Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

You searched for:"Rosaly Rulli Costa"

We found (2) results for your search.
  • Artigos Originais

    Tubal reanastomosis: analysis of the results of 30 years of treatment

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2008;30(6):294-299

    Summary

    Artigos Originais

    Tubal reanastomosis: analysis of the results of 30 years of treatment

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2008;30(6):294-299

    DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032008000600005

    Views0

    PURPOSE: to verify the ratio of intra-uterine gestation in patients submitted to recanalization in the Hospital Regional da Asa Sul in the last 30 years and to assess the rate of ectopic gestation of such procedures, the influence of age and time interval between salpingectomy and recanalization in the therapeutic success. METHODS: medical files of 71 patients were analyzed, after exclusion of those presenting other alterations that could influence fertility prognosis, plus the cases when recanalization was impossible. Variables collected were: occurrence of intra-uterine gestation, coming to term or to abortion; occurrence of ectopic pregnancy after salpingectomy; no-conception after reversion, women's age at the recanalization, and time interval between salpingectomy and its reversion. RESULTS: there has been a pregnancy rate of 67.6%, 73.2% for bilateral recanalization and 46.6% for unilateral, as well as 5.6% of ectopic pregnancies. Concerning the patients' age group, it was observed a pregnancy rate of 33%, from 20 to 24; 60%, from 25 to 29; 69.2%, from 30 to 34; 65%, from 35 to 39, and 42.9%, from 40 to 44 years old. The number of cases was small for age the groups 20 to 24 and 40 to 44 years old. The time interval between salpingectomy and recanalization (TISR) has varied from one to 18 years. TISR has been divided in three groups presenting the following pregnancy rates: one to six year interval, 59%; seven to 12, 66.6%; 13 to 18, 57%. CONCLUSIONS: gestation rate has been 67.6%, 5.6% being ectopic. In the comparison of age groups, there has been no significant influence of age on the therapeutic success of patients from 25 to 39 years old. Sterility duration did not influence the reversion results.

    See more
    Tubal reanastomosis: analysis of the results of 30 years of treatment
  • Artigos Originais

    Oocyte reception: patients’ profile in a waiting list of the program of Hospital Regional da Asa Sul, Brasília, Distrito Federal

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2007;29(9):459-464

    Summary

    Artigos Originais

    Oocyte reception: patients’ profile in a waiting list of the program of Hospital Regional da Asa Sul, Brasília, Distrito Federal

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2007;29(9):459-464

    DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032007000900004

    Views0

    PURPOSE: describe epidemiologic profile of patients enrolled in the oocyte reception program at Hospital Regional da Asa Sul (HRAS) in Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil, and its main indications. METHODS: prospective descriptive study, in which 330 patients enrolled in the waiting list program were studied. Sixty-seven women, irrespective of their infertility factor and that had not been contemplated by the treatment were included. Thirty women who lived in other cities, 50 patients over 50 years old, 24 patients that didn't want to take part in the study, nine patients that asked to be left out of the program and 150 women that couldn't be found by phone calls were excluded. The 67 patients included were interviewed in order to answer a questionnaire. Their medical handbook was recovered to confirm that the investigation required to establish the cause of infertility had been done. The data was registered and analyzed by SPSS version 12.0 software. RESULTS: the patients' epidemiologic profile is age range 40 to 49 years old (82%), non-white skinned (77,6%), catholic (71,6%), married (59,7%), in high school (76,1%), secondary infertility (53,6%) from which due to tubal sterilization (40,3%) and those ones who started trying to conceive before 35 years old (91%). The main indication to enroll in this oocyte reception program was age and low ovarian reserve. CONCLUSION: the results demonstrated the indiscriminate tubal sterilization. The oocyte reception program benefits women with reserved reproductive prognostic.

    See more
    Oocyte reception: patients’ profile in a waiting list of the program of Hospital Regional da Asa Sul, Brasília, Distrito Federal

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report
case-report -
correction
editorial
editorial -
letter
letter -
other
other -
rapid-communication
research-article
research-article -
review-article
review-article -
Section
Arigos Originais
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Carta ao Editor
Cartas
Case Report
Case Reports
Caso e Tratamento
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Corrigendum
Editoriais
Editorial
Editorial
Equipamentos e Métodos
Errata
Erratas
Erratum
Febrasgo Position Statement
Febrasgo Statement
Febrasgo Statement Position
FIGO Statement
GUIDELINES
Integrative Review
Letter to Editor
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor
Métodos e Técnicas
Nota do Editor
Nota Prévia
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Original Articles
Relato de Caso
Relato de Casos
Relatos de Casos
Reply to the Letter to the Editor
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Teses
Resumos de Teses
Resumos dos Trabalhos Premiados no 50º Congresso Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revisão
Revisão
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnica e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Métodos
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE