Search

Abstract: Objective: To compare effectiveness, feasibility, and suturing time required between an absorbable barbed wire (V-Loc) uterine suture and a classic continuous suture with intracorporeal knots among women undergoing laparoscopic myomectomy. Methods: From January 2010 to February 2011, women with single symptomatic intramural myoma were prospectively enrolled in a single-center study at a university hospital in Rome, Italy. A control group with characteristics meeting the criteria for study inclusion was retrospectively identified from the hospital databases. In the prospective group uterine wall defects were closed with V-Loc suture, whereas in the control group they were closed by classical continuous suture with intracorporeal knots. Data were analyzed via Student t test, Mann–Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test. Results: The mean operative time was shorter in the V-Loc (51±18.1min) than in the control (58±17.8min) group. Suturing time was significantly lower in the V-Loc than in the control (9.9±4.3 versus 15.8±4.7min; P =0.0004) group. Both intraoperative bleeding and drop in hemoglobin were significantly lower in the V-Loc group (P =0.0076 and P= 0.0176, respectively). Conclusion: Use of a barbed suture may aid surgeons during laparoscopic suturing by reducing operative time, suturing time, and blood loss. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: To assess the discrepancy between width of surgical margin measured with the naked eye/ruler by a surgeon before removing an invasive vulvar carcinoma, and width of margin measured under microscope by pathologist after fixation of the resected lesion with formalin. Potential relationships between discrepancy and disease recurrence were also investigated.Methods: This prospective study was conducted with resected lesions from 86 women who underwent surgery for primary/recurrent invasive vulvar carcinoma. After the surgeon removed the lesions surrounded by 1-2-cm margins, the pathologist determined margin width at the 4 cardinal points of 86 lesions (for a total of 344 margin assessments), first macroscopically and then under the microscope.Results: A safety margin of 0.8 cm on microscopic view was achieved in 83% of cases (112 of 135) when the macroscopic measurement was 1cm, in 91% of cases (58 of 64) when it was 1.5 cm, and 98% of cases (105 of 107) when it was 2 cm.Conclusion: There was a small discrepancy between the surgeon's intent and the microscopic margin measurement, mostly related to tissue shrinkage. A 1-cm surgical margin corresponded to a 0.8-cm margin in microscopic view (the "safe margin") in most cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]