{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2023,12,12]],"date-time":"2023-12-12T08:40:37Z","timestamp":1702370437199},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"National Library of Serbia","issue":"7-8","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Med pregl","MED PREGLED"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2013]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>Introduction. Our purpose was to review the literature on the subject of\n   peritoneal closure and to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of this\n   procedure. Experimental Studies. Experimental studies have proved that\n   peritoneal defects demonstrate mesothelial integrity (reperitonealization)\n   48-72 hours after injury and gross healing occurs within five days. A foreign\n   body in the peritoneum causes tissue ischemia, necrosis, inflammation, and it\n   stimulates numerous and dense adhesions. Surgery (General and Gynecological).\n   The major advantage of peritoneal non-closure is a decreased adhesion\n   formation, quicker return of bowel activity and reduced risk of bowel\n   obstruction after surgery. Not only does peritoneal closure provide no\n   immediate postoperative benefits, but it also prolongs surgical time,\n   exposure to anesthesia and post-operative hospital stay unnecessarily, thus\n   increasing surgery expenses. In summary, the existing data do not show\n   advantages of this technique. Since many surgical tenets are based on limited\n   data or opinion of the individual surgeons, they should be changed according\n   to evidence-based medicine. Conclusion. Therefore, we suggest that the\n   traditional practice of peritoneal closure be abolished in gynecology and\n   obstetrics. It is our strong wish to encourage clinicians not to close both\n   parietal and visceral peritoneum.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.2298\/mpns1308307s","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2013,7,29]],"date-time":"2013-07-29T10:50:07Z","timestamp":1375095007000},"page":"307-310","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Peritonealization in gynecology and obstetrics: Review of literature"],"prefix":"10.2298","volume":"66","author":[{"given":"Radmila","family":"Sparic","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Klini\u010dki centar Srbije, Klinika za ginekologiju i aku\u0161erstvo, Beograd"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Biljana","family":"Lazovic","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Klini\u010dko-bolni\u010dki centar Zemun, Klinika za internu medicinu, Beograd"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Sanja","family":"Mazic","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Medicinski fakultet, Institut za fiziologiju, Beograd"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Marina","family":"Djelic","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Medicinski fakultet, Institut za fiziologiju, Beograd"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Aleksandar","family":"Argirovic","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Klini\u010dko-bolni\u010dki centar Zemun, Klinika za hirurgiju, Slu\u017eba za urologiju, Beograd"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"1078","container-title":["Medicinski pregled","Medical review"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,5,29]],"date-time":"2023-05-29T09:24:13Z","timestamp":1685352253000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/doiserbia.nb.rs\/Article.aspx?ID=0025-81051308307S"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2013]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"7-8","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2013]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2298\/mpns1308307s","relation":{},"ISSN":["0025-8105","1820-7383"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0025-8105","type":"print"},{"value":"1820-7383","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2013]]}}}