Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic Gynae-oncological Procedures: Lessons Learnt After a Single Institution Audit of Complications and Their Management in 567 Consecutive Patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study Objective

To retrospectively evaluate the complications of the laparoscopic pelvic surgeries and to formulate the guidelines to avoid them.

Design

Retrospective study (Canadian Classification).

Setting

Advanced Laparoscopic Institute.

Patients

Nine hundred and seven operated for gynecological malignancies.

Intervention

Laparoscopic surgeries.

Measurements and Main Results

567 women suffering from different pelvic conditions were studied in a period of 60 months. The median age of the patient was 35 (11–80). Complications occurred in 32 patients (32/567, 5.5 %). The overall incidence of urinary tract injury in all the advanced cases at our institute was 2.1 % (12/567). The incidence of bowel injury at our center was 1.76 %. The incidence of vascular injury at our institute was 1.76 % (10/567).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic complications are different than those seen following open surgeries. Anticipation, early recognition, and timely intervention help to reduce morbidity. Laparoscopic management of complications is possible. Formulating standard guidelines can help to avoid many such complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clavien P, Sanabria J, Mentha G, et al. Recent results of elective open cholecystectomy in a North American and a European center. Ann Surg. 1992;216:618–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Clavien P, Camargo C, Croxford R, et al. Definition and classification of negative outcomes in solid organ transplantation. Ann Surg. 1994;220:109–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Clavien P, Sanabria J, Strasberg S. Proposed classification of complication of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery. 1992;111:518–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Puntambekar SP, Palep R, Gurjar A, et al. Laparoscopic ureteroneocystostomy with psoas hitch. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13(4):302–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Peterson HB, Hulka JF, Phillips JM. American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists’ 1988 membership survey on operative laparoscopy. J Reprod Med. 1990;35:587–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chapron CM, Dubuisson J, Ansquer Y. Is total laparoscopic hysterectomy a safe surgical procedure? Hum Reprod. 1996;11:2422–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zaki H, Penketh R, Newton J. Gynaecological laparoscopy audit: birmingham experience. Gynaecol Endosc. 1995;4:251–7.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jansen FW, Kapiteyen K, Trimbos-Kemper T, et al. Complications of laparoscopy: a prospective multicentre observational study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104:595–600.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chapron CM, Dubuisson J, Ansquer Y. Is total laparoscopic hysterectomy a safe surgical procedure? Hum Reprod. 1996;11:2422–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Palmer R. Safety in laparoscopy. J Reprod Med. 1974;13:1–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Baadsgaard SE, Bille S, Egeblad K. Major vascular injury during gynecologic laparoscopy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1989;68:283–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nezhat C, Childers J, Nezhat F, et al. Major retroperitoneal vascular injury during laparoscopic surgery. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:480–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hurd WH, Bude RO, DeLancey JO, et al. Abdominal wall characterization with magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. The effects of obesity on the laparoscopic approach. J Reprod Med. 1991;36:473–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Galaxy Care Laparoscopic Institute, A Center of Excellence for Minimally Invasive Oncology, 25-A, Karve Road, Erandwane, Pune, 411004, Maharashtra, India

    Shailesh P. Puntambekar, Geetanjali A. Agrawal, Saurabh N. Joshi, Neeraj V. Rayate, D. N. B. Saravana & Avanish V. Deshmukh

Authors
  1. Shailesh P. Puntambekar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Geetanjali A. Agrawal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saurabh N. Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Neeraj V. Rayate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. N. B. Saravana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Avanish V. Deshmukh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shailesh P. Puntambekar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Puntambekar, S.P., Agrawal, G.A., Joshi, S.N. et al. Laparoscopic Gynae-oncological Procedures: Lessons Learnt After a Single Institution Audit of Complications and Their Management in 567 Consecutive Patients. J Obstet Gynecol India 64, 36–40 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-013-0446-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-013-0446-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation