{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029618082618862042, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00779423226812159, 'mean_word_length': 5.722513089005235, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Comparison of 2 simple surgical methods: posterior colpoceliotomy versus laparoscopy--competition or synergism?].

Celiocolpotomy and laparoscopy often have the same indications, such as oviduct sterilization or diagnostical inspection of the inner genital organs. In order to evaluate their significance in comparison, we examined the course of operation as well as postoperative development in 773 cases in our department in which either a celiocolpotomy (CCP n = 441) or laparoscopy (n = 332) had been performed. Both surgical methods were compared regarding indication, intra- and postoperative complications as well as surgical advantages an disadvantages. Concerning severe intraoperative complications and "failures" both methods appeared equivalent. The rate of--mostly bland--postoperative disturbances (urinary tract infection, rises of temperature) was higher in the CCP group. Regarding the results, it seems recommendable not to view both methods in competition, but to apply them synergistically: factors such as parity, obesity, prior operations, necessity to inspect the entire abdominal cavity as well as the probability and possibility to perform successfully under circumvention of laparotomy should be carefully valued in deciding which surgical method to chose.