A comparison of clinical and surgical outcomes between laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery and traditional multiport laparoscopic surgery for adnexal tumors

Operative complications of open and minimally invasive adnexal surgery compared with cases with hysterectomy: A narrative review

The decision to add hysterectomy to planned adnexectomy is often nuanced and likely increases the complexity of the planned procedure; however, these risks are not well characterized in practice. We conducted a comprehensive search in the PubMed database for English-language articles from 1997 to 2022, identifying studies reporting complication rates for open and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) hysterectomy and adnexal surgeries. We calculated medians and first and third quartiles for each complication and used a Mann-Whitney U test to calculate differences between complications for minimally invasive hysterectomy and adnexal case data. We identified 135 appropriate studies for inclusion. There were higher prevalences of blood loss requiring transfusion (1.70% versus 0.13%, P = 0.01) and urinary tract injury (0.80% versus 0.20%, P = 0.001) in MIS hysterectomy cases compared with MIS adnexal surgery, respectively. MIS hysterectomy cases were similar to MIS adnexal surgery cases in the risk of surgical site infection (1.20% versus 1.49%, P = 0.74), bowel injury (0.50% versus 0.35%, P = 0.45), vascular injury (0.20% versus 0.9%, P = 0.82), and conversion to laparotomy (1.95% versus 3.84%, P = 0.49). There were not enough data on open adnexal surgery complications to make a meaningful comparison between complications of open hysterectomy and adnexal-only cases. Patients should be counseled that the addition of hysterectomy to planned MIS adnexal surgery likely increases the risk of blood loss requiring transfusion and urinary tract injury. The increased comorbidity associated with adding hysterectomy to planned open adnexal removal is less clear.

Comparative analysis of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery and versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in adnexectomy: A systematic review and metaanalysis of surgical outcome

Although the removal of the adnexa technically removes more tissue, it may require less fine manipulation and dissection than cystectomy. Secondary to this, we sought to measure the effectiveness and safety of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) versus conventional laparoscopy (CLS). We search six databases to find studies comparing LESS and CLS for ovarian lesions where removal of the entire ovary, with or without the fallopian tube, is necessary. Criteria used for study eligibility: both controlled trials and observational studies were included in this analysis. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: we used the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for the randomized clinical trials and the national heart, lung, and blood quality assessment tools for the observational studies. The statistical analysis was done using the review manager software. LESS showed a significantly longer operative time [mean difference (MD)=2.96 (-1.97, 7.90), p=0.24], but with moderate heterogeneity. Estimated blood loss was significantly lower for LESS [MD=-18.62 (-33.83, -3.42), p=0.02]. The length of patient hospital stay was comparable [MD=-0.02 (-0.50, 0.47), p=0.95]. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores at 24 hours [MD=0.23 (-0.09, 0.56), p=0.16] and 6 hours postoperatively [MD=0.15 (-0.04, 0.33), p=0.12] were similar. The LESS group required less postoperative analgesia [risk ratios (RR)=0.47 (0.32, 0.68), p=0.001]. The change in hemoglobin was comparable [MD=-0.11 (-0.26, 0.03), p=0.14]. Perioperative complications were higher in the LESS group [RR=2.236 (1.031, 4.851), p=0.04]. Compared with CLS, LESS required more operative time but resulted in significantly less blood loss and lower postoperative analgesic use. Hospital stays and VAS pain scores were similar. LESS had a higher incidence of perioperative complications, which questions the feasibility of its use in some situations.

Comparison of efficacy of single-port versus conventional laparoscopic treatment for uterine leiomyoma: a latest meta-analysis

Objective

Single-port laparoscopy has been proposed as an ideal surgical method for the treatment of uterine leiomyoma. It can effectively remove the lesion, reduce the loss of hemoglobin, and has superior cosmetic effects. Therefore, we searched relevant studies and conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of single-port laparoscopy on myoma resection, hemoglobin loss, and scar beauty compared to conventional laparoscopy.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, scope, Cochrane, CNKI, and other databases to find randomized controlled studies on the efficacy of single-port laparoscopy and traditional laparoscopy for meta-analysis. The main outcomes of our study were the duration of surgery, the reduction of hemoglobin, and the cosmetic effect of the postoperative scar. The effect model was selected according to heterogeneity (random effect model or fixed effect model), and the relevant sensitivity analysis and publication bias test were performed.

