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

IF 1 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Greg J Marchand, Hollie Ulibarri, Amanda Arroyo, Daniela Gonzalez, Brooke Hamilton, Kate Ruffley, Marissa Dominick, Ali Azadi
{"title":"Comparative analysis of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery and versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in adnexectomy: A systematic review and metaanalysis of surgical outcome.","authors":"Greg J Marchand, Hollie Ulibarri, Amanda Arroyo, Daniela Gonzalez, Brooke Hamilton, Kate Ruffley, Marissa Dominick, Ali Azadi","doi":"10.4274/tjod.galenos.2025.09804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":45340,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology","volume":"22 1","pages":"83-95"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11894769/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/tjod.galenos.2025.09804","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

腹腔镜单部位手术与常规腹腔镜手术在附件切除术中的比较分析:手术结果的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
虽然从技术上讲,切除附件切除了更多的组织,但与膀胱切除术相比,它可能需要更少的精细操作和解剖。其次,我们试图衡量腹腔镜单部位手术(LESS)与传统腹腔镜(CLS)的有效性和安全性。我们检索了6个数据库,以找到比较LESS和CLS治疗卵巢病变的研究,这些卵巢病变需要切除整个卵巢,无论是否切除输卵管。入选标准:本分析包括对照试验和观察性研究。研究评价和综合方法:我们对随机临床试验使用Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具,对观察性研究使用国家心脏、肺和血液质量评估工具。使用评审管理软件进行统计分析。LESS组手术时间明显延长[平均差异(MD)=2.96 (-1.97, 7.90), p=0.24],但存在中等异质性。LESS组估计失血量显著降低[MD=-18.62 (-33.83, -3.42), p=0.02]。患者住院时间具有可比性[MD=-0.02 (-0.50, 0.47), p=0.95]。术后24小时视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分[MD=0.23 (-0.09, 0.56), p=0.16]和术后6小时[MD=0.15 (-0.04, 0.33), p=0.12]差异无统计学意义。LESS组术后所需镇痛较少[危险比(RR)=0.47 (0.32, 0.68), p=0.001]。血红蛋白变化具有可比性[MD=-0.11 (-0.26, 0.03), p=0.14]。LESS组围手术期并发症发生率较高[RR=2.236 (1.031, 4.851), p=0.04]。与CLS相比,LESS需要更多的手术时间,但明显减少了出血量和术后镇痛药的使用。住院时间和VAS疼痛评分相似。LESS的围手术期并发症发生率较高,在某些情况下使用的可行性受到质疑。
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
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
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