Open Technique Versus Blind Technique in Placement of Primary Ports in Laparoscopic Procedures- A Prospective Cohort Study
Introduction: Laparoscopic access has always been a challenge because it has been associated with severe complications and sometimes fatal also. Aim: To compare open technique versus blind technique in placement of primary port in various laparoscopic procedures in terms of operative time, comp...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/85b8ad8ac0ad451887f0a694d3b28a98 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Introduction: Laparoscopic access has always been a challenge
because it has been associated with severe complications and
sometimes fatal also.
Aim: To compare open technique versus blind technique in placement
of primary port in various laparoscopic procedures in terms of
operative time, complications, ease of use and acceptability.
Materials and Methods: This prospective cohort study was
conducted at Government Medical College, Patiala, Punjab,
India, between June 2014 to August 2016. The study included
100 patients, which were divided into two groups. Group A
(n=50) received placement of primary port by open technique
and Group B (n=50) received placement of primary port by
blind technique. The time taken for access into peritoneal cavity
and duration of surgery was noted. Multivariate analysis done
using Chi-square test, p-value of less than 0.05 was considered
significant.
Results: Mean age of patients in group A and group B was
42.66±12.37 years and 43.06±14.67 years, respectively. Majority
of patients were females in both groups (n=45 in group A and
n=39 in group B). There was no significant difference in time taken
for access into peritoneal cavity (p-value>0.05). The duration
of hospital stay (in hours) of the patients was 36.96 in Group A
and 34.42 in Group B which was not statistically significant. The
incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications was
not significant. Most common complication port site infections 3
(6%) in Group A.
Conclusion: There was no significant difference between the two
techniques with respect to time taken for peritoneal access and
complications. In expert hands, both methods are comparable. |
|---|