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

Evelien M Sandberg, Claire F la Chapelle, Marjolein M van den Tweel, Jan W Schoones, Frank Willem Jansen, Evelien M Sandberg, Claire F la Chapelle, Marjolein M van den Tweel, Jan W Schoones, Frank Willem Jansen

Abstract

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), I 2 = 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), I 2 = 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), I 2 = 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.

Keywords: Conventional laparoscopy; Hysterectomy; LESS; Single-port surgery.

Conflict of interest statement

Funding

This study was not funded.

Conflict of interest

Evelien Sandberg has received a grant from the Bronovo Research Fund (Bronovo Hospital, The Hague, The Netherlands). The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of the literature search
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Risk of bias summary LESS versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Meta-analysis of complications LESS versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Meta-analysis of complications LESS versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Meta-analysis of pain scores LESS versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Meta-analysis of surgical outcomes from LESS versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy (operative time, blood loss, and length of stay)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Meta-analysis of surgical outcomes from LESS versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy (operative time, blood loss, and length of stay)

References

    1. Aarts JW, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;8:CD003677.
    1. Fader AN, Cohen S, Escobar PF, Gunderson C. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;22:331–338. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e328334d8a3.
    1. Escobar PF, Starks D, Fader AN, Catenacci M, Falcone T. Laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice surgery in gynecology. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2497–2502. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.08.018.
    1. Mencaglia L, Mereu L, Carri G, et al. Single port entry - are there any advantages? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27:441–455. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.12.002.
    1. Fanfani F, Rossitto C, Gagliardi ML, et al. Total laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) hysterectomy in low-risk early endometrial cancer: a pilot study. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:41–46. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-1825-8.
    1. Bush AJ, Morris SN, Millham FH, Isaacson KB. Women’s preferences for minimally invasive incisions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18:640–643. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2011.06.009.
    1. Pelosi MA, Pelosi MA., III Laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy using a single umbilical puncture. N J Med. 1991;88:721–726.
    1. Song T, Kim ML, Jung YW, Yoon BS, Joo WD, Seong SJ. Laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:317–319. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.07.004.
    1. Yang L, Gao J, Zeng L, Weng Z, Luo S (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-port versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 133:9–16
    1. Driessen SR, Baden NL, van Zwet EW, Twijnstra AR, Jansen FW. Trends in the implementation of advanced minimally invasive gynecologic surgical procedures in the Netherlands. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:642–647. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.01.026.
    1. Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Tsui J, et al. Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:233–241. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318299a6cf.
    1. Makinen J, Brummer T, Jalkanen J, et al. Ten years of progress–improved hysterectomy outcomes in Finland 1996–2006: a longitudinal observation study. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003169. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003169.
    1. Kim SM, Park EK, Jeung IC, Kim CJ, Lee YS. Abdominal, multi-port and single-port total laparoscopic hysterectomy: eleven-year trends comparison of surgical outcomes complications of 936 cases. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291:1313–1319. doi: 10.1007/s00404-014-3576-y.
    1. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–2012. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.
    1. Complication registration system of the Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. . Accessed 25 Mar 2017
    1. Joyce CR, Zutshi DW, Hrubes V, Mason RM. Comparison of fixed interval and visual analogue scales for rating chronic pain. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1975;8:415–420. doi: 10.1007/BF00562315.
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence–study limitations (risk of bias) J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:407–415. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017.
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:380–382. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011.
    1. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:13. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-13.
    1. Fridman D, Saraf S, Homel P, Wagner J. Single-incision laparoscopy as the primary approach to benign hysterectomies: a single-surgeon, single-year-experience with a retrospective control. J Gynecol Surg. 2015;31:78–82. doi: 10.1089/gyn.2014.0082.
    1. Angioni S, Pontis A, Pisanu A, Mereu L, Roman H. Single-port access subtotal laparoscopic hysterectomy: a prospective case-control study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:807–812. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.03.011.
    1. Fanfani F, Fagotti A, Rossitto C, et al. Laparoscopic, minilaparoscopic and single-port hysterectomy: perioperative outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:3592–3596. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2377-2.
    1. Chung JH, Baek JM, Chung K et al (2015) A comparison of postoperative pain after transumbilical single-port access and conventional three-port total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 94:1290–1296
    1. Jung YW, Lee M, Yim GW, et al. A randomized prospective study of single-port and four-port approaches for hysterectomy in terms of postoperative pain. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:2462–2469. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1567-z.
    1. Lee J, Kim S, Nam EJ, Hwang SM, Kim YT, Kim SW. Single-port access versus conventional multi-port access total laparoscopic hysterectomy for very large uterus. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2015;58:239–245. doi: 10.5468/ogs.2015.58.3.239.
    1. Li M, Han Y, Feng YC. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a prospective randomized trial. J Int Med Res. 2012;40:701–708. doi: 10.1177/147323001204000234.
