Ahmad G, Duffy J M N, Watson A J S
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Burnley General Hospital, Burnley, UK.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Oct;99(1):52-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.04.042. Epub 2007 Jul 12.
To identify laparoscopic entry techniques employed by gynecologists in the United Kingdom to determine if the consensus technique is adhered to, and to observe whether entry technique affects complication rate.
An anonymous postal questionnaire was sent to gynecologists with an interest in laparoscopic surgery in the United Kingdom.
At total of 568 questionnaires were sent and 345 (60.7%) were returned. Of gynecologists who returned the questionnaire 194 (57%) reported occurrence of a major bowel or vascular complication. In terms of the key elements of the consensus document there was no significant difference in entry technique used between those that reported major injury (vascular, bowel, or both), and those that did not.
This survey demonstrates the variation in entry techniques used by gynecologists in the United Kingdom. Without a good evidence-base to the contrary no entry technique can be stated as safer than another.
确定英国妇科医生采用的腹腔镜进入技术，以判断是否遵循了共识技术，并观察进入技术是否会影响并发症发生率。
向英国对腹腔镜手术感兴趣的妇科医生发送了一份匿名邮寄问卷。
共发送了568份问卷，345份（60.7%）被退回。在回复问卷的妇科医生中，194名（57%）报告发生了严重的肠道或血管并发症。就共识文件的关键要素而言，报告发生重大损伤（血管、肠道或两者皆有）的医生与未报告的医生在使用的进入技术上没有显著差异。
这项调查表明了英国妇科医生使用的进入技术存在差异。在没有相反的确凿证据的情况下，无法表明哪种进入技术比另一种更安全。
