الفهرس 
P REOPERATIVE A SSESSMENT OF V AGINAL H YSTERECTOMYOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 96 |  |  |
| | | from | 96 | | |
Abstract
Background: The vaginal hysterectomy (VH) is associated with great benefits in terms of less duration of hospital stay, better post-operative quality of life, a shorter period of convalescence, more satisfaction rate and can be considered a minimally invasive procedure. Vaginal salpingectomy is feasible in the majority of women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy and increases operating time by eleven minutes and blood loss by six milliliter. Women with prior adnexal surgery or uterine fibroids should +be counseled about the possibility that removal may not be feasible
Objective: Determine the feasibility of bilateral salpingectomy at the time of vaginal hysterectomy using the new surgical technique versus the standard technique and Identification of factors associated with unsuccessful salpingectomy and assessment of its impact on operating time, blood loss and surgical complications.
Patients and Methods: 52 patients scheduled for vaginal hysterectomy for benign pathology were randomized were randomized to two groups, 26 will undergo the standard technique and 26 will undergo the new technique. Procedure time was assessed as the total operative time and blood loss was estimated intraoperative and postoperative by measuring hemoglobin level 24 hours later. Delay discharge form hospital and occurrence of intra and postoperative complications were also reported.
Results: There were no significant differences between women of the two groups regarding age, parity, weight, BMI, menstrual status and comorbidities and regarding indications for VH. The operative time, blood loss, intra and post operative complications were nearly the same, no significant difference between the two groups. Using of any of both techniques carrying the same benefits.
Conclusion: In comparison of the new technique of salpingectomy during vaginal hysterectomy versus the standard technique there were no differenced in the operative time, blood loss, postoperative complications and hospital stay so we didn’t recommend the new technique except if its easier for the surgeon but for the benefits both techniques are the same