Talk:Laparoscopic surgery

NOTES

On the NOTES page, it says that there is a suggestion to merge notes with the laparoscopic surgery article. As a general surgeon doing a laparoscopic fellowship, I do not think this should be done. NOTES is not a form of laparoscopy, they are separate techniques. I will add this comment to the NOTES page as well. Tulane97 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

external links

i was checking the article because i am going to have such a surgery and i found out that it had no external links...i added one that contains some videos...If you think it is inappropriate feel free to delete it !

I found some more interesting sites that i could add but i am not sure if I should add them or not as they may be considered as spam...

Tbere 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laparoscopy can be used for different procedures -- the Advantages and Possible Benefits section needs to be edited (it is not clear, seems to discuss cancers and not gall bladder removal.)

I second that the advantages section needs to be changed. I'm a woman getting a laparoscopy for purposes related to cysts, endometriosis, and general reproductive health. My surgery has nothing to do with cancer.

The use of carbon dioxide to insufflate the abdomen.

Wouldn't this lead to acute post-operative acidosis? Carbon dioxide in the blood acts as an acid. Why not use a chemically inert gas like nitrogen or argon? The patient would risk venous embolism if they boarded a plane within 24 hours after the surgery, but it would otherwise be perfectly safe. --68.255.1.203 (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree, I'm not sure why as well.Dr.Stiles (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Dioxide is indeed one of several gasses used to insufflate the abdominal cavity. Nitrous Oxide is another option. Carbon Dioxide is preferred by some surgeons because it is easily absorbed by the tissues involved, reducing the incidence of post operative pain and discomfort. Nitrogen gasses are not as easily absorbed, and therefore increase the risk of post operative complications. Both gasses have similar embolism risks. Peri and post operative acidosis is managed by keeping the gas pressure in the abdominal space under 15 mm mercury, and by hyperventilating the patient during surgery. Flying in an airplane should not be undertaken by ANY one less than 48-96 hours post op, regardless of the type of procedure or methods used. Firedogbme (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?

Is it just me or is there a distinctive bias in this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.28.17 (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little more info on the percieved bias might help someone else spot it. How is it biased? 99.189.243.233 (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr. Eddie Joe Reddick of Nashville, TN was the pioneer of laparoscopic cholecystectomies in the U.S": outside the US there is life and there are human beeings! The first laparoscopic surgical procedure was performed by Hubert Manhès in Vichy (France) in 1973 for an ecopic pregnancy, and the first cholecystectomy by Philippe Mouret in Lyon (France) in 1987.

WRONG! The first laparoscopic surgery was in 1972.. as sited in the references (24) by Clarke and published in the Journal of Fertility / Sterility... Before that it was looking around and using cauterization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.53.90.200 (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laparoscopy is therefore a very european (and non-english-speaking) history! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.115.3.64 (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The german version states http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hans_Christian_Jacobaeus performed the first internal operation that way on a human. 188.103.220.150 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG! Hans Jacobaeus is always accredited as doing or inventing laparoscopy and using it as a diagnostic tool but never as performing laparascopic surgery. Reference the same lin107.167.211.211 (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)k as above and the Journal of Endourology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.53.90.200 (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Laparoscopy article

There is nothing in the Laparoscopy article that doesn't seem to be able to fit into this article. As the other article is so short and can't be expanded without further overlap, I think it should be probably merged. Joe Schmedley^Talk 16:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to merger is renaming the Laparoscopy article to 'laparoscopy (diagnosis)' to distinguish it from 'laparoscopic surgery'. --VanBurenen (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a section in the Laparoscopy article named "Laparoscopic disgonosis". --Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As no action has been taken in two years, and these articles appear to be about different topics (laparoscopy - use of a laparascope for any purpose vs. laparoscopic surgery, use of a laparoscope for purpose of surgery), I have removed the merge tags without merging these two articles. LT90001 (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge suggestion. Laparoscopic surgery is also known as a laparoscopy. The act of performing a laparoscopy for diagnosis or otherwise, is technically surgery. So all can be combined into one topic. --AslanEntropy (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I merged them. Bakerstmd (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

I agree that they should be merged BakerStMD T|C 16:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is merged, there should be mention of the difference between laparoscopy and laparoscopic surgery. Readers will think the pioneers of laparoscopy were performing all sorts of ligations, hysterectomies, etc. which is not the case. Laparoscopy is a 'technique' while surgery is its application (even though laparoscopy involves puncture of the skin/abdominal cavity) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.53.90.200 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a section in the Laparoscopy article named "Laparoscopic surgery". Actually, this section already exists, and it is redirecting to the "laparoscopic surgery" article. --Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If no one opposes until next week (Sat the 14th of Nov), I will merge this article into the section Laparoscopy#Surgery section of the Laparoscopy article. I will also open a new section named "Laparoscopic diagnosis", as suggested by User:VanBuren. --Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merge, but note that laparoscopy is surgery - it is a surgical method - as it requires incisions, whether or not internal tissues are also incised or removed. As an example, just look at the first sentence of article: "Over the past 2 decades, laparoscopy has been established as a safe and superior technique in many general surgery procedures." Thus, "laparoscopy" and "laparoscopic surgery" are synonyms, and there should be no "surgery" subsection if "laparoscopy" is used as the article title. — soupvector (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and

Done Klbrain (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Product Placement

"For example, TransEnterix of Durham, North Carolina received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval in October 2009 for its SPIDER Surgical System ..." Sounds like disguised Product Placement to me. Even if it says "For example", the example should be more relevant, like one or more of the major players in the market (Intuitive, Titan, Accuray, Hansen), not a small obscure company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.1.157.242 (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]