26 -4 (28/1) 2019 — Abdullaev R.N., Abdullaeva M.A., — CHOICE OF ACCESS TO SURGICAL TREATMENT AND PREVENTION OF ADHESIVE PROCESS IN PATIENTS WITH OVARIAN TUMORS AFTER HYSTERECTOMY

CHOICE OF ACCESS TO SURGICAL TREATMENT AND PREVENTION OF ADHESIVE PROCESS IN PATIENTS WITH OVARIAN TUMORS AFTER HYSTERECTOMY

Abdullaev R.N., Andijan State Medical Institute.

Abdullaeva M.A., Andijan State Medical Institute.

Turgunov A. I., Andijan State Medical Institute.

Azizov Zh.A., Andijan State Medical Institute.

Ziyaeva E.R. Andijan State Medical Institute.

Resume,

The low informativeness of such modern diagnostic methods established in the course of this study as ultrasound and MRI for cervical cancer, supplemented by the definition of a tumor marker CA-125 in ovarian cancer, do not allow blindly trusting their results. In controversial clinical situations, diagnostic laparoscopy is shown to reliably determine the extent of the tumor process and its resectability, as well as to obtain morphological verification. First, this applies to patients with ovarian cancer. Such operations allow you to draw up an individual treatment plan in each case and are characterized by low morbidity, rapid rehabilitation of patients and do not lead to a delay in the start of special treatment.

Key words: ovarian tumor, hysterectomy, adhesions, cervical cancer.

First page

115

Last page

118

For citation: Abdullaev R.N., Abdullaeva M.A., Turgunov A. I., Azizov Zh.A., Ziyaeva E.R. Choice of access to surgical treatment and prevention of adhesive process in patients with ovarian tumors after hysterectomy//New Day in Medicine 4(28)2019 115-118 https://cutt.ly/tby79Ux

List of References

1. Аксель Е.М. Статистика злокачественных новобразований жен­ской половой сферы // Онкогинекология. 2012; 1: 18-23.
2. Аляев Ю.Г., Газимиев М.А., Руденко В.И. и соавт. Современ­ные аспекты диагностики и лечения мочеточниково-влага­лищных свищей //В сб. Современные технологии в диагности­ке и лечении гинекологичеких заболеваний. М: 2007; 163-164.
3. Афанасьева Е.В. Оценка качества жизни, связанного со здоро­вьем // Качественная клиническая практика. 2010; 1: 36-38.
4. Баранов Г.А. Карбовский М.Ю. Отдаленные результаты опера­тивного устранения спаечной кишечной непроходимости // Хирургия. 2006; 7: 56-59.
5. Высоцкий М.М., Манухии И.Б., Дигаева М.А. Анализ причин осложнений лапароскопическим доступом у гинекологичес­ких пациенток. // Эндоскопическая хирургия. – 2009; 4: 33-36.
6. Матвеев Н.Л., Арутюнян Д.Ю., Дигаева М.А. Результаты при- мененения 4% раствора икодекстрина для профилактики спа­ечного процесса после хирургических и гинекологических операций. // Эндоскопическая хирургия. 2008; 3: 45-54.
7. Luciano D.E., Roy G., Luciano A.A. Adhesion reformation after laparoscopic adhesiolysis: where, what type, and in whom they are most likely to recur. //J. Minim. Inv. Gynecol 2008; 15:1: 44-48.
8. Mateus J., Pezzi C., Somkuto S.G. Recognition and prevention of gastric injury during gynecologic laparoscopy // Obstet. Gynecol. – 2006; 108(3): 804-806.
9. Ngu S.F., Cheung V.Y., Pun T.C. Left upper quadrant approach in gyneocologic laparoscopic surgery //Acta Obstet Gyneacol Scand. – 2011; 90(12): 1406-1409.
10. Rahn D.D., Marker A.C., Corton M.M. Does supracervical hysterectomy provide more support to the vaginal apex than total abdominal hysterectomy?// Am J obstet Gynecol. – 2007; 197(6): 65