Laparoscopic, minilaparoscopic, single-port and percutaneous hysterectomy: Comparison of perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive approaches in gynecologic surgery

被引:58
作者
Rossitto, C. [1 ]
Cianci, S. [1 ]
Alletti, S. Gueli [1 ]
Perrone, E. [1 ]
Pizzacalla, S. [1 ]
Scambia, G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Catholic Univ Sacred Hearth, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Gynecol Oncol, Rome, Italy
关键词
Minimally invasive surgery (MIS); Hysterectomy; LESS; Percutaneous instruments; Mini-laparoscopy; Laparoscopy; Gynecology; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; PELVIC LYMPHADENECTOMY; RADICAL HYSTERECTOMY; METAANALYSIS; CANCER;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.07.026
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objectives: During the last decade endoscopic surgical procedures have been constantly evolving. The latest innovation in ultra-minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is the percutaneous technology (Percuvance (TM) Percutaneous Surgical System (PSS), Teleflex Inc., USA). We compared surgical outcome of hysterectomy, in a retrospective cohort study using the most recent MIS techniques as single-site (LESS) surgery, 3 mm laparoscopy (MiniLPS) and percutaneous system (PSS) with standard laparoscopy (LPS). Study design: This is a matched retrospective cohort study. Endometrial Hyperplasia/Early stage endometrial cancer or benign pathology were the indication for surgery. Data of laparoscopic hysterectomies performed between May 2013 and April 2016 using PSS, LPS, MiniLPS, and LESS were collected and compared. Results: The characteristics of each group were similar. The median Operative time (OT) was significantly longer in LESS compared to all other groups (120 min [range 55-165] in LESS, 91 min [range 60-180] in MiniLPS, 70 min [range 55-230] in LPS and 65 [range 40-180] in PSS; p = 0.0001). No significant differences among the 4 groups were observed in terms of estimated blood loss, conversion to laparoscopy or laparotomy, and intra e post-operative complications. Statistically significant differences were recorded in median VAS 24h (2 [range 0-3] in PSS, 2 [range 0-3] in MiniLPS, 3 [range 2-5] in LESS and 2 [range 1-5] in LPS; p = 0.0001). The average time of discharge was (1 day [range 1-3] in PSS, 1 day [range 1-2] in MiniLPS, 1 days [range 1-2] in LESS and 1 day [range 1-3] in LPS; p = 0.99). Conclusions: Data show that the effort to minimize the impact of surgical invasiveness can be feasible and could improve the advantages, not only in terms of aesthetic outcomes, even if the differences among the endoscopic approaches have not a relevant clinical impact. The technology innovations like PSS maintain the same triangulation between instruments as standard LPS with an evident decrease of the invasiveness thanks to reduced instruments size, even if the lack of suitability of bipolar energy, that require a multifunction instrument, remain a limit of these instruments. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:125 / 129
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
[41]   Retrospective comparison of three minimally invasive approaches for adrenal tumors: perioperative outcomes of transperitoneal laparoscopic, retroperitoneal laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy [J].
Changwei Ji ;
Qun Lu ;
Wei Chen ;
Feifei Zhang ;
Hao Ji ;
Shiwei Zhang ;
Xiaozhi Zhao ;
Xiaogong Li ;
Gutian Zhang ;
Hongqian Guo .
BMC Urology, 20
[42]   Comparative outcomes of hysterectomy using single-port umbilical laparoscopy versus vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery [J].
Gungorduk, Kemal ;
Uyar, Berican Sahin ;
Gulseren, Varol .
MINIMALLY INVASIVE THERAPY & ALLIED TECHNOLOGIES, 2025,
[43]   Single-port vs. conventional multi-port access laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: comparison of surgical outcomes and complications [J].
Choi, Y. -S. ;
Park, J. -N. ;
Oh, Y. -S. ;
Sin, K-S. ;
Choi, J. ;
Eun, D. -S. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2013, 169 (02) :366-369
[44]   Comparative study of safety and outcomes of single-port access versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal surgery [J].
V. Kanakala ;
D. W. Borowski ;
A. K. Agarwal ;
M. A. Tabaqchali ;
D. K. Garg ;
T. S. Gill .
Techniques in Coloproctology, 2012, 16 :423-428
[45]   Comparison of Single-Port Percutaneous Extraperitoneal Repair and Three-Port Mini-Laparoscopic Repair for Pediatric Inguinal Hernia [J].
Korkmaz, Mevlit ;
Guvenc, B. Haluk .
JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2018, 28 (03) :337-342
[46]   A comparison of postoperative pain after transumbilical single-port access and conventional three-port total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial [J].
Chung, Ji-Hyun ;
Baek, Jong Min ;
Chung, Kyudon ;
Park, Eun Kyung ;
Jeung, In Cheul ;
Chang, Hyun Tae ;
Choi, Ji Hyang ;
Kim, Chan Joo ;
Lee, Yong Seok .
ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2015, 94 (12) :1290-1296
[47]   First clinical experience with single-port robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (SP rTAMIS) for benign rectal neoplasms [J].
Marks, J. H. ;
Kunkel, E. ;
Salem, J. F. ;
Martin, C. ;
Anderson, B. ;
Agarwal, S. .
TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2021, 25 (01) :117-124
[48]   Comparison of surgical outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy in gynecologic benign disease: a single-center cohort study [J].
Asumi Okumura ;
Eiji Kondo ;
Masafumi Nii ;
Michiko Kubo-Kaneda ;
Kenta Yoshida ;
Tomoaki Ikeda .
Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2023, 17 :2221-2228
[49]   Comparison of surgical outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy in gynecologic benign disease: a single-center cohort study [J].
Okumura, Asumi ;
Kondo, Eiji ;
Nii, Masafumi ;
Kubo-Kaneda, Michiko ;
Yoshida, Kenta ;
Ikeda, Tomoaki .
JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2023, 17 (05) :2221-2228
[50]   Single port access laparoscopic adnexal surgery versus conventional laparoscopic adnexal surgery: a comparison of pen-operative outcomes [J].
Lee, Yoo-Young ;
Kim, Tae-Joong ;
Kim, Chul-Jung ;
Park, Hwang Shin ;
Choi, Chel Hun ;
Lee, Jeong-Won ;
Lee, Je-ho ;
Bae, Duk-Soo ;
Kim, Byoung-Gie .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2010, 151 (02) :181-184