Single-Port Access Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Literature Review

Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery (LESS): A Shift in Gynecological Minimally Invasive Surgery

Laparotomy was once the preferred modality of treatment for various gynecological conditions. However, over the years, with the advancements worldwide, a new technique for surgery, laparoscopy, came into play. Since then, laparoscopy is preferred over laparotomy for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes since it was less invasive than laparotomy. Further advancements include laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), which is a procedure that, as the name implies, only uses one port. It includes using a single incision near the umbilicus in contrast to laparoscopy, which traditionally includes one main port incision and various other side ports. Through the port, multiple devices can be inserted into the cavity. The use of a single port can reduce post-operative complications and help reduce the duration of hospital stays. A single incision near the umbilicus would not leave a very significant scar, and the wound healing time would be comparatively less, reducing the hospital stay time. This novel technique is, therefore, an amalgamation of traditional surgery and recently surfacing minimally invasive surgery. Other modalities which are being used widely include vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES). Since the ports formed are frequently inconspicuous, these procedures leave patients with "scarless" results.

Surgical technique of endometrioma excision impacts on the ovarian reserve. Single-port access laparoscopy versus multiport access laparoscopy: a case control study

Several recent studies report the detrimental effect of endometrioma excision on the ovarian reserve. Surgical technique and the excessive use of bipolar coagulation could be the key factors. Single-port access laparoscopy (SPAL) ovarian cystectomy has been reported as a comparable procedure to conventional laparoscopy in terms of operative outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the single-port surgery affects the ovarian reserve whilst performing laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy for unilateral endometrioma. This was a prospective, case-control study of 99 women with unilateral endometrioma. Forty-nine women underwent single-port cystectomy and 50 women underwent multiport laparoscopic (MPL) conventional cystectomy. The primary outcome was the assessment of the ovarian reserve. We evaluated the serum anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) levels before, 4-6 weeks and 3 months after surgery. At T2 we performed an ultrasound assessment of the antral follicular count (AFC). We have drawn attention to a statistically significant decrease of the mean AMH value and AFC in the SPAL group at the 4-6-week and 3-month follow-up compared to the conventional laparoscopy group. In conclusion, our results suggest that SPAL cystectomy should not be recommended to patients undergoing surgery for endometrioma excision who want to preserve their fertility.

Single-port Access Subtotal Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Prospective Case-Control Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The objective was to evaluate the perioperative outcomes, safety, and patient acceptance of single-port access laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy (SPAL-SH) in comparison with conventional multiport access laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy (MPAL-SH).

DESIGN

Case-control study. Canadian Task Force Classification II-2.

SETTING

The study was conducted at university hospitals in Cagliari, Italy, and Rouen, France.

PATIENTS

Sixty-one women with metrorrhagia, abnormal uterine bleeding with uterine myomas, or symptomatic adenomyosis were included in the study.

INTERVENTIONS

Thirty-one patients underwent SPAL-SH, and 30 patients underwent conventional MPAL-SH.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We analyzed the data to compare the outcomes of SPAL-SH versus MPAL-SH. Patients in the SPAL-SH group had longer operative times than those in the MPAL-SH group (p < .001) but shorter hospital stays (p < .001). Postoperative pain immediately after surgery, after 6 hours, and after 24 hours were lower in the SPAL-SH group (p < .001). The SPAL-SH group reported significantly higher cosmetic satisfaction at 1, 4, and 24 weeks after surgery (p < .01).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that SPAL-SH is a feasible and safe alternative to standard MPAL-SH in selected patients. Ongoing refinement of the surgical technique and instrumentation is likely to expand its role in gynecologic surgery in the future. In addition, SPAL-SH has a definite benefit in relation to body image and cosmesis.