- Email: [email protected]
Regarding “Advantages of Single-Port Laparoscopic Myomectomy Compared with Conventional Laparoscopic Myomectomy: A Randomized Controlled Study”
Accepted Manuscript Title: Letter to the Editor Regarding the Article “Advantages of Single-Port Laparoscopic Myomectomy Compared with Conventional Laparoscopic Myomectomy: a Randomized Controlled Study” Author: Chithira Pulimootil Vignarajan, Neena Malhotra PII: DOI: Reference:
S1553-4650(17)31257-8 https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2017.10.021 JMIG 3319
To appear in:
The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Please cite this article as: Chithira Pulimootil Vignarajan, Neena Malhotra, Letter to the Editor Regarding the Article “Advantages of Single-Port Laparoscopic Myomectomy Compared with Conventional Laparoscopic Myomectomy: a Randomized Controlled Study”, The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (2017), https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2017.10.021. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
1
1
Letter to the Editor regarding the article “Advantages of Single-Port Laparoscopic
2
Myomectomy
3
Randomized Controlled Study”
4
Authors:
5
Chithira Pulimootil Vignarajan, MD., DNB
6
Senior Resident
Compared
with
Conventional
Laparoscopic
Myomectomy:
a
7 8
Neena Malhotra MD., DNB., FRCOG
9
Professor
10 11
Department and institution:
12
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New
13
Delhi, India
14
Correspondence Address
15
Dr. Chithira Pulimootil Vignarajan
16
Senior Resident,
17
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, AIIMS,
18
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110029.
19
Phone: +919868476973
20
E-mail – [email protected]
1
Page 1 of 3
2
21 22
Source(s) of support: None
23
Presentation at a meeting: None
24
Conflict of Interest : None
25
Acknowledgement: None
26 27
Manuscript:
28
To the Editor,
29
The article by Lee et al [1], recently published online in the journal of minimally invasive
30
gynecology was reviewed by us and we found some issues need to be clarified. In the
31
abstract, the authors stated that surgical outcomes following the two techniques were
32
evaluated using intention to treat principle but failed to include the patients lost to follow up
33
(two patients in SP-LM and three patients in CLM group) in the final analysis in Table 2 and
34
3. In addition, there were 7 (23.2 %) and 10 (34.5 %) patients in SP-LM and CLM group
35
respectively had undergone prior surgeries. It is worth discussing, whether previous
36
abdominal scars were considered while evaluating the satisfaction scores. How would the
37
authors explain the better satisfaction scores in SP-LM patients with already visible scar(s)
38
from prior surgeries, by mentioning that visibility was the most important index reflecting the
39
subjective satisfaction of the patient? As in previous studies, excluding patients with scars
40
from prior surgeries while using POSAS would have resulted in the better assessment of
41
satisfaction scores [2] [3]. We look forward to the author's reply to clarify the above queries.
42 2
Page 2 of 3
3
43
References:
44
1
45
Hyun. Advantages of Single-Port Laparoscopic Myomectomy Compared with Conventional
46
Laparoscopic Myomectomy: a Randomized Controlled Study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol.
47
2017.
48
2
49
Stefano, Valdatta Luigi. Cosmetic outcomes of various skin closure methods following
50
cesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(1):36.e1–36.e8.
51
3
52
and
53
Parathyroidectomy and Thyroidectomy Surgical Procedures: A Paired Cohort Study. Arch
54
Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2008;134(1):85–93.
Lee Dayong, Kim Seul Ki, Kim Kidong, Lee Jung Ryeol, Suh Chang Suk, Kim Seok
Cromi Antonella, Ghezzi Fabio, Gottardi Alessandra, Cherubino Mario, Uccella
O’Connell Daniel A, Diamond Christopher, Seikaly Hadi, Harris Jeffrey R. Objective Subjective
Scar
Aesthetics
in
Minimal
Access
vs
Conventional
Access
55 56
3
Page 3 of 3
S1553-4650(17)31257-8 https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2017.10.021 JMIG 3319
To appear in:
The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Please cite this article as: Chithira Pulimootil Vignarajan, Neena Malhotra, Letter to the Editor Regarding the Article “Advantages of Single-Port Laparoscopic Myomectomy Compared with Conventional Laparoscopic Myomectomy: a Randomized Controlled Study”, The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (2017), https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2017.10.021. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
1
1
Letter to the Editor regarding the article “Advantages of Single-Port Laparoscopic
2
Myomectomy
3
Randomized Controlled Study”
4
Authors:
5
Chithira Pulimootil Vignarajan, MD., DNB
6
Senior Resident
Compared
with
Conventional
Laparoscopic
Myomectomy:
a
7 8
Neena Malhotra MD., DNB., FRCOG
9
Professor
10 11
Department and institution:
12
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New
13
Delhi, India
14
Correspondence Address
15
Dr. Chithira Pulimootil Vignarajan
16
Senior Resident,
17
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, AIIMS,
18
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110029.
19
Phone: +919868476973
20
E-mail – [email protected]
1
Page 1 of 3
2
21 22
Source(s) of support: None
23
Presentation at a meeting: None
24
Conflict of Interest : None
25
Acknowledgement: None
26 27
Manuscript:
28
To the Editor,
29
The article by Lee et al [1], recently published online in the journal of minimally invasive
30
gynecology was reviewed by us and we found some issues need to be clarified. In the
31
abstract, the authors stated that surgical outcomes following the two techniques were
32
evaluated using intention to treat principle but failed to include the patients lost to follow up
33
(two patients in SP-LM and three patients in CLM group) in the final analysis in Table 2 and
34
3. In addition, there were 7 (23.2 %) and 10 (34.5 %) patients in SP-LM and CLM group
35
respectively had undergone prior surgeries. It is worth discussing, whether previous
36
abdominal scars were considered while evaluating the satisfaction scores. How would the
37
authors explain the better satisfaction scores in SP-LM patients with already visible scar(s)
38
from prior surgeries, by mentioning that visibility was the most important index reflecting the
39
subjective satisfaction of the patient? As in previous studies, excluding patients with scars
40
from prior surgeries while using POSAS would have resulted in the better assessment of
41
satisfaction scores [2] [3]. We look forward to the author's reply to clarify the above queries.
42 2
Page 2 of 3
3
43
References:
44
1
45
Hyun. Advantages of Single-Port Laparoscopic Myomectomy Compared with Conventional
46
Laparoscopic Myomectomy: a Randomized Controlled Study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol.
47
2017.
48
2
49
Stefano, Valdatta Luigi. Cosmetic outcomes of various skin closure methods following
50
cesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(1):36.e1–36.e8.
51
3
52
and
53
Parathyroidectomy and Thyroidectomy Surgical Procedures: A Paired Cohort Study. Arch
54
Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2008;134(1):85–93.
Lee Dayong, Kim Seul Ki, Kim Kidong, Lee Jung Ryeol, Suh Chang Suk, Kim Seok
Cromi Antonella, Ghezzi Fabio, Gottardi Alessandra, Cherubino Mario, Uccella
O’Connell Daniel A, Diamond Christopher, Seikaly Hadi, Harris Jeffrey R. Objective Subjective
Scar
Aesthetics
in
Minimal
Access
vs
Conventional
Access
55 56
3
Page 3 of 3