Abstract
To compare the operative outcomes of patients undergoing either single-port or multiport laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH). Two hundred fifty-six women scheduled for LH for symptomatic myoma and/or adenomyosis from 8 tertiary teaching hospitals were randomized to single-port or multiport groups. Primary outcome was conversion and/or complication proportion of the planned procedure to determine whether the success proportion of the single-port approach was not inferior to that of the multiport approach. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain and operative scar. Demographic parameters including age, body mass index, parity, and history of vaginal and cesarean delivery were comparable between the 2 groups. The primary outcome of a combined conversion and/or complication rate was similar between the single-port and multiport groups at 8% and 10.3%, respectively. Conversions were similar between the groups with 4% of single-port cases and .8% of multiport cases. Transfusions were the most frequent complication required in 4.0% of single-port cases and 7.9% of multiport cases, with no difference between the groups. Concerning secondary outcomes, postoperative pain score and patient and observer scar assessment were not different bet...Continue Reading
References
Jun 25, 2005·BMJ : British Medical Journal·Neil JohnsonRay Garry
Aug 18, 2005·The Journal of International Medical Research·J H KimW Y Kim
Apr 7, 2009·Surgical Endoscopy·John R Romanelli, David B Earle
Jun 30, 2009·Gynecologic Oncology·Pedro T Ramirez
Feb 24, 2010·Surgical Endoscopy·Tae-Joong KimByoung-Gie Kim
Apr 27, 2010·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology·Antonella CromiLuigi Valdatta
Mar 1, 2012·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology·Anna FagottiPedro F Escobar
Jun 9, 2012·Surgical Endoscopy·Francesco FanfaniGiovanni Scambia
Apr 2, 2013·Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology·Taejong SongDuk-Soo Bae
Jul 19, 2013·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology·Taejong SongSeok Ju Seong
Citations
Feb 24, 2016·Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology·Stefano BoglioloBarbara Gardella
May 12, 2016·Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics·Alessandro PontisStefano Angioni
Oct 25, 2016·Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology·Weimin XieLin Zhao
Oct 6, 2016·Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. Part a·Sofie A F FransenNicole D Bouvy
Dec 10, 2016·Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. Part a·Qianqian WangXiaofeng Zhao
Feb 10, 2017·Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology·In Cheul JeungEun Kyung Park
Mar 31, 2017·Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics·Evelien M SandbergFrank Willem Jansen
Mar 21, 2017·Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology·Rosanne M Kho, Mauricio S Abrão
Jan 19, 2017·Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology·Catherine A Matthews
Aug 18, 2017·F1000Research·Marina de Paula AndresMauricio Simