• Title/Summary/Keyword: Gynecology department

Search Result 2,542, Processing Time 0.022 seconds

A Comparison of Minilaparotomy and Laparoscopic Sterilization (Minilaparotomy 불임술(不妊術)과 복강경불임술(腹腔鏡不妊術)에 관(關)한 비교연구(比較硏究))

  • Bai, Byoung-Choo
    • Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
    • /
    • v.4 no.1
    • /
    • pp.17-25
    • /
    • 1977
  • Anderson(1937), Power and Barnes(1941) reported a study concerning a method of tubal sterilization in association with peritoneoscopy or laparoscopy in which they cauterized the tubes. There appears to have been a hiatus of interest in sterilization (cold or hot) associated with laparoscopy until reintroduction by Palmer(1963), Frangenheim(1964) and Steptoe(1967). On the other hand, for interval female sterilization, however, minilaparotomy is relatively new. By Saunder and Munsick(1972), John Lyle(1974), Frank Stubb(1974), Vitoon(1973) and B.C. Bai(1975), their own technique for interval female sterilization requires 2.0 to 2.5cm, incision at the margin of the mons pubis. In Korea, female sterilization by means of minilaparotomy firstly reported by B.C. Bai using Bai's uterine elevator, of his own device, early in 1975. Recently inteval female sterilization by laparoscopy and minilaparotomy are widely accepted throughout the world especially in Asian countries. Minilaparotomy is carried out from 1974, laparoscopic sterilization from 1976, and in this study each of 250 cases of those were analysed and discussed for the comparison at Seoul Red Cross Hospital. (1) In the age distribution, numerous clients were in their age of $31{\sim}35$ in laparoscopy as well as minilaparotomy. Average 33.7 years in L and 33.2 years in M. (M=minilaparotomy, L=laparoscopic sterilization) (2) As regarding living children, women having 3 children represented the greatest number, 113 cases out of 250 in M group and 102 cases out of 250 in L group. Average No. of child are 2.9 in Land 3.1 in M. (3) Concidering the operation day in the menstrml cycle, the greatest number of cases, those who underwent tubal sterilization during the days of $26{\sim}$, next during the $6{\sim}10$ days of the cycle in both group. (4) Concidering the operation time, 188 cases by laparoscopy were performed in $6{\sim}10$ minutes, 33 cases within 5 minutes and 24 cases in $11{\sim}15$ minutes. Maximum 50 minutes, minimum 4 minutes and average 8.3 minutes. The majority of cases (154 cases) by minilaparotomy required $6{\sim}10$ minutes and 67 cases $11{\sim}15$ minutes, 6 cases within 5 minutes. Maximum 30 minutes, minimum 4 minutes and average 10.4, minutes. In both groups, most of the reasons for the extra length were surgical difficulties such as thick abdominal wall, pelvic adhesion, less cooperation of patients in early period of this study. (5) Hospital stay after operation in L group required $3{\sim}4$ hours in 125 cases, $2{\sim}3$ hours in 41 cases, $4{\sim}5$ hours in 32 cases out of 250. Maximum 8 hours, minimum 1 hour and average 3.8 hours. In M group hospital stay required $6{\sim}7$ hours in 100 cases, over 7 hours in 85 cases, $5{\sim}6$ hours in 46 cases and so on. Maximum 14 hours, minimum 2 hours and average 6.5 hours. (6) The time between operation and gas passing in the majority cases of both groups, were $12{\sim}36$ hours. A veragetime 20.3 hours in L and 27.2 in M. (7) Laparoscopic sterilization coincident with induced abortion were carried out in 27 cases, laparoscopy with minilaparotomy to control for mesosalpingeal hemorrhage in 1 case. Minilaparotomy coincident with induced abortion were performed in 65 cases, D and C whit polypectomy, menstrual regulatian, and remaval of IUD in 1 case respectively. (8) In L group, 1 case of mesosalpingeal hemorrhage, 1 case of abdominal wall infection were complicated during operation. In M group, 1 case of uterine perfaration, 1 case of abdominal wall infection, 1 case of hemorrhage from omentum and 1 case of bloody vaginal discharge were complicated. No intensive medical treatment was required for those minor complications in both groups. (9) No failure has been recognized and these two sterilization techniques might be the simple, safe and the most effective method for permanent contraception at present time. There is no significant clinical defference between L and M group in this study.

  • PDF

Efficacy of the Split Insemination Method Combining Conventional IVF and ICSI in Non-male Factor Infertile Couples with Normal Sperm Parameters (정상 정자 소견을 나타내는 불임 부부에서 일반적인 체외수정과 세포질내 정자주입술을 병행하는 분할 수정법의 효용성)

  • Hong, Seung-Bum;Park, Dong-Wook;Shin, Mi-Ra;Choi, Su-Jin;Lee, Sun-Hee;Song, In-Ok;Jun, Jin-Hyun
    • Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
    • /
    • v.34 no.4
    • /
    • pp.305-312
    • /
    • 2007
  • Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of split insemination method in treatments for non-male factor infertility. Method: Laboratory and clinical data were collected from 505 cycles of split insemination during 2002$\sim$2005 in our center. The subjects were non-male factor infertility such as endometriosis, tubal, uterine, PCOS and idiopathic infertility without any sperm defects. Retrieved oocytes were randomly divided, and inseminated by conventional IVF or ICSI. Fertilized zygotes were cultured for 2$\sim$5 days to ET date, and surplus zygotes and embryos were frozen for subsequent frozen-thawed ET cycles. Clinical outcomes according to insemination method were compared by statistical analysis. Results: The overall fertilization per retrieved oocytes was significantly higher in ICSI than that of conventional IVF in sibling oocytes (62.5$\pm$22.3% vs 52.9$\pm$28.0%, p<0.01). Total fertilization failure occurred only in 2 of 505 cycles (0.4%) in split insemination cycles. Incidence of fertilization failure and poor fertilization rate less than 30% by ICSI were significantly lower than those of conventional IVF (1.1% and 7.5% vs 8.5% and 22.0%, p<0.01). Delivery rates after transfer of fresh and thawed embryos from split insemination cycles were 40.0% (185/462) and 35.0% (55/157), respectively. There was no significant difference in the implantation and delivery rates of ET with embryos from conventional IVF or ICSI. Conclusion: Taken together, the split insemination method improves poor fertilization rates resulting in successful clinical outcomes and thus could be used for non-male factor infertile couples in human ART program.