Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of a novel model for providing minimally invasive surgical (MIS) care to underserved populations. Design: A prospective pilot study with patients affected by diverse benign pathologies of the female urogenital tract undergoing MIS in the context of a temporary expedition. Methods: In 2013, the Bandeira Científica Project implemented the use of MIS in one of the most underserved areas of Brazil. Results: During 4 days, 54 different procedures were performed on a cohort of 30 selected women. The mean age of the patients was 44.5 years (SD 8.3), while body mass index averaged 28.4 kg/m2 (SD 4.3). The primary indications for surgery were as follows: 14 symptomatic uterine leiomyomatosis/adenomyosis, 6 stress urinary incontinence, 6 endometriosis, and 4 pelvic floor defects. Forty percent of the patients underwent laparoscopy, 53% vaginal surgery, and 7% combined procedures. The mean estimated blood loss and operative time were 148 cc (0–1000) and 94 (24–180) minutes, respectively. No casualty or conversion to laparotomy occurred. The median hospital stay was 1 day (1–2). Significant complications occurred in two cases (6%); one postoperative bleeding and one pelvic infection. A satisfaction survey revealed that 100% of the participants were very satisfied. Conclusion: This series demonstrates that it may be feasible and secure to establish temporary MIS services in remote/distant locations. The correct selection of local facilities allied to the provision of modern equipment and experienced surgeons is essential to guarantee safety for patients. (J GYNECOL SURG 31:255)
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FaveroG, BortoliniMA. Comparing operations for POP: The importance of standardization of surgical technique. Int Urogynecol J, 2014; 25:151.
2.
JonsdottirGM, JorgensenS, CohenSL, WrightKN, ShahNT, ChavanN, et al.Increasing minimally invasive hysterectomy: Effect on cost and complications. Obstet Gynecol, 2011; 117:1142.
3.
BrownJ, FarquharC. Endometriosis: An overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014; 3.
4.
MaherC, FeinerB, BaesslerK, SchmiedC. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013; 4:CD004014.
5.
AtiyehBS, GunnSW, HayekSN. Provision of essential surgery in remote and rural areas of developed as well as low and middle-income countries. Int J Surg, 2010; 8:581.
6.
ComettoG, BelgranoE, De BonisU, GiustettoG, KissA, TalienteP, et al.Primary surgery in rural areas of southern Sudan. World J Surg, 2012; 36:556.
7.
JacobyVL, AutryA, JacobsonG, DomushR, NakagawaS, JacobyA. Nationwide use of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal and vaginal approaches. Obstet Gynecol, 2009; 114:1041.
GalukandeM, KaggwaS, SekimpiP, KakaireO, KatambaA, MunabiI, et al.Use of surgical task shifting to scale up essential surgical services: A feasibility analysis at facility level in Uganda. BMC Health Serv Res, 2013; 13:292.
10.
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estastística (IBGE). Online document at: www.ibge.gov,br Accessed March25, 2014.
DindoD, DemartinesN, ClavienPA. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg, 2004; 240:205.
13.
VentegodtS, MerrickJ, AndersenNJ. Measurement of quality of life II. From the philosophy of life to science. ScientificWorldJournal, 2003; 3:962.
14.
MeoG, AndreoneD, De BonisU, ComettoG, EnricoS, GiustettoG, et al.Rural surgery in southern Sudan. World J Surg, 2006; 30:495.
15.
DebasHT, GosselinR, McCordC, ThindA. Disease control priorities in developing countries, 2nd edition. Chapter 67. Washington (DC): World Bank, 2006.
16.
RutledgeTL. Advances in surgical care. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am, 2012; 39:145.
17.
Commission on Social Determinants of Health (2008) Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Online document at: http://whqlibdoc.who Accessed February23, 2014.
