Multi-institution, Prospective, Randomized Trial to Compare the Success Rates of Single-port Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Uterine Myoma or Adenomyosis

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are five major approaches to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease: abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) and vaginal natural orifice hysterectomy (V-NOTES). Within the LH category we further differentiate the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) from the total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (from their inception to December 2022): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the trial registries and relevant reference lists, and communicated with experts in the field for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction and quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvic-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 63 studies with 6811 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate certainty. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (12 RCTs, 1046 women) Return to normal activities was probably faster in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -10.91 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.95 to -3.87; 4 RCTs, 274 women; I2 = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after AH is assumed to be 42 days, then after VH it would be between 24 and 38 days. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (28 RCTs, 3431 women) Return to normal activities may be sooner in the LH group (MD -13.01 days, 95% CI -16.47 to -9.56; 7 RCTs, 618 women; I2 = 68%, low-certainty evidence), but there may be more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.16, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.93; 18 RCTs, 2594 women; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 37 days, then after laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 22 and 25 days. It also suggests that if the rate of ureter injury during abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 0.2%, then during laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 0.2% and 2%. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (22 RCTs, 2135 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for any of our primary outcomes. Both short- and long-term complications were rare in both groups. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (three RCTs, 296 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for our other primary outcomes. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH) versus LH (seven RCTs, 621 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates, quality of life or major long-term complications. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) versus laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) (three RCTs, 233 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury or major long-term complications. Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (V-NOTES) versus LH (two RCTs, 96 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of bladder injury. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. Overall, adverse events were rare in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to AH. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because it is associated with faster return to normal activities, fewer wound/abdominal wall infections and shorter hospital stay. Where VH is not possible, LH has advantages over AH including faster return to normal activities, shorter hospital stay, and decreased risk of wound/abdominal wall infection, febrile episodes or unspecified infection, and transfusion. These advantages must be balanced against the increased risk of ureteric injury and longer operative time. When compared to LH, VH was associated with no difference in time to return to normal activities but shorter operative time and shorter hospital stay. RH and V-NOTES require further evaluation since there is a lack of evidence of any patient benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed with the patient and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. Surgical expertise is difficult to quantify and poorly reported in the available studies and this may influence outcomes in ways that cannot be accounted for in this review. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH has multiple advantages over AH, but at the cost of more ureteric injuries. Evidence is limited for RH and V-NOTES.

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.

Chopstick technique versus cross technique in LESS hysterectomy (CCLEH study): a prospective randomized controlled trial

Background

The traditional cross technique can be used to complete most laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) procedures, but some relatively precise operations, such as vaginal stump suturing, are challenging. In practice, we have introduced a novel technique named the chopstick technique and applied it to more complex operations, such as cervical cancer operations, and found that it contributes to performing delicate surgery. The efficacy and safety of two different surgical techniques in LESS hysterectomy remain to be validated.

Methods

Patients who undergo total hysterectomy will be enrolled in this RCT. Stratified randomization will be performed according to uterine size (< 10 cm, 10–15cm, ≥ 15 cm). The participants will be divided into the chopstick technique group or cross technique group to undergo laparoendoscopic single-site total hysterectomy (LESS-TH), and then the perioperative and postoperative data, including the total operation time and other times, transfer rates, estimated blood loss, surgeon fatigue, intraoperative and postoperative complications (within 8 weeks after surgery), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) scores, postoperative hospital stay, and hospitalization expenses, will be evaluated. The primary outcome is the operating time for total hysterectomy under LESS, and the other outcomes are secondary outcomes.

Discussion

It is expected that the efficacy of the two techniques in LESS, the chopstick technique vs. the cross technique, will be compared and accumulate safety data on the new techniques will be accumulated.

Trial registration

ChiCTR2000040843, registered on June 16,2020

Protocol version:

Version 2.0; Date: 2020.05.10

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06650-w.

