukla P, Ma J et al. Evaluation of the safety, efficacy, and versatility of a new surgical energy device (THUNDERBEAT) in comparison with Harmonic ACE, LigaSure V, and EnSeal devices in a porcine model. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012; 22 (4): 378-386.

  18. Fagotti A, Vizzielli G, Fanfani F, Gallotta V, Rossitto C, Costantini B et al. Randomized study comparing use of THUNDERBEAT technology vs standard electrosurgery during laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for gynecologic cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 21 (3): 447-453.

  19. Rothmund R, Kraemer B, Brucker S, Taran FA, Wallwiener M, Zubke A et al. Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy using EnSeal vs standard bipolar coagulation technique: randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013; 20 (5): 661-666.

  20. Aytan H, Nazik H, Narin R, Api M, Tok EC. Comparison of the use of LigaSure, HALO PKS cutting forceps, and ENSEAL tissue sealer in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 21 (4): 650-655.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com