A comparative Study between Trans-Jugular versus Trans-femoral veins Access for endovascular embolization techniques in the Treatment of Pelvic Congestion Syndrome
Le résumé fourni par la source
Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of metformin also oral contraceptive pills (OCP) in females with polycystic ovary syndrome. Patients and methods: This was a prospective study that included 300 patients who were chosen at random from patients who attended outpatient obstetrics and gynecology clinics at Al-Azhar University Hospitals. Samples were obtained using a systematic random technique. Results: Variations in age, BMI, and waist-to-hip ratio among the groups were statistically significant. Blood pressure, heart rate, and temperature demonstrated no statistically significant distinctions among the two groups. There was significant variance among the examined group as regard triglyceride (TG), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, fasting plasma glucose, and fasting insulin. There was a significant difference between before and after in group A as regards TG, and high-density lipoprotein. There were significant variations in Testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS), and Android/Gynoid Fat Ratio across the groups. Conclusion: According to the results of current study, females with polycystic ovary syndrome who take both OCP and metformin see considerable improvement contrasted with those who take only OCP. To corroborate our results, more research is needed with larger samples and longer follow-up periods.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- A comparative Study between Trans-Jugular versus Trans-femoral veins Access for endovascular embolization techniques in the Treatment of Pelvic Congestion Syndrome
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2024
- Éditeur
- Egyptian Knowledge Bank
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.