کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
3954925 | 1255170 | 2011 | 4 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
Study ObjectiveTo determine whether traditional, robotic, or single-site laparoscopic incisions are more appealing to women.DesignDescriptive study using a survey (Canadian Task Force classification III).SettingSingle-specialty referral-based gynecology practice.PatientsAll patients older than 18 years who came for care to the Newton-Wellesley Hospital Minimally Invasive Gynecological Surgery Center from April 2, 2010, to June 30, 2010.InterventionsThree identical photos of an unscarred female abdomen were each marked with a black pen to indicate typical incision lengths and locations for robotic, single-site, and traditional laparoscopic surgery. Subjects were then asked to rank these incisions in order of preference. Additional demographic and surgical history questions were included in the survey.Measurements and Main ResultsTwo-hundred fifty of 427 patients (58.5%) returned surveys, and of these, 241 completed critical survey elements. Preference for traditional laparoscopic incisions was 56.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50.1%–62.7%), for a single incision was 41.1% (95% CI, 34.8%–47.3%), and for robotic surgery was 2.5% (95% CI, 0.5%–4.5%). Two-sample test of proportion (Z test) showed the difference in preference for traditional over the other methods to be significant: p = .007 for a single incision and p <.001 for robotic surgery. Multivariatble analysis for factors influencing choice of single-site incision demonstrated that Latina/Hispanic ethnicity was the only significant factor (p = .02).ConclusionWomen prefer both single-site and traditional laparoscopic incisions over robotic procedures. Inasmuch as aesthetics are an important consideration for many women and clinical outcomes are similar, during the informed-consent procedure, location and length of incisions should be included in the discussion of risks, benefits, and alternatives.
Journal: Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology - Volume 18, Issue 5, September–October 2011, Pages 640–643