Operative Outcomes of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Hysterectomy vs Conventional Laparoscopic Total Hysterectomy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

Background. Over time, there was an emerging need to shift from laparotomy to minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery, with the success of laparoscopic surgery in the last decade in gyne-oncology. Patients and Methods. This is a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted in Surgical Oncology Unit, Oncology Centre, Mansoura University, in the period between February 2016 and October 2019. Fifty female patients planned for total hysterectomy were randomized into two equal groups; the first underwent conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy (CLH), while the second underwent single-incision laparoscopic hysterectomy (SILH). Results. The mean operative time in the SILH group was 120.00 ± 28.72 minutes vs 103.20 ± 23.04 minutes in the CLH group (P= .027). Median hospital stay in the SILH group was 1 day (range: 1-3 days), the same as that in the CLH group, with no statistical significance (P= .384). Postoperative pain assessment using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) after 6 hours had a median score of 6 (2-8) in the SILH group and 6 (4-7) in the CLH group with significant increase in experienced pain in the SILH group (P= .004), while no significant difference was noted after 12 hours and 24 hours in both SILH and CLH groups. Conclusion. Single-incision laparoscopic hysterectomy (SILH) has similar outcomes when compared to conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy as regard blood loss, hospital stay, conversion to laparotomy, intraoperative and postoperative complications with the disadvantages of longer operative time, increased surgeon's workload, and relatively more postoperative pain.

Laparoendoscopic Single Site Hysterectomy: Literature Review and Procedure Description

Laparoendoscopic single site surgery (LESS) refers to a spectrum of surgical techniques that allow the performance of laparoscopic surgery through consolidation of all ports into one surgical incision. LESS has emerged as a potentially less invasive alternative to multiport laparoscopy and in the last year in gynecology; hence, this approach has been largely applied for selective indications to perform total hysterectomy. We performed a literature review on single site hysterectomy and described indications and technique, highlighting practical problems, pointers, limitations and recent technical development as robotic assistance.

Meta-analysis of Laparoendoscopic Single-site and Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Hysterectomy Compared with Multiport Hysterectomy: Real Benefits or Diminishing Returns?

OBJECTIVE

Because minimally invasive hysterectomy has become increasingly performed by gynecologic surgeons, strategies to further improve outcomes have emerged, including innovations in surgical approach. We sought to evaluate the intraoperative and perioperative outcomes and success rates of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) hysterectomy in comparison with those of conventional multiport laparoscopic (MPL) hysterectomy.

DATA SOURCES

A librarian-led search of PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed for case-control, retrospective cohort, and randomized controlled trials through May 2020.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

The inclusion criterion was publications comparing LESS or vNOTES hysterectomy with conventional MPL hysterectomy for the management of benign or malignant gynecologic disease. Four authors reviewed the abstracts and selected studies for full-text review. The manuscripts were reviewed, separately, by 2 authors for final inclusion and assessment of bias using either the risk-of-bias assessment tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion with, or arbitration by, a third reviewer. The titles of 2259 articles were screened, and 108 articles were chosen for abstract screening. Full-text screening resulted in 29 studies eligible for inclusion.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Extracted data were placed into REDCap (Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN), and MPL hysterectomy was compared with single-port hysterectomy using meta-analysis models. The outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL); operative (OP) time; transfusion; length of hospital stay (LOS); conversion to laparotomy; visual analog scale pain scores at 12 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours; any complications; and 7 subcategories of complications. Random-effects models were built for continuous outcomes and binary outcomes, and the results are reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals, respectively. Meta-analysis could not be performed for vNOTES vs MPL, given that only 3 studies met the eligibility criteria. When LESS and MPL were compared, there was a shorter OP time for MPL (SMD = -0.2577, p <.001) and lower rate of transfusion (OR = 0.1697, p <.001), without a significant difference in EBL (SMD = -0.0243, p = .689). There was a nonsignificant trend toward higher risk of conversion to laparotomy in the MPL group (OR = 2.5871, p = .078). Pain scores were no different 12 or 24 hours postoperatively but were significantly higher at 48 hours postoperatively (SMD = 0.1861, p = .035) in the MPL group. There were no differences in overall or individual complications between the LESS and MPL groups. In the vNOTES comparison, 2 studies demonstrated shorter OP times, with reduced LOS and no difference in complications.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, we identified that LESS hysterectomy has comparable and low overall rates of complications and conversion to laparotomy compared with MPL. Notably, the OP time seems longer, and the pain scores at 48 hours may be lower with LESS hysterectomy than with MPL hysterectomy. Limited data suggest that vNOTES hysterectomy may have shorter OP times and improved EBL, transfusion rates, LOS, and pain scores compared with MPL hysterectomy, but further study is needed. There remains a deficit in high-quality data to understand the differences in cosmesis among these surgical approaches. The quality of data for this analysis seems to be low to moderate.

