Duration of hospital stay after gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery: preferences of patients
article
OA: closed
CC0
⤵ 1 in-corpus citation
Abstract
PurposeTo investigate patients preferences concerning the duration of hospital stay after gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery due to benign conditions.MethodsThis study included women who underwent gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery due to benign conditions between November 2010 and November 2011 at the University Medical Centre Mannheim, Germany. Only women undergoing laparoscopy with four incisions were included. Demographic parameters, type and duration of surgery, perioperative complications and duration of hospital stay were analysed. Women were contacted using a standardized telephone survey. The patients were interviewed regarding the duration of hospital stay and their preferences concerning this matter.ResultsA total of 141 patients fitted the inclusion criteria. Eighty-seven of them (61.7 %) were willing to take part in the study; 63 of the women (72.4 %) did not correctly remember the duration of hospital stay in detail; 40 patients (46.0 %) thought it was longer; and 23 of the patients (26.4 %) remembered a shorter stay. For 4 of the 87 women (4.6 %), the duration was too long, and for 14 (16.1 %), the duration of hospital stay after laparoscopy was too short. Women who considered the duration of hospital stay as too long underwent prior abdominal surgery significantly more often.ConclusionThe majority of the patients did not remember the duration of hospital stay correctly. Additionally, more women considered inpatient treatment as too short compared to patients who rated inpatient treatment as too long.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Citation neighborhood (sparse)
Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.
Cited by (1)
References (20)
- doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003677.pub5 via openalex
- doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0830-7 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.12.344 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2007.08.608 via openalex
- doi:10.1007/s00404-012-2254-1 via openalex
- doi:10.1055/s-2002-25222 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s1074-3804(05)80771-6 via openalex
- doi:10.1080/01443619866813 via openalex
- doi:10.1007/s00404-012-2249-y via openalex
- doi:10.4293/108680811x13125733356558 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.02.024 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2005.03.013 via openalex
- doi:10.1111/j.1479-828x.1999.tb03380.x via openalex
- W2403635289 via openalex
- doi:10.1055/s-2007-981204 via openalex
- doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003677.pub4 via openalex
- doi:10.1007/s00404-010-1472-7 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s1074-3804(05)60051-5 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s1701-2163(16)32552-x via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s1074-3804(05)60149-1 via openalex
Cited by (1)
Source provenance
- openalex
- last seen: 2026-05-11T06:17:40.080092+00:00
- unpaywall
- last seen: 2026-08-12T06:43:03.944938+00:00
License: CC0
· commercial use OK