Results

We searched a total of 501 related literature articles and finally included 19 studies involving 21 researchers. Comparison of single-port laparoscopic myomectomy with traditional surgery: Operation time had no significant difference (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD]: 0.13, 95% Confidence interval (CI), -0.04 to 0.30; I²=74%; P = 0.14); The reduction of hemoglobin is lower ([SMD]: -0.04; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.14; I²=71%; P = 0.65), and the cosmetic effect of postoperative scar is more satisfactory ([SMD]: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.83; I²=72%, P= 0.04). There was no significant difference in conversion rate, postoperative pain, blood loss, postoperative gastrointestinal recovery time, or length of hospital stay.

Conclusion

Compared with traditional laparoscopy, the operation time of the treatment of uterine leiomyoma by single-port laparoscopy is not extended, the reduction of hemoglobin is less, and the cosmetic effect of the scar is better. Therefore, single-port laparoscopy is superior to traditional surgery in the treatment of uterine leiomyoma.

Systematic review registration

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2023-3-0071/, identifier INPLASY202330071.

Comparison of single-port laparoscopy and laparotomy in early ovarian cancer surgical staging

OBJECTIVE

s The aims of this study were to assess the feasibility of single-port laparoscopic surgical staging (SPLS) in early ovarian cancer and to compare the surgical outcomes of SPLS with those of staging laparotomy.

METHODS

Between January 2014 and December 2018, 40 patients underwent SPLS and 41 patients underwent staging laparotomy at Yonsei Cancer Center. The patients were diagnosed with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I ovarian cancer. Variables such as patient age, body mass index (BMI), tumor size, FIGO stage, and perioperative surgical outcomes and survival outcomes of SPLS and laparotomy were compared.

RESULTS

The total operation time was similar between the 2 groups (SPLS: 201.4 vs. laparotomy: 203.0 minutes, P=0.806). The median tumor diameters in the SPLS and laparotomy groups were 11.0 (2.5-28 cm) and 15.4 (6-40 cm), respectively (P=0.001). The SPLS group had lower tumor spillage rate (5.0% vs. 19.5%, P=0.047), less intraoperative blood loss (102.0 vs. 371.5 mL, P<0.001), less postoperative pain, and shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 vs. 9.5 days, P<0.001). The intraoperative major complication rate was similar between groups (2.5% vs. 4.9%, P=0.571). There was no significant difference in progression-free survival between the 2 groups (P=0.945). There were no deaths in either group.

CONCLUSION

SPLS is feasible in early ovarian cancer and has better perioperative surgical outcomes, in some aspects, than staging laparotomy without compromising survival outcomes. SPLS could be performed in patients suspected to have early ovarian cancer.

Effect of bupivacaine versus lidocaine local anesthesia on postoperative pain reduction in single-port access laparoscopic adnexal surgery using propensity score matching

OBJECTIVE

The umbilicus is a single, painful incisional site on the abdomen during trans-umbilical single-port access laparoscopic surgery. Previously, we found that periumbilical lidocaine could reduce postoperative pain. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of bupivacaine and lidocaine in reducing pain.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis in a study group (Bupivacaine group, 100 patients who received periumbilical infiltration of bupivacaine before their incisional site repair completion) and control group (Lidocaine group, 100 patients who received lidocaine at their incisional site repair completion). We compared postoperative pain based on the numerical rating scale (NRS) between propensity score-matched Bupivacaine-treated (n=50) and Lidocaine-treated (n=50) patients.

RESULTS

The postoperative pain scores based on the NRS were not significantly different between the 2 groups until 12 hours post-operation. However, 24 hours post-operation, the Bupivacaine group showed significantly lower pain than the Lidocaine group (24 hours, 1.76±1.07 vs. 2.53±1.11 NRS, P<0.001; 48 hours, 0.84±0.85 vs. 2.16±0.85 NRS, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Periumbilical infiltration of bupivacaine has a longer acting efficacy on reducing postoperative surgical pain than that of lidocaine.