GnRHa Before Single-Port Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in a Large Barrel-Shaped Uterus

Background and Objectives:

Laparoscopic hysterectomy for a large barrel-shaped uterus is difficult. We assessed the feasibility of single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy in a large barrel-shaped uterus after gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa).

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed 39 patients with a large barrel-shaped uterus who were treated with GnRHa (leuprolide acetate) before single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy. During the same period, 134 patients without GnRHa pretreatment were included as control subjects.

Results:

Patients with GnRHa treatment had an average increase in hemoglobin of 3.0 mg/dL and a decrease in uterine weight of 330.9 g (40.1%). Ancillary ports were required in 2 patients in the treatment group and none in the control group. There were no differences in uterine weights, operative time, and estimated blood loss in the 2 groups of patients. The estimated average operative time was shortened by 34 min after GnRHa treatment. However, bladder and ureter injuries were marginally higher (10.3% versus 2.2%) and days of hospital stay (3.7 versus 3.1) were significantly longer in the treatment group compared with controls. Complication rates were correlated with previous operative history, pelvic adhesion, and larger uterine weight but not with GnRHa treatment and operative sequence.

Conclusions:

GnRHa pretreatment in patients with a large barrel-shaped uterus during SPH is feasible with shortened operative time. However, the higher complication rates in these patients suggest that a weight-reduced barrel-shaped uterus that is achieved with GnRHa treatment could still be difficult and should be handled in cautious.

Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy as endoscopic single-station surgery and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy—surgical effects on safety and quality of life

Background

To extend the benefits of minimally invasive surgery, an increasing enthusiasm has emerged for the laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS). The idea of LESS is to allow inserting multiple laparoscopic instruments through only one umbilical incision instead of multiple abdominal incisions.

Methods

Sixty patients from three different centers in Germany were randomized (1:1) to conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy (n = 31) or LESS hysterectomy (n = 29). The study focused in particular on the safety and efficacy of both techniques.

Results

The mean operative time was comparable in both groups (68.2 vs 73.6 min., p = 0.409; 95% CI − 18.69–7.12). No differences were seen regarding estimated blood loss (p = 0.915; 95% CI − 21.02–18.88), intra- and postoperative complications (p = 0.944), and wound infection rates (p = 0.944). Patients within the LESS group experienced significantly less pain in the first 24 h postoperatively (p = 0.006); the pain scores at 3, 5, 7 days and 2 months postoperatively were comparable.

Conclusion

LESS hysterectomy is a reliable and safe option in gynecologic surgery. Compared to conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy, LESS surgery demonstrated comparable surgical properties in regard to blood loss, duration of surgery, and intra-/postoperative complications. Notably, patients undergoing LESS hysterectomy experienced some less pain postoperatively.

Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Surgery for Patients With Borderline Ovarian Tumors