    1. Wang T, Chong GO, Park NY, Hong DG, Lee YS. Comparison study of single-port (Octoport) and four-port total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;161:215–218. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.12.028.
    1. Yim GW, Jung YW, Paek J, et al. Transumbilical single-port access versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy: surgical outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:26. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.02.026.
    1. Ichikawa M, Akira S, Mine K, et al. Evaluation of laparoendoscopic single-site gynecologic surgery with a multitrocar access system. J Nippon Med Sch. 2011;78:235–240. doi: 10.1272/jnms.78.235.
    1. Chen YJ, Wang PH, Ocampo EJ, Twu NF, Yen MS, Chao KC. Single-port compared with conventional laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:906–912. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820c666a.
    1. Choi YS, Park JN, Oh YS, Sin KS, Choi J, Eun DS. Single-port vs. conventional multi-port access laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: comparison of surgical outcomes and complications. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;169:366–369. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.03.026.
    1. Eom JM, Choi JS, Choi WJ, Kim YH, Lee JH. Does single-port laparoscopic surgery reduce postoperative pain in women with benign gynecologic disease? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013;23:999–1005. doi: 10.1089/lap.2013.0184.
    1. Hong M-K, Wang J-H, Chu T-Y, Ding D-C. Laparoendoscopic single-site hysterectomy with Ligasure is better than conventional laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2014;3:78–81. doi: 10.1016/j.gmit.2014.08.003.
    1. Jung MH, Lee BY. Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy via 12-mm trocar incision site. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2011;21:599–602. doi: 10.1089/lap.2010.0396.
    1. Kim TJ, Lee YY, Cha HH, et al. Single-port-access laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a comparison of perioperative outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:2248–2252. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-0944-y.
    1. Lee JH, Choi JS, Hong JH, Joo KJ, Kim BY. Does conventional or single port laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy affect female sexual function? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:1410–1415. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01255.x.
    1. Lee JH, Choi JS, Jeon SW, Son CE, Hong JH, Bae JW. A prospective comparison of single-port laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy using transumbilical GelPort access and multiport laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;158:294–297. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.05.002.
    1. Park JY, Nho J, Cho IJ, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy for benign or pre-invasive uterine disease. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:890–897. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3747-8.
    1. Song T, Cho J, Kim TJ, et al. Cosmetic outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site hysterectomy compared with multi-port surgery: randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:460–467. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.01.010.
    1. Koyanagi T, Motomura S. Single-incision laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy: operative outcomes and its learning curve. Exp Ther Med. 2011;2:867–871.
    1. Kim TJ, Shin SJ, Kim TH, et al. 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. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:785–791. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.02.022.
    1. Koyanagi T, Motomura S. Transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic surgery: application to laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283:305–309. doi: 10.1007/s00404-010-1358-8.
    1. Pontis A, Sedda F, Mereu L et al (2016) Review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparo-endoscopic single site and multiport laparoscopy in gynecologic operative procedures. Arch Gynecol Obstet 294:567–577
    1. Giraudeau B, Rozenberg S, Valat JP. Assessment of the clinically relevant change in pain for patients with sciatica. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63:1180–1181. doi: 10.1136/ard.2003.015792.
    1. Song T, Park JY, Kim TJ, et al. A prospective comparative study of cosmetic satisfaction for three different surgical approaches. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;190:48–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.04.014.
    1. Park SK, Olweny EO, Best SL, Tracy CR, Mir SA, Cadeddu JA. Patient-reported body image and cosmesis outcomes following kidney surgery: comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site, laparoscopic, and open surgery. Eur Urol. 2011;60:1097–1104. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.08.007.
    1. Eom JM, Ko JH, Choi JS, Hong JH, Lee JH. A comparative cross-sectional study on cosmetic outcomes after single port or conventional laparoscopic surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;167:104–109. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.11.012.
    1. Tuschy B, Berlit S, Brade J, Sutterlin M, Hornemann A. Gynaecological laparoscopic surgery for benign conditions: do women care about incisions? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;169:84–87. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.02.002.
    1. Kadar N, Reich H, Liu CY, Manko GF, Gimpelson R. Incisional hernias after major laparoscopic gynecologic procedures. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168:1493–1495. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(11)90787-X.
    1. Gunderson CC, Knight J, Ybanez-Morano J, et al. The risk of umbilical hernia and other complications with laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19:40–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2011.09.002.
    1. Mayol J, Garcia-Aguilar J, Ortiz-Oshiro E, De-Diego Carmona JA, Fernandez-Represa JA. Risks of the minimal access approach for laparoscopic surgery: multivariate analysis of morbidity related to umbilical trocar insertion. World J Surg. 1997;21:529–533. doi: 10.1007/PL00012281.
    1. Paek J, Kim SW, Lee SH, et al. Learning curve and surgical outcome for single-port access total laparoscopic hysterectomy in 100 consecutive cases. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2011;72:227–233. doi: 10.1159/000324384.
    1. Driessen SR, Sandberg EM, la Chapelle CF, Twijnstra AR, Rhemrev JP, Jansen FW. Case-mix variables and predictors for outcomes of laparoscopic hysterectomy: a systematic review. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2015.11.008
    1. Laparoscopic Uterine Power Morcellation in Hysterectomy and Myomectomy: FDA Safety Communication. . Accessed 25 Mar 2017

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever