Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2014, Vol. 41 Issue (3): 276-279    DOI: 10.12891/ceog16492014
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Ectopic pregnancy and laparoscopy
M. Saranovic1, *(), M. Vasiljevic2, M. Prorocic2, N. Djukic Macut1, T. Filipovic1
1University of Pristina, Department of Anatomy, Kosovska Mitrovica
2University of Belgrade, Clinic of Gynecology and Obstetrics “Narodni Front”, Belgrade (Serbia)
Download:  PDF(59KB)  ( 14 )
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the success of surgical procedures performed by laparoscopy and laparotomy in the treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy. Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, there were 57 women who were operated due to tubal ectopic pregnancy. Laparoscopic surgery was performed in 36 women (study group). Conventional abdominal surgical treatment was performed in 21 women (control group). Results: Among 36 women from study group, a laparoscopic linear salpingotomy was performed in 69.44% cases, salpingectomy in 13.88% cases, and milking of tube in 16.66% cases. In the control group, linear salpingotomy was performed in 57.14% cases, salpingectomy in 28.57% cases, and milking of tube in 14.28% cases. Patent ipsilateral fallopian tube at three months after surgery was 66.66% in the study group and 52.38% in the control group. The intrauterine pregnancy rate was 19.44% in the study group and 19.05% in the control group. Conclusion: The percentage of tubal patency and intrauterine pregnancies after laparoscopical surgical treatment was not higher than after conventional surgical treatment by laparotomy.
Key words:  Ectopic pregnancy      Laparoscopy      Laparotomy      Surgery     
Published:  10 June 2014     
*Corresponding Author(s):  M. SARANOVIC     E-mail:  milena.saranovic@gmail.com

Cite this article: 

M. Saranovic, M. Vasiljevic, M. Prorocic, N. Djukic Macut, T. Filipovic. Ectopic pregnancy and laparoscopy. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2014, 41(3): 276-279.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.12891/ceog16492014     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2014/V41/I3/276

[1] Alessandra Gallo, Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo, Antonietta Legnante, Romolo Di Iorio, Carlo De Angelis. Hysteroscopy in COVID-19 times[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1017-1021.
[2] Ranit Hizkiyahu, Shannon Salvador, Michael H. Dahan. Ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation in a woman with borderline serous ovarian tumor causing a large fluctuating subcutaneous fluid collection: a case report[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1215-1218.
[3] Üzeyir Kalkan, Murat Yassa, Kadir Bakay, Şafak Hatırnaz. Mechanical bowel preparation prior to gynaecological laparoscopy enables better operative field visualization, lower pneumoperitoneum pressure and Trendelenburg angle during the surgery: a perspective that may add to patient safety[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 842-850.
[4] Basilio Pecorino, Giuseppe Scibilia, Placido Borzì, Maria Elena Vento, Pierfrancesco Veroux, Paolo Scollo. Diminished ovarian reserve and ectopic ovaries in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome candidates for Uterus Transplantation: our experience[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 907-912.
[5] Eren Akbaba, Burak Sezgin, Ahmet Akın Sivaslıoğlu. Anatomical and clinical outcomes of vaginally assisted laparoscopiclateral suspension in comparison with laparoscopic lateral suspension[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 935-941.
[6] Xi-Wa Zhao, Meng-Meng Zhang, Jian Zhao, Wei Zhao, Shan Kang. Correlative factors associated with the recurrence of ovarian endometriosis: a retrospective study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 962-968.
[7] Qian Hu, Mohammed Sharooq Paramboor, Tao Guo. Diagnosis and management of intramural ectopic pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 974-979.
[8] Xiao-Ying Chen, Chang Yu, Jian An, Mian Pan. Laparotomic manual replacement for uterine inversion following vaginal birth: a case report[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 980-981.
[9] Lin Ling, Juanjuan Fu, Lei Zhan, Wenyan Wang, Qian Su, Jun Li, Bing Wei. Surgical management for type II cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 555-560.
[10] Li-Min Zhou, Jie Duan, Yan Yang. Endoscopic treatment with concomitant ultrasound monitoring of obstructive septum in Robert's uterus following pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 711-714.
[11] Xiao-Hua Li, Jian-Kun Zhou, Jing-Dan Cheng. Application of ultrasound in hepatic pregnancy: a case report and literature review[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(2): 434-438.
[12] Su-Xian Zhang, Lu Wu, You-Fang Hou, Bo Yan, Shao-Yan Yang, Li-Hua Yang, Qing-Hua Zhao. Hemoperitoneum caused by bleeding of adenomyosis: a case report[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(2): 444-447.
[13] Gregory W. Kirschen , Samantha M. Dayton, Sophia Blakey-Cheung, Michael L. Pearl. Which patients on a gynecologic oncology service will require perioperative transfusion? A single-center retrospective cohort study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(1): 47-52.
[14] J.L. Liu, J.M. Chen, Y.F. Zheng, X.W. Zhang, R.X. Shi. 5 mm mini-incision laparoendoscopic single-site surgery of total hysterectomy: a report of five cases and literature review[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 895-899.
[15] J.R. Huang, X. Li, C. Fu, Y.H. Deng, T. Gao, H.W. Zhang. Is preprocessing helpful for suction and curettage in treating cesarean scar pregnancy?[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 900-905.
No Suggested Reading articles found!