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare surgical and oncologic outcomes of open and laparoscopic surgery in patients with borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included patients with BOTs who underwent open (n = 433) or laparoscopic (n = 210) surgery between 1990 and 2015. Surgical outcomes, perioperative morbidity, and disease-free survival and overall survival were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in age, histologic type of tumor, and laterality of tumor. However, body mass index was slightly higher for the open surgery group (P = 0.046). The open surgery group had a higher serum cancer antigen 125 level (P < 0.001), larger tumor size (P < 0.001), more frequent radical surgery (P = 0.001), higher stage (P = 0.034), and higher incidence of invasive implants (P = 0.035). The operative time (P < 0.001), time interval to return of bowel movement (P < 0.001), and length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001) were significantly shorter and estimated blood loss was significantly less (P < 0.001) in the laparoscopic group. Perioperative complications were documented in 5 (2.4%) patients in the laparoscopic surgery group and 17 (3.9%) in the open surgery group (P = 0.064). Twenty-three (5.3%) patients in the open surgery group and 9 (4.3%) in the laparoscopic surgery group had recurrence (P = 0.902) at a median follow-up of 57 months. The 10-year disease-free survival was 96% and 97% for the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively (P = 0.851), with no significant difference between the groups after adjusting for independent factors (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-2.4; P = 0.999). The 10-year overall survival was 99% for both groups, respectively (P = 0.441).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery and open surgery showed similar survival outcomes in BOTs. The surgical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery were more favorable.

Novel Approach for 2-Port Laparoscopic Hysterectomy

Background and Objectives. To describe a novel technique for a port-reducing laparoscopic hysterectomy. The 2-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (TPH) is performed through two 5-mm ports without the use of any multiport channels. We demonstrate outcomes via a large case series. We also describe and provide a video showing the TPH technique. Methods. Retrospective comparative study between the newly developed TPH and the conventional 4-port hysterectomy techniques. Variables of patients who underwent a TPH with fellowship-trained gynecologic surgeons at a single academic university hospital were collected through electronic medical records chart review. Results. Forty-five patients underwent a TPH. Mean age was 39.4, body mass index was 28.5 kg/m², and uterine weight was 170.0 g. Our outcomes of interest were operative time (98.4 minutes, mean), estimated blood loss (65.6 mL, mean), conversion to 3-port (1/45), and intraoperative (0/45) and postoperative (5/45) complications. By comparing the TPH to the conventional 4-port laparoscopic hysterectomy within a similar setting, we provide insight into variables that prompt the minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon to perform a port-reducing procedure. Patients were more likely to be allocated for a TPH if they were younger (37.8 vs 44.7, P = .005), had a lower body mass index (29.0 vs 32.5, P = .07), smaller uterus (143.1 vs 672.3 g, P < .001), and were white (56.8% and 22.4%, P < .001). Conclusions. The TPH is a novel port-reducing hysterectomy that is safe in a subset of patients with small uteri and limited surgical history who require no other surgical interventions at the time of hysterectomy.

Pain management after laparoscopic hysterectomy: systematic review of literature and PROSPECT recommendations

Background and objectives

Laparoscopic hysterectomy is increasingly performed because it is associated with less postoperative pain and earlier recovery as compared with open abdominal hysterectomy. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature regarding the management of pain after laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Strategy and selection criteria

Randomized controlled trials evaluating postoperative pain after laparoscopic hysterectomy published between January 1996 and May 2018 were retrieved, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, from the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Efficacy and adverse effects of analgesic techniques were assessed.

Results

Of the 281 studies initially identified, 56 were included. Of these, 31 assessed analgesic or anesthetic interventions and 25 assessed surgical interventions. Acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and dexamethasone reduced opioid consumption. Limited evidence hindered recommendations on alpha-2-agonists. Inconsistent evidence was found in the studies investigating pregabalin and transversus abdominis plane block, and no evidence was found for intraperitoneal local anesthetics, port site infiltration, or single-port laparoscopy. Measures to lower peritoneal insufflation pressure or humidify or heat insufflated gas seem to reduce the incidence of shoulder pain, but not abdominal pain.

Conclusions

The baseline analgesic regimen for laparoscopic hysterectomy should include acetaminophen, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, dexamethasone, and opioids as rescue analgesics.

