Document Detail

Minilaparoscopic versus Single-Port Total Hysterectomy: A Randomized Trial.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  23332717     Owner:  NLM     Status:  Publisher    
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative outcomes and postoperative pain of minilaparoscopic (M-LPS) and laparoendoscopic single-site total hysterectomy (LESS). DESIGN: Prospectively randomized study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome. PATIENTS: A total of 86 patients underwent total hysterectomy. Seventy-one met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Three of them refused randomization, 34 were randomly assigned to undergo to single-port hysterectomy and 34 to undergo to minilaparoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: The operative technique is the same in the 2 groups with the exception of videolaparoscopy, port type, and some specific instruments. All surgical procedures were performed with an intrauterine manipulator. Single-port hysterectomy was performed through a multichannel single trocar inserted in the umbilicus. Minilaparoscopic hysterectomy was performed through one optical transumbilical 5-mm trocar and three 3-mm suprapubic ancillary ports. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the study. The baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were comparable. Median operative time was longer in LESS with respect to M-LPS (120 minutes vs 90 minutes; p = .038). There were no differences between the 2 groups for median estimated blood loss, ileus, and postoperative stay. Additional 5-mm port insertion was needed in 1 case (2.9%) in the M-LPS group and in 2 cases (5.9%) in the LESS group, respectively (p = .311). No patient had development of intraoperative or early postoperative complications. Patients in the M-LPS group experienced a minor pain at each evaluation, compared with patients who underwent LESS. The rescue analgesic requirement was similar in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic hysterectomy can be safely performed by M-LPS and LESS. M-LPS is associated with significantly lower operative time and less postoperative pain than LESS. Advantages of M-LPS hysterectomy than LESS have no noteworthy impact on the patients' early postoperative management. The decision on the best access to the hysterectomy might take into account the surgeon's skill and feeling with the different possible approaches.
Francesco Fanfani; Anna Fagotti; Maria Lucia Gagliardi; Giorgia Monterossi; Cristiano Rossitto; Barbara Costantini; Salvatore Gueli Alletti; Giuseppe Vizzielli; Alfredo Ercoli; Giovanni Scambia
Related Documents :
24212407 - Systematic review and meta-analysis of balloon angioplasty versus primary stenting in t...
23972537 - Comparison of bivalirudin with heparin versus abciximab with heparin for primary percut...
10503557 - Cyclosporin and sulfasalazine combination in the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis.
10898067 - Methotrexate in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis.
19541577 - Biliary diseases in heart transplanted patients: a comparison between cyclosporine a ve...
15276517 - Operative outcome of simultaneous carotid and valvular surgery.
Publication Detail:
Type:  JOURNAL ARTICLE     Date:  2013-1-17
Journal Detail:
Title:  Journal of minimally invasive gynecology     Volume:  -     ISSN:  1553-4669     ISO Abbreviation:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol     Publication Date:  2013 Jan 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2013-1-21     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101235322     Medline TA:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol     Country:  -    
Other Details:
Languages:  ENG     Pagination:  -     Citation Subset:  -    
Copyright Information:
Copyright © 2013 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. Electronic address:
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Interventions to minimise the initial use of indwelling urinary catheters in acute care: A systemati...
Next Document:  Early ambulation after diagnostic transfemoral catheterisation: A systematic review and meta-analysi...