Comparison of vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy in women with benign uterine disease: a retrospective study

Background: Nowadays, there is a trend in favour of (laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy) LAVH even for patients in whom (vaginal hysterectomy) VH is feasible. Hence, this study is undertaken to compare the efficacy of LAVH and the traditional vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of benign uterine disease and also to find out the advantage of LAVH over VH.Methods: The study population consists of patients who had undergone hysterectomy for benign uterine disease excluding prolapse of uterus. Medical records of patients who had undergone vaginal hysterectomy (50) and LAVH (50) without any medical illness and without previous surgical history (except sterilisation) were collected. Age, parity, indication for hysterectomy, operative time, intra operative and postoperative complications and duration of hospital stay were noted and compared between the two groups.Results: The mean operative time was significantly shorter in the VH group (83.7min) than in the LAVH group (128.7 min) and the difference was statistically significant (p<0.000). Total hospital stay was significantly longer in the VH group (7.1days) when compared to the LAVH group (4.9days) and the difference was found to be statistically significant (p<0.000). There were no intraoperative complications noted in both the groups. There was no significant difference in the minor postoperative complications (fever and spotting per vaginum) between the two groups.Conclusions: This study shows lesser operative time in VH group when compared to LAVH group and there is no added advantage in performing LAVH other than shorter hospital stay. Hence it is concluded that whenever feasible VH should be the preferred route of hysterectomy

Comparison of Friedewald’s formula, modified Friedewald’s formula and Anandaraja’s formula with direct homogenous serum LDL cholesterol method in CHD patients

Background: Elevated serum Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) concentration is a well-known atherogenic risk factor with a high predictive value for coronary heart disease. An important aspect of the assessment of coronary heart disease risk for a dyslipidemic subject is the estimation of serum Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C). There are many homogenous assays currently available for the estimation of serum LDL-C. Most clinical laboratories determine LDL-C (mg/dl) by Friedewald’s formula (FF), LD-=(TC)-HDL-C)-(TG/5), Modified Friedewald’s formula (MFF), LDL-C=(TC)-(HDL-C)-(TG/6), Recently Anandaraja and colleagues have derived a new formula for calculating LDL-C, AR-LDL-C=0.9 TC-(0.9 TG/5)-28.Methods: It is cross-sectional study. Lipid profile data was collected from known of CHD patients, who had come for lipid profile investigation to the Central Biochemistry laboratory of ACPM Medical College and hospital. LDL-C estimation was done by direct homogenous assay and also calculated using the Friedewald’s Formula, Modified Friedewald’s Formula and Anandaraja’s Formula for assessing and validity of the LDL cholesterol.Results: From the present study, The LDL-FF, MFW and AR are increased with levels of TGL > 200 mg/dl and decreased level of TC < 200 mg/dl seem to interfere with the estimation of Direct LDL cholesterolConclusions: Authors conclude that, LDL-C by direct method is most reliable and sensitive in CHD patients compare with FF, MFW, and ARF