In Search for the Best Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy Approach for the Large Uterus: A Review

Review of literature is conducted to determine the best minimally invasive hysterectomy (MIH) route for large uterus, identify preoperative considerations and describe alternative techniques to power morcellation. Studies after 2010 revealed multiple MIH approaches. Vaginal hysterectomy is preferred over laparoscopic and laparoscopic assistance with less operative time and hospital cost. In morbidly obese patients with large uteri, total laparoscopic hysterectomy is superior to vaginal hysterectomy with lesser odds of blood transfusion and lower length of hospital stay. Although MIH for the large uterus is feasible, many questions remain unanswered. Well-designed multicenter prospective trial incorporating clinical pathways to compare outcomes is needed.

The Power Law of Learning in Transumbilical Single-Port Laparoscopic Subtotal Hysterectomy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To analyze the surgical outcomes and learning curve of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy, which requires sutures of the cervical stump.

DESIGN

A prospective observational study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

A university-affiliated center.

PATIENTS

From the first (July 2012) and consecutive patients of benign uterine disease scheduled for subtotal hysterectomy until October 2013.

INTERVENTIONS

All single-port laparoscopies were performed using straight instruments by 1 gynecologist. An ancillary port was added whenever technical difficulties could endanger surgical quality.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were recruited for intention-to-treat analysis with a mean (±SD) age of 44.7 ± 3.8 years and a body mass index of 24.2 ± 3.7 kg/m². No major complication was noted. The mean uterine weight was 432.5 ± 344.0 g with 24 (32%) uteri ≧500 g. The patients' sequential order, or gradually increasing experience, was the determining factor in progressively decreasing operative time. Furthermore, most cases that required an additional ancillary port (67%) were clustered in the first 20 cases, whereas 4 were scattered after the 47th patient because of severe pelvic adhesion. The mean operative time decreased in the power law function of the patients' sequential order with a plateau achieved at the 20th patient.

CONCLUSION

The patients' sequential order was identified as an independent factor of achieving purely single-port access, and the trend of decreasing operative time delineated the existence of a learning curve. Approximately 20 patients were needed for an experienced multiport laparoscopist to reach technical competency in the current series.

Surgery in adenomyosis

INTRODUCTION

Adenomyosis is defined as the presence of endometrial glands and stroma within the myometrium. The true prevalence is unknown and has been reported to range from 1 to 70%. It has a significantly negative impact on women's quality of life, causing abnormal uterine bleeding, dysmenorrhea, and chronic pelvic pain. The definitive treatment for adenomyosis is hysterectomy, although it does not contemplate patients who wish to preserve their fertility. The aim of this paper is to discuss the latest evidence on the surgical techniques for the treatment of adenomyosis published in medical-scientific databases.

METHOD

A comprehensive literature search for articles published from 1996 to 2017 related to surgery for adenomyosis was made in Pubmed, Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, in English, by the following MeSH terms: adenomyosis, surgery, pathogenesis, dysmenorrhea and infertility.

RESULTS

There is extensive evidence on several surgical approaches for the improvement of adenomyosis-related symptoms; however, there is no robust evidence that they are effective for infertility.

CONCLUSION

The management of adenomyosis is quite complex and controversial. Complications after extensive uterine reconstruction, such as uterine rupture, should be considered and discussed with the patient. There are still limited data to support surgery effectiveness, especially for infertility, and further well-designed studies are required.

Advances on minimally invasive approach for benign total hysterectomy: a systematic review

Hysterectomy is one of the most commonly performed gynecologic surgeries, mainly for uterine myomas, abnormal uterine bleeding, and prolapses. It can be performed through several routes, each of which has its advantages and disadvantages. We conducted this systematic review to evaluate recent advances in surgical outcomes of benign total hysterectomies by any route: vaginal (VH), laparoscopic (LH), laparoscopically assisted vaginal (LAVH), single-port (SP), and robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RH). The search was applied to the PubMed electronic database by using keywords “hysterectomy” and “uterine benign disease”, “adenomyosis”, and “myoma”. Prospective and randomized trials of the last 3 years were included. Nine studies were selected and showed that VH was superior to LH, LAVH, and RH in terms of hospital stay and operation time and had the same complication rate and lower costs. SP hysterectomy had no clear advantages over VH or conventional LH.

