|
Current issue
Archive
Online First
About the journal
Editorial board
Editorial office
Publisher
Abstracting and indexing
Subscription
Contact
Ethical standards and procedures
Special Issues
Instructions for authors
Publication charge
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
Open access 
|
1/2022
vol. 21 abstract:
Original paper
Understanding the limits of parametrial resection in radical hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial
Fortunato Genovese
1
,
Stefano Siringo
1
,
Attilio Tuscano
2
,
Ferdinando Antonio Gulino
3
,
Francesco Cannon
3
,
Vito Leanza
1
,
Francesco Cosentino
4
,
Stefano Palomba
2
,
Marco Antonio Palumbo
1
Menopause Rev 2022; 21(1): 10-19
Online publish date: 2021/11/03
View
full text
Get citation
ENW EndNote
BIB JabRef, Mendeley
RIS Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
Introduction
The aim was to evaluate whether adding specific educational medical illustrations may help gynecologists to better understand the limits of parametrial resection in radical hysterectomy from type A to type C2. Study Design: randomized controlled trial. Material and methods Institute of Obstetric and Gynecologic Pathology, University of Catania, Italy. Materials and methods: 30 senior Obstetrics and Gynecology (Ob/Gyn) residents and 30 general Ob/Gyn consultants were enrolled in the study, and randomized to two groups of 15 people (group A and group B). Both groups had a copy of the article on the Querleu-Morrow Classification of Radical Hysterectomy (2017) for reading comprehension. Group B also had 10 unpublished medical illustrations, prepared for this paper. After one month the level of self-perceived understanding related to parametrectomy limits in radical hysterectomy was evaluated in both groups using a numeric visual analog scale, where each participant evaluated his degree of comprehension. The data were statistically analyzed using the U Mann-Whitney test. Results Group A participants (only article) had a lower level of comprehension of parametrectomy limits compared to group B participants (article plus drawings). The difference between the mean scale score, reported by group A, equal to 5.9 ±1.4, and that reported by group B, equal to 7.2 ±1.5, was statistically significant (p < 0.01). Conclusions The results of this study suggest that educational materials, such as the proposed drawings, may help both Ob/Gyn consultants and residents to better understand the relationship between the extent of parametrial resection and cervical disease severity, and the related postoperative complications. keywords:
numeric visual analog scale, paracervix, parametrectomy, pelvic anatomy, radical hysterectomy, subperitoneal spaces |
 |
