Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2014, Vol. 41 Issue (5): 525-529    DOI: 10.12891/ceog17552014
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
A randomized-clinical trial examining a neoprene abdominal binder in gynecologic surgery patients
J.B. Szender1, K.L. Hall1, E.R. Kost1, *()
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX (USA)
Download:  PDF(63KB)  ( 6 )
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  
Purpose of Investigation: Pain control and early ambulation are two important postoperative goals. Strategies that decrease morphine use while increasing ambulation have the potential to decrease postoperative complications. In this study the authors sought to determine the effect of an abdominopelvic binder on postoperative morphine use, pain, and ambulation in the first day after surgery. Materials and Methods: The authors randomly assigned 75 patients undergoing abdominal gynecologic surgery to either binder or not after surgery. Demographic data and surgical characteristics were collected. Outcome variables included morphine use, pain score, time to ambulation, and number of ambulations. Results: A group at high risk for decreased mobility was identified and the binder increased the number of ambulatory events by 300%, 260%, and 240% in patients with vertical incisions, age over 50 years, and complex surgeries, respectively. Morphine use and pain scores were not significantly different. Conclusion: The binder increased ambulations in the subset of patients at the highest risk for postoperative complications: elderly, cancer patients, and vertical incisions. Routine use of the binder may benefit particularly high-risk gynecologic surgical patients.
Key words:  Surgery      Pain control      Mobility     
Published:  10 October 2014     
*Corresponding Author(s):  E.R. KOST     E-mail:  kost@uthscsa.edu

Cite this article: 

J.B. Szender, K.L. Hall, E.R. Kost. A randomized-clinical trial examining a neoprene abdominal binder in gynecologic surgery patients. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2014, 41(5): 525-529.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.12891/ceog17552014     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2014/V41/I5/525

[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] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] D. Filipecka-Tyczka, A. Kajdy, B.P. Siekierski, M. Stańczyk, A. Rogowski, M. Rabijewski, R.B. Maksym. Deep infiltrating endometriosis as a cause of severe urogynecological complications despite invasive treatment - report of two cases from the center of endometriosis surgery[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 955-960.
[10] E.D. Na, S.H. Choi, H. Park. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for concurrent hysterectomy and cholecystectomy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 792-796.
[11] G. Calongos, Y. Tsuji, Y. Ito, M. Handa, Y. Kubota, A. Ida. Short term outcomes of a new non-dissection minimally invasive surgery method for cystocele repair[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(3): 355-358.
[12] F.Q. Sun, T. Wang, X.H. Xu, C. Han, J. Jin. Rare case of bizarre leiomyoma in Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrome[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(3): 434-437.
[13] Hue HJ, Kim SK, Choi JY, Suh DH, Kim KD, No JH, Lee JR, Jee BC, Kim YB, Jeon HW. Previous ovarian surgery increases the risk of tubal factor infertility[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(1): 84-88.
[14] H. H. Chill, R. H. Yahya, M. Olek, S. Herzberg, S. Lesser, D. Shveiky. Anatomical outcome and patient satisfaction after two-stitch utero-sacral ligament suspension[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(6): 906-909.
[15] A. Lavinia Cozlea, E. Előd Élthes, Á. Török, M. Emil Capîlna. Clinical presentation, risk factors and management of ectopic pregnancy: a case-control study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(6): 914-919.
No Suggested Reading articles found!