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for benign ovarian masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the safety, efficiency and preferred indication for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) compared with conventional laparoscopic (CL) surgery for benign ovarian masses.

DESIGN

A systemic review and cumulative meta-analysis were performed in line with the criteria of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation: levels of evidence and grades of recommendation.

DATA SOURCES

We comprehensively searched the electronic databases including PubMed, Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library in November 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies published in recent 10 years, which investigated the performance of LESS versus CL in patients at all ages with benign ovarian masses.

RESULTS

Four RCTs and nine retrospective studies published in recent decade including 1542 cases (744 cases for LESS and 798 cases for CL) were identified. Perioperative complication was consisted of intraoperative and postoperative complications, including ileus, wound infection or dehiscence and incisional hernia. Although LESS has less postoperative analgesic consumption (46.78% and 79.25%; OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.74, p<0.001) and shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD): -0.24 days; 95% CI: -0.35 to -0.14; p<0.001), CL has less perioperative complications (6.59% and 2.85%; OR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.05 to 4.11, p=0.04) and shorter operative time (WMD: 3.43 min; 95% CI: -0.03 to 6.88; p=0.05). Body mass index, history of previous abdominal surgery, size of adnexal mass, estimated blood loss and postoperative pain scores did not differ significantly between two techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The indications of LESS for benign ovarian masses are similar to CL and it has better postoperative recovery. However, with less perioperative complications, CL surgery is safer than LESS.

Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse among Peri- and Post-Menopausal Women

For patients with apical compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP), abdominal sacrocolpopexy has been considered superior to the vaginal approach in terms of less dyspareunia and decreased risk of recurrence. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSC) can help overcome difficulties in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) by facilitating deep dissection and suturing. Moreover, RSC is a safe and efficacious option for patients with POP. It has several benefits, such as its high anatomical cure rate, improvement of sexual function, reduction of perioperative complications, and low recurrence rate. In addition, it can be a safe option for elderly patients. RSC has a steep learning curve and numerous other reported advantages compared with LSC; however, insufficient data conclude that the former is universally superior, especially in cost effectiveness. Thus, further studies are needed to support the widespread adoption of robot-assisted surgery for pelvic floor reconstruction.

Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology: A systematic review

Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site (R-LESS) seems to be the next route in advancing minimal invasive surgery, with the potential for better cosmetic results and reduced patient morbidity compared with multi-port surgery. This review describes the history and development of (R-LESS) gynecologic surgery and outlines the latest advancements in the realm of gynecology. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Pubmed and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) were the main search engines utilized for retrieval of study data (1990 - present). The following subject headings and keywords were searched: "robotic laparoscopic single incision", "robotic laparoendoscopic single site", "single incision robotic surgery" and "single-port robotic surgery". All original research articles including randomized, non-randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, patient series, and case reports were included. The search produced a total of 1127 results. After duplicate removal, 452 remained, and each title and abstract was reviewed by 2 reviewers. Subsequently, 56 full texts were selected for full review and an additional 20 excluded, leaving 36 studies that were included in the final review. Based on the data gathered we reached the conclusion that R-LESS surgery is feasible, safe and has equivalent surgical outcomes as conventional LESS surgery; in addition to shorter recovery times, less postoperative pain and better cosmetic outcomes than robotic multi-port surgery. To conclude, R-LESS is a feasible approach with low complication rates, minimal blood loss and postsurgical pain, fast recovery, and virtually scar-free results. However, the lack of large comparative prospective randomized controlled studies prevents drawing absolute conclusions.