Effective thermal destruction of residual tubal epithelium using an advanced sealing device in opportunistic salpingectomy: A randomized trial

Objective:

To examine the effectiveness of proximal tube destruction at the uterine cornu by additional application of a sealing device.

Methods:

A single-center randomized trial was conducted on 40 patients receiving a laparo-endoscopic single-site hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy. We randomized patients into two groups at the time of admission to determine the laterality of additional thermal cauterization. Additional thermal cauterization for 10 seconds was applied on the right cornu in one group and on the left cornu in the other group. Three pieces of cornual tissue from each cornu were biopsied. One gynecological pathologist examined the cornual tissue to determine the residual tubal epithelium (TE) and thermal destruction of the specimens.

Results:

Of the 40 patients enrolled in this study between September 2012 and July 2014, samples of 26 patients were subjected to tissue analysis. Residual TE was found in the cornu in 73.1% (19/26) and 65.4 % (17/26) of tissues from the side of no additional cauterization (NO) and the side of additional cauterization (AD), respectively (p < 0.001). Residual TE was detected in 5.3% (1/19) and 94.1% (16/17) of the specimens from the NO and AD groups, respectively.

Conclusion:

We observed that a high incidence of residual TE and efficacious cauterization-induced thermal destruction was achieved following 10 seconds of additional cauterization. These results suggest that additional cauterization of the uterine cornu using the sealing device effectively destroys residual TE after salpingectomy.

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To assess the safety and effectiveness of LESS compared to conventional hysterectomy.

Methods

The systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the MOOSE guideline, and quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Different databases were searched up to 4th of August 2016. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing LESS to the conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy were considered for inclusion.

Results

Of the 668 unique articles, 23 were found relevant. We investigated safety by analyzing the complication rate and found no significant differences between both groups [OR 0.94 (0.61, 1.44), I² = 19%]. We assessed effectiveness by analyzing conversion risk, postoperative pain, and patient satisfaction. For conversion rates to laparotomy, no differences were identified [OR 1.60 (0.40, 6.38), I² = 45%]. In 3.5% of the cases in the LESS group, an additional port was needed during LESS. For postoperative pain scores and patient satisfaction, some of the included studies reported favorable results for LESS, but the clinical relevance was non-significant. Concerning secondary outcomes, only a difference in operative time was found in favor of the conventional group [MD 11.3 min (5.45–17.17), I² = 89%]. The quality of evidence for our primary outcomes was low or very low due to the study designs and lack of power for the specified outcomes. Therefore, caution is urged when interpreting the results.

Conclusion

The single-port technique for benign hysterectomy is feasible, safe, and equally effective compared to the conventional technique. No clinically relevant advantages were identified, and as no data on cost effectiveness are available, there are currently not enough valid arguments to broadly implement LESS for hysterectomy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00404-017-4323-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: Clinical Factors that Affect Operative Times and Techniques to Overcome Difficulties

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare surgical outcomes of patients who underwent laparoendoscopic single-site total laparoscopic hysterectomy (LESS-TLH) with operative times < 150 minutes and ≥150 minutes to determine the clinical factors that influence operative times. We also describe techniques that help overcome difficulties involved in this procedure.

DESIGN

Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

University medical center.

PATIENTS

Two hundred thirty-four patients underwent LESS-TLH for benign uterine disease and cervical disease between September 2011 and February 2015. Thirty-seven patients (15.8%) were excluded from analysis. One hundred ninety-seven patients were divided into 2 groups according to the total operative time (median, 150 minutes): <150 minutes (n = 93) and ≥150 minutes (n = 104).

INTERVENTIONS

LESS-TLH was performed using anterior, lateral, and posterolateral colpotomy techniques, and knife-in-bag morcellation was used for specimen extraction.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patient characteristics, except for body mass index (BMI) and age, were generally similar in the 2 groups. Age, BMI, adhesiolysis, time to completion of colpotomy, stump repair time, specimen extraction time, blood loss, and weight of the uterus showed statistically significant differences between the 2 groups. Clinical factors that affected operative time were adhesiolysis of the posterior uterus (p = .010), time to completion of colpotomy (>65 minutes; p = .000), specimen extraction time (>34.4 minutes; p = .000), and weight of the uterus (>270 g; p = .015). Conversion to additional port laparoscopy occurred in 14 patients (5.98%). Conversion to laparotomy occurred in 1 patient (.43%). The surgical complication rates were 3.2% (3 patients) in the <150 minutes group and 3.8% (4 patients) in the ≥150 minutes group. No urologic injuries occurred in either group. One postoperative ileus occurred in the ≥150 minutes group; it was relieved by conservative treatment.

