| The minimally invasive techniques, such as laparoscopy and robotic surgery, have a long learning curve and high setup and
instrumentation costs. Minilaparotomy hysterectomy (MLH) relies on the simplicity of the conventional open abdominal
hysterectomy technique and imparts cosmesis and a quicker recovery. In the current study, we sought to determine
whether the feasibility, intraoperative factors, and complications of MLH and LAVH can be compared. Patients can be
reassured that MLH produces equivalent results in cases where cost and the surgeon's experience are the limiting factors
because both MLH and LAVH are comparable methods. Materials and Methods. This prospective observational study was
conducted at a teaching hospital over a year period. Although 75 individuals in all were sought for, only 62 (MLH: 32;
LAVH: 30) could be used in the research. Results of each procedure, which was carried out by one of two gynaecologists
with nearly similar surgical skill, were compared. Results: Since none of the patients required a larger first incision, MLH
is a viable choice for benign gynaecological disorders (4–6 cm). In comparison to LAVH, MLH could be performed on
uteri that were larger (MLH: 511.31±319.95 g against LAVH: 226.61± 159.01 g; p <0.001), took less time to complete
(MLH: 110.00±20.43 min versus LAVH: 163.00±25.91 min; p< 0.001), and had comparable blood loss. Conclusion: The
MLH technique should be mastered and promoted for usage in low-resource settings to achieve outcomes similar to those
of laparoscopic surgeryddd |
