A Retrospective Review of Enseal Laparoscopic Vaginal Assisted Hysterectomy (LAVH) Versus Traditional LAVH
- Conditions
- Benign Uterine Disease
- Interventions
- Procedure: Laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy
- Registration Number
- NCT01217866
- Lead Sponsor
- Womens Care
- Brief Summary
Retrospective charts review from one surgeon to compare Group A- cases where the laparoscopic portion of the case used an EN\~SEAL device to Group B - the laparoscopic BSO was done using a 3mm EN-SEAL device through 2 lateral 5mm ports.
- Detailed Description
79 women with benign uterine disease underwent laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy with or without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Subjects charts were divided into two groups based on surgical technique and the following parameters were reviewed retrospectively: surgical time, blood loss, uterine weight, patient weight, patient age, post operative fever \>100.4 F, readmission to hospital within one week, return to operating room within 24 hours, length of hospital stay, and blood transfusion. Group A, N=35 used traditional suture technique vaginally. Group B, N=44 used Enseal coagulation cutting device vaginally.
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- COMPLETED
- Sex
- Female
- Target Recruitment
- 79
- none, observational study
- none, observational study
Study & Design
- Study Type
- OBSERVATIONAL
- Study Design
- Not specified
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description LAVH, techniques Laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy Women aged 35-75 who underwent laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy via either suture technique vaginally or Enseal coagulation cutting device vaginally
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Surgical time Operating room time in minutes The total time the subject spent in surgery was compared between the two groups
Estimated blood loss Blood loss during surgery in cc per minute The total blood loss in cc per minutes operating was compared between the two groups
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method