Covid
Seyed Vahid Seyed Hosseini
Abstract
Thyroidectomy, the surgical removal of the thyroid gland, is a commonly performed procedure for various thyroid conditions. In recent years, laparoscopic thyroidectomy (LT) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to open thyroidectomy (OT). This abstract presents a comparison of the results between ...
Read More
Thyroidectomy, the surgical removal of the thyroid gland, is a commonly performed procedure for various thyroid conditions. In recent years, laparoscopic thyroidectomy (LT) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to open thyroidectomy (OT). This abstract presents a comparison of the results between laparoscopic and open thyroidectomy, specifically focusing on surgical efficacy, safety, postoperative complications, and patient satisfaction. Several studies have reported comparable or even superior outcomes with laparoscopic thyroidectomy in terms of surgical efficacy. LT provides magnified visualization and improved access to the surgical field, resulting in lower rates of nerve injury and hypoparathyroidism, while achieving equivalent rates of complete tumor resection and lymph node dissection. In terms of safety, laparoscopic thyroidectomy has demonstrated advantages over open thyroidectomy. It is associated with reduced blood loss, lower rates of wound infections, decreased postoperative pain, and improved cosmetic outcomes due to smaller incisions. However, the learning curve for surgeons must be considered, as adequate training and experience are crucial for ensuring patient safety during laparoscopic procedures. Studies consistently report lower rates of postoperative complications with laparoscopic thyroidectomy, including wound infections, hematoma formation, seroma formation, and postoperative hypoparathyroidism. The incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury is also lower with laparoscopy. Patient satisfaction tends to be higher with laparoscopic thyroidectomy due to reduced postoperative pain, faster recovery, improved cosmetic outcomes, and shorter hospital stays. In conclusion, laparoscopic thyroidectomy offers potential benefits in terms of surgical efficacy, safety, lower rates of postoperative complications, and higher patient satisfaction compared to open thyroidectomy.
Medicine
Seyed Vahid Seyed Hosseini
Abstract
This abstract provides a concise summary of the comparison of laparoscopy versus open appendectomy results. Appendectomy, the surgical removal of the appendix, is the standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) have emerged as the primary surgical ...
Read More
This abstract provides a concise summary of the comparison of laparoscopy versus open appendectomy results. Appendectomy, the surgical removal of the appendix, is the standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) have emerged as the primary surgical approaches. This review aims to compare the outcomes of LA and OA, including efficacy, safety, postoperative complications, and patient satisfaction. Multiple comparative studies consistently demonstrate comparable efficacy between LA and OA in terms of successful appendix removal. LA offers excellent visualization and accurate identification of the appendix, while OA allows for direct visualization and tactile feedback during the procedure. In terms of safety, LA has advantages such as shorter operative times, reduced blood loss, decreased postoperative pain, and reduced wound infections. OA, despite a larger incision, allows for better exposure and control of bleeding. Postoperative complications show that LA has a lower risk of wound infections, incisional hernias, and postoperative pain. However, LA may have a slightly higher risk of intra-abdominal abscess formation. OA has comparable rates of complications to LA. Patient satisfaction is high for both LA and OA. LA provides advantages such as reduced postoperative pain, smaller incisions, improved cosmetic results, shorter hospital stays, and faster return to normal activities. OA offers immediate symptom relief and the ability to address other intra-abdominal pathologies. In conclusion, both LA and OA are effective and safe approaches for appendectomy. The choice between the two should consider individual patient factors and surgeon expertise. Further research will continue to refine outcomes and inform decision-making for optimal patient care.
Seyed Vahid Seyed Hosseini
Abstract
Laparoscopic esophagostomy (LE) and open esophagostomy (OE) are two surgical approaches used to create an esophageal opening for enteral nutrition and medication administration. This abstract presents a comprehensive comparison of LE and OE, focusing on efficacy, safety, postoperative complications, ...
Read More
Laparoscopic esophagostomy (LE) and open esophagostomy (OE) are two surgical approaches used to create an esophageal opening for enteral nutrition and medication administration. This abstract presents a comprehensive comparison of LE and OE, focusing on efficacy, safety, postoperative complications, and patient satisfaction. Both techniques have shown efficacy in providing adequate nutrition and medication support. LE offers advantages in terms of precise dissection and securement of the feeding tube or catheter due to magnified visualization and improved access to the esophagus. OE allows for direct access to the esophagus, enabling accurate placement of the esophagostomy opening and tactile feedback to the surgeon. In terms of safety, LE is associated with a minimally invasive approach, resulting in reduced tissue trauma, decreased blood loss, lower rates of wound infections, and shorter hospital stays compared to OE. However, OE can still be performed safely and effectively by experienced surgeons. Postoperative complications, including wound infections, respiratory complications, and incisional hernias, have been reported to occur less frequently in LE compared to OE. Patient satisfaction is generally higher with LE due to reduced postoperative pain, faster recovery, and improved cosmetic outcomes. However, OE can still yield satisfactory results. The choice between LE and OE should be based on individual patient factors, surgeon expertise, and the complexity of the case. Further research is needed to optimize outcomes and refine the comparison between the two techniques.
