Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
You searched for:"Waldir Pereira Modotte"
We found (4) results for your search.Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2006;28(7):403-409
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032006000700005
PURPOSE: to compare in a retrospective way, 51 women who underwent tubal ligation, 30 through microlaparoascopy (Gmicrol) and 21 through minilaparotomy (Gminil). METHODS: the analyzed parameters were: total time for accomplishment of the procedure and the surgical technique, time of hospital stay and return to the habitual activities after the surgery, postoperative pain, morbidity, satisfaction degree and esthetic effect, considering values of p<0,05 as significant, and also standard cost. RESULTS: Gmicrol took less time to accomplish the surgery than the Gminil (43 against 57 minutes respectively, p<0,05), less time to accomplish the surgical technique (6.48 against 30.32 minutes respectively, p<0,05), and lower hospital stay (9,90 hours as against 41,7 hours respectively, p <0,05). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding time to return to the habitual activities after surgery. To evaluate postoperative pain, a scale of 0-10 it was applied. Gmicrol present a lower pain score on the 1st and 2nd postoperative days (1.13 and 0.26 to Gmicrol and 4.52 and 1.14 to Gminil, respectively, p<0,05). There was no significant difference between immediate postoperative the most common complaint being pain at the site of pain and that on the 3rd postoperative day. Gminil presented a higher morbidity rate incision. To evaluate the satisfaction degree and esthetic effect, numeric values were attributed to as good, regular, poor and very bad as answered by the patiets. Gmicrol presented a higher satisfaction degree (p<0,05) and better esthetic effect as compared to Gminil (p <0,05). The microlaparoscopy standard cost was R$ 109.30 being lower than that of minilaparotomy. CONCLUSIONS: tubal ligation by microlaparoscopy, under local anesthesia and conscious sedation presented some advantages compared to minilaparotomy.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2006;28(7):403-409
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032006000700005
PURPOSE: to compare in a retrospective way, 51 women who underwent tubal ligation, 30 through microlaparoascopy (Gmicrol) and 21 through minilaparotomy (Gminil). METHODS: the analyzed parameters were: total time for accomplishment of the procedure and the surgical technique, time of hospital stay and return to the habitual activities after the surgery, postoperative pain, morbidity, satisfaction degree and esthetic effect, considering values of p<0,05 as significant, and also standard cost. RESULTS: Gmicrol took less time to accomplish the surgery than the Gminil (43 against 57 minutes respectively, p<0,05), less time to accomplish the surgical technique (6.48 against 30.32 minutes respectively, p<0,05), and lower hospital stay (9,90 hours as against 41,7 hours respectively, p <0,05). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding time to return to the habitual activities after surgery. To evaluate postoperative pain, a scale of 0-10 it was applied. Gmicrol present a lower pain score on the 1st and 2nd postoperative days (1.13 and 0.26 to Gmicrol and 4.52 and 1.14 to Gminil, respectively, p<0,05). There was no significant difference between immediate postoperative the most common complaint being pain at the site of pain and that on the 3rd postoperative day. Gminil presented a higher morbidity rate incision. To evaluate the satisfaction degree and esthetic effect, numeric values were attributed to as good, regular, poor and very bad as answered by the patiets. Gmicrol presented a higher satisfaction degree (p<0,05) and better esthetic effect as compared to Gminil (p <0,05). The microlaparoscopy standard cost was R$ 109.30 being lower than that of minilaparotomy. CONCLUSIONS: tubal ligation by microlaparoscopy, under local anesthesia and conscious sedation presented some advantages compared to minilaparotomy.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 1999;21(9):561-561
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 1999;21(9):561-561
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2000;22(2):95-100
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032000000200006
SUMMARY Purpose: to study the usefulness of minilaparoscopy in diagnosing the cause of pelvic pain. Methods: women with pelvic pain were prospectively analyzed and underwent an office video-microlaparoscopy. We analyzed the data regarding procedure time, stay in the recovery room, acceptance of anesthesia, and morbidity. Results: the average procedure time of the office video-microlaparoscopy was 19 min, the average stay for recovery was 43 min, and the technical quality of the image was excellent or good in 100% of the selected patients. The following laparoscopic findings were reported: 34.4% endometriosis, 28.1% pelvic adhesion, 12.5% pelvic varices, and 25% normal. Based on Bordhal et al.'s¹ criteria, a low frequency of pain manifestation during local anesthesia (12.5%) and discomfort on pneumoperitoneum (46.9%) were noticed. It could also be observed that, according to Milki and Tazuke's² criteria, the tolerance to the method was excellent and good (96.9%). Twenty-four hours after the procedure the morbidity rate was in accordance with Chung et al.'s³ criteria, showing a high frequency of pain at the incision area (59.4%) and sleepiness (43.8%). Only 3.1% reported they felt pain during the procedure, which shows the acceptance of the method by the patients. Conclusions: the acceptance of anesthesia and of the surgical procedure and the low morbidity allow the use of minilaparoscopy as a very important method in investigating patients with pelvic pain.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2000;22(2):95-100
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032000000200006
SUMMARY Purpose: to study the usefulness of minilaparoscopy in diagnosing the cause of pelvic pain. Methods: women with pelvic pain were prospectively analyzed and underwent an office video-microlaparoscopy. We analyzed the data regarding procedure time, stay in the recovery room, acceptance of anesthesia, and morbidity. Results: the average procedure time of the office video-microlaparoscopy was 19 min, the average stay for recovery was 43 min, and the technical quality of the image was excellent or good in 100% of the selected patients. The following laparoscopic findings were reported: 34.4% endometriosis, 28.1% pelvic adhesion, 12.5% pelvic varices, and 25% normal. Based on Bordhal et al.'s¹ criteria, a low frequency of pain manifestation during local anesthesia (12.5%) and discomfort on pneumoperitoneum (46.9%) were noticed. It could also be observed that, according to Milki and Tazuke's² criteria, the tolerance to the method was excellent and good (96.9%). Twenty-four hours after the procedure the morbidity rate was in accordance with Chung et al.'s³ criteria, showing a high frequency of pain at the incision area (59.4%) and sleepiness (43.8%). Only 3.1% reported they felt pain during the procedure, which shows the acceptance of the method by the patients. Conclusions: the acceptance of anesthesia and of the surgical procedure and the low morbidity allow the use of minilaparoscopy as a very important method in investigating patients with pelvic pain.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2004;26(7):584-584
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2004;26(7):584-584