Periumbilical infiltration of lidocaine with epinephrine for postoperative pain reduction in single-port laparoscopic adnexal surgery

An efficient and simple approach to control postoperative pain in transumbilical single-port laparoscopic surgery appears necessary. We conducted a retrospective analysis in a study group (80 patients who received periumbilical infiltration of lidocaine with epinephrine before their incisional site repair completion) and control group (80 patients who received no analgesic at their incisional site repair completion) matched for their age, body mass index and their frequency of previous abdominal surgery. The pain scores based on the numerical rating scale (NRS) and the analgesic use frequency during the postoperative period were evaluated. The postoperative pain scores based on the NRS were significantly lower in the study group than in the control group immediately after the operation and at postoperative 6 hours. The postoperative analgesic use frequency during the hospital stay and the pain scores at 24 and 48 hours were not significantly different between the two groups. Periumbilical infiltration of lidocaine with epinephrine can reduce surgical pain until 6 hours, postoperatively. Impact statement What is already known on this subject? No consensus on whether single port laparoscopic surgery significantly reduces postoperative pain, as compared to conventional laparoscopy exists, and the immediate postoperative pain seems to be severe even with the SPL surgery. What do the results of this study add? The periumbilical infiltration of lidocaine with epinephrine can alleviate surgical pain until 6 hours, postoperatively. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Our result may provide an efficient and simple approach to control postoperative pain in a single port laparoscopic surgery.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery in gynecologic surgery: a single-institutional experience from Saudi Arabia

Background: Laparoscopy is rapidly replacing laparotomy in the field of gynecologic surgery. Generally, there are limited data concerning the utility of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in gynecologic surgery. Specifically, in Saudi Arabia, a third-world country, data are further limited; only one related study has been conducted so far. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively report our single-institutional experience of SILS in terms of feasibility, safety and perioperative outcomes in the management of various gynecologic conditions.

Methods: The study took place at the Women’s Specialized Hospital, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. From January 2012 to May 2016, all gynecologic patients who underwent SILS procedures were analyzed for pre-, intra- and post-operative details. SILS was performed using a single multi-port trocar and standard laparoscopic instruments.

Results: A total of 54 patients underwent 66 SILS procedures. The median age and body mass index (BMI) were 36 years and 28.2 kg/m ², respectively. Fourteen patients (26%) had ≥ 1 previous abdominal and/or pelvic surgeries. Twenty-four patients (44.4%) were nulliparous. The three most commonly performed SILS procedures were unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (45.5%) and unilateral ovarian cystectomy (27.3%) and adhesiolysis (6.1%). The median operative time, estimated blood loss and hospital stay were 74 min, 50 ml and 1 day, respectively. Three patients required conversion to laparotomy, as follows: unidentified non-stopping bleeding source (n=1) and endometriosis stage IV resulting in difficult dissection (n=2). One patient developed post-operative incisional hernia that was treated surgically. The median patients’ post-operative pain (according to Wong-Baker FACES Foundation pain rating scale) within 4 hours was 2. At 4-week post-operatively, the median wound scar length (measured at outpatient clinic) was 2 cm.

Conclusions: SILS is feasible, safe and associated with acceptable clinical and surgical outcomes.

Single Port Transumbilical Laparoscopic Surgery versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Benign Adnexal Masses: A Retrospective Study of Feasibility and Safety

Background:

Single port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) is an innovative approach that is rapidly gaining recognition worldwide. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility and safety of SPLS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of benign adnexal masses.

Methods:

In total, 99 patients who underwent SPLS for benign adnexal masses between December 2013 and March 2015 were compared to a nonrandomized control group comprising 104 conventional laparoscopic adnexal surgeries that were performed during the same period. We retrospectively analyzed multiple clinical characteristics and operative outcomes of all the patients, including age, body mass index, size and pathological type of ovarian mass, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), duration of postoperative hospital stay, etc.

Results:

No significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding preoperative baseline characteristics. However, the pathological results between the two groups were found to be slightly different. The most common pathological type in the SPLS group was mature cystic teratoma, whereas endometrioma was more commonly seen in the control group. Otherwise, the two groups had comparable surgical outcomes, including the median operation time (51 min vs. 52 min, P = 0.909), the median decreased level of hemoglobin from preoperation to postoperation day 3 (10 g/L vs. 10 g/L, P = 0.795), and the median duration of postoperative hospital stay (3 days vs. 3 days, P = 0.168). In SPLS groups, the median EBL and the anal exsufflation time were significantly less than those of the conventional group (5 ml vs. 10 ml, P < 0.001; 10 h vs. 22 h, P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

SPLS is a feasible and safe approach for the treatment of benign adnexal masses. Further study is required to better determine whether SPLS has significant benefits compared to conventional techniques.

Robotic single-site versus laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery for adnexal tumours: a propensity score-matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic single-site (RSS) and laparo-endoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery for adnexal tumours and evaluate the feasibility of RSS surgery.

METHODS

RSS surgery was performed using the da Vinci Single-Site® surgical platform and LESS surgery using a single multi-channel port system. Surgical outcomes were compared between RSS (n = 20) and LESS (n = 228) after 1:4 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

After the propensity score matching, the RSS group showed longer operating times than the LESS (91.1 vs 66.1 min; p = 0.001). While the LESS showed 1.3% of major complication rates, the RSS group had no perioperative complication. For the LESS, 2.5% of patients needed additional port insertion.

CONCLUSIONS

The RSS surgery for adnexal tumours could be performed safely without complications or additional port insertion. Although it showed a longer operating time, further experience and technical refinements will continue to improve operative results. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for ovarian mature cystic teratoma

Objective

To compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in women with ovarian mature cystic teratoma.

Methods

A retrospective review of 303 women who underwent LESS (n=139) or conventional laparoscopic surgery (n=164) due to ovarian mature cystic teratoma was performed. Intra- and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

There was no intergroup difference in age, body weight, height, body mass index, comorbidities, tumor size, bilaterality of tumor, or the type of surgery. However, more patients in the LESS group had a history of previous abdominal surgery (19.4% vs. 6.7%, P=0.001). Surgical outcomes including operating time (89 vs. 87.8 minutes, P=0.734), estimated blood loss (69.4 vs. 68.4 mL, P=0.842), transfusion requirement (2.2% vs. 0.6%, P=0.336), perioperative hemoglobin level change (1.3 vs. 1.2 g/dL, P=0.593), postoperative hospital stay (2.0 vs. 2.1 days, P=0.119), and complication rate (1.4% vs. 1.8%, P=0.999) did not differ between LESS and conventional groups. Postoperative pain scores measured using a visual analogue scale were significantly lower in the LESS group at 8 hours (P=0.021), 16 hours (P=0.034), and 32 hours (P=0.004) after surgery, and 32 of 139 patients (23%) in the LESS group and 78 of 164 patients (47.6%) in the conventional group required at least one additional analgesic (P<0.001).

Conclusion

LESS was feasible and showed comparable surgical outcomes with conventional laparoscopic surgery for women with ovarian mature cystic teratoma. LESS was associated with less postoperative pain and required less analgesia.

Robotic single-site versus laparoendoscopic single-site hysterectomy: a propensity score matching study

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic single-site (RSS-H) and laparoendoscopic single-site total hysterectomy (LESS-H) and to evaluate the feasibility of RSS-H in patients with benign gynecologic disease.

Methods

The RSS-H was performed using the da Vinci single-site surgical platform, and the LESS-H using a single multi-channel port system at the umbilicus. Among 467 consecutive patients who had undergone total hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease, surgical outcomes were compared between RSS-H group (n = 25) and LESS-H group (n = 442) after propensity score matching.

Results

All operations were completed robotically and laparoscopically without conversion to laparotomy, respectively. The RSS-H group had longer operating times and less operative bleeding compared to the LESS-H group. While the LESS-H showed 1.4 % of major complication rate, the RSS-H had no perioperative complication. Even after propensity score matching, the RSS-H still showed longer operating times (170.9 vs 94.1 min, p < 0.0001) and less operative bleeding (median estimated blood loss, 20 vs 50 ml, p = 0.009; mean hemoglobin drop, 1.6 vs 2.0 g/dl, p = 0.038) than the LESS-H.

Conclusions

The RSS-H could be a feasible and safe procedure in appropriately selected patients with benign gynecologic disease, and further experience and technical refinements will continue to improve operative results. Prospective randomized trials will permit the evaluation of the potential benefits of the RSS surgery as a minimally invasive surgical approach.