CONCLUSION

Time to completion of colpotomy was influenced by adhesiolysis of the posterior uterus and specimen extraction time by weight of the uterus. Alternative methods for decreasing the time required to extract a large uterus and for approaching posterior adhesion of the uterus are needed for LESS-TLH.

New Developments in Robotics and Single-site Gynecologic Surgery

Within the last 10 years there have been significant advances in minimal-access surgery. Although no emerging technology has demonstrated improved outcomes or fewer complications than standard laparoscopy, the introduction of the robotic surgical platform has significantly lowered abdominal hysterectomy rates. While operative time and cost were higher in robotic-assisted procedures when the technology was first introduced, newer studies demonstrate equivalent or improved robotic surgical efficiency with increased experience. Single-port hysterectomy has not improved postoperative pain or subjective cosmetic results. Emerging platforms with flexible, articulating instruments may increase the uptake of single-port procedures including natural orifice transluminal endoscopic cases.

Single-Port vs Multiport Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Numerous studies have compared the surgical outcomes of single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and conventional multiport LH, but the results are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of single-port LH and multiport LH for benign gynecologic conditions based on published reports. PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcome measures included intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, postoperative pain, conversion rate, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and length of hospital stay. Pooled outcome measures (risk ratio [RR] and weighted mean difference [WMD]) were pooled with either a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model. Six RCTs encompassing 624 patients were included. There were no significant differences between single-port LH and multiport LH in terms of intraoperative complication rate (RR, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-7.05; p = .00), postoperative complication rate (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.63-1.44; p = .82), postoperative pain (WMD, -0.42; 95% CI, -0.99 to 0.15; p = .15), conversion rate (p = .11), EBL (p = .51), or length of hospital stay (p = .27). However, single-port LH was associated with an average of 13.13 minutes longer operative time than multiport LH (p = .02). Our findings show that single-port LH is a safe and effective technique for benign gynecologic conditions, although it may require a longer operative time than multiport LH. Further large, prospective RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed to determine whether single-port LH really offers such benefits as better cosmetic outcome over multiport LH.

Single-site Versus Multiport Robotic Hysterectomy in Benign Gynecologic Diseases: A Retrospective Evaluation of Surgical Outcomes and Cost Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the surgical outcomes and costs of robotic-assisted hysterectomy with the single-site (RSSH) or multiport approach (RH).

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database (Canadian Task Force classification II1).

SETTING

A university hospital.

PATIENTS

Consecutive women who underwent robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for the treatment of benign gynecologic diseases.

INTERVENTIONS

Data on surgical approach, surgical outcomes, and costs were collected in a prospective database and retrospectively analyzed.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The total operative time, console time, docking time, estimated blood loss, conversion rate, and surgical complications rate were compared between the 2 study groups. Cost analysis was performed. One hundred four patients underwent total robotic-assisted hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (45 RSSH and 59 RH). There was no significant difference in the indications for surgery and in the characteristics of the patients between the 2 study groups. There was no significant difference between the single-site and multiport approach in console time, surgical complication rate, conversion rate, and postoperative pain. The docking time was lower in the RH group (p = .0001). The estimated blood loss and length of hospitalization were lower in the RSSH group (p = .0008 and p = .009, respectively). The cost analysis showed significant differences in favor of RSSH.

CONCLUSION

RSSH should be preferred to RH when hysterectomy is performed for benign disease because it could be at least as equally effective and safe with a potential cost reduction. However, because of the high cost and absence of clear advantages, the robotic approach should be considered only for selected patients.