Postoperative abdominopelvic adhesion and umbilical wound validation after single-port laparoscopy or two-port laparoscopy for gynecological surgery: a comparison with conventional laparoscopy.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Sang Wook Yi
{"title":"Postoperative abdominopelvic adhesion and umbilical wound validation after single-port laparoscopy or two-port laparoscopy for gynecological surgery: a comparison with conventional laparoscopy.","authors":"Sang Wook Yi","doi":"10.1007/s00404-025-07951-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The emergence of minimally invasive surgery has led to the development of laparoscopic surgery to reduce the number of ports. Although the incision for the umbilical port is sufficiently large, thus reducing the number of ports used during laparoscopic surgery, postoperative complications involving incisions at port sites have been reported. Thus, we analyzed postoperative intraperitoneal outcomes after laparoscopy by reviewing operation records and photographs of consecutive surgeries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 134 patients were enrolled in the clinical study to analyze their intraperitoneal outcomes. The patients were divided into groups, which were compared and analyzed on the basis of the number of ports used intraoperatively. The clinical characteristics of the patients were obtained from their medical records, and their operation records, including those of their consecutive operations, were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients who underwent single-port laparoscopy were included in Group 1, patients who underwent two-port laparoscopy were included in Group 2, and patients who underwent three-port laparoscopy or four-port laparoscopy were included in Group 3. Correlation analysis of the number of ports used during surgery revealed that the white blood cell count before and after surgery and the intraperitoneal umbilical adhesion score were negatively correlated. The incidence of intraperitoneal umbilical adhesions increased as the number of ports used during laparoscopy decreased.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Because the incidence of postoperative intraperitoneal umbilical adhesion increases as the size of the umbilical wound increases, such as after single-port laparoscopy, surgical umbilical wounds should be cautiously repaired after single-port laparoscopic surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":8330,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-025-07951-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The emergence of minimally invasive surgery has led to the development of laparoscopic surgery to reduce the number of ports. Although the incision for the umbilical port is sufficiently large, thus reducing the number of ports used during laparoscopic surgery, postoperative complications involving incisions at port sites have been reported. Thus, we analyzed postoperative intraperitoneal outcomes after laparoscopy by reviewing operation records and photographs of consecutive surgeries.

Methods: A total of 134 patients were enrolled in the clinical study to analyze their intraperitoneal outcomes. The patients were divided into groups, which were compared and analyzed on the basis of the number of ports used intraoperatively. The clinical characteristics of the patients were obtained from their medical records, and their operation records, including those of their consecutive operations, were analyzed.

Results: Patients who underwent single-port laparoscopy were included in Group 1, patients who underwent two-port laparoscopy were included in Group 2, and patients who underwent three-port laparoscopy or four-port laparoscopy were included in Group 3. Correlation analysis of the number of ports used during surgery revealed that the white blood cell count before and after surgery and the intraperitoneal umbilical adhesion score were negatively correlated. The incidence of intraperitoneal umbilical adhesions increased as the number of ports used during laparoscopy decreased.

Conclusions: Because the incidence of postoperative intraperitoneal umbilical adhesion increases as the size of the umbilical wound increases, such as after single-port laparoscopy, surgical umbilical wounds should be cautiously repaired after single-port laparoscopic surgery.

妇科手术单孔腹腔镜或双孔腹腔镜术后腹盆腔粘连和脐伤口的验证:与常规腹腔镜的比较
目的:微创手术的出现导致了腹腔镜手术的发展,以减少手术口的数量。虽然脐口切口足够大,从而减少了腹腔镜手术中使用的脐口数量,但术后涉及脐口切口的并发症已有报道。因此,我们通过回顾手术记录和连续手术的照片来分析腹腔镜术后腹膜内预后。方法:对134例患者进行临床研究,分析其腹腔内结局。将患者分组,根据术中使用的端口数进行比较分析。从患者的病历中获取其临床特征,并对其手术记录及连续手术记录进行分析。结果:单孔腹腔镜患者为1组,双孔腹腔镜患者为2组,三孔或四孔腹腔镜患者为3组。术中使用端口数的相关分析显示,术前、术后白细胞计数与腹腔内脐带粘连评分呈负相关。腹腔内脐粘连的发生率随着腹腔镜中使用的端口数量的减少而增加。结论:由于术后腹腔内脐带粘连的发生率随着脐创面大小的增加而增加,如单孔腹腔镜手术后,手术脐创面应谨慎修复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
15.40%
发文量
493
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1870 as "Archiv für Gynaekologie", Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics has a long and outstanding tradition. Since 1922 the journal has been the Organ of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. "The Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics" is circulated in over 40 countries world wide and is indexed in "PubMed/Medline" and "Science Citation Index Expanded/Journal Citation Report". The journal publishes invited and submitted reviews; peer-reviewed original articles about clinical topics and basic research as well as news and views and guidelines and position statements from all sub-specialties in gynecology and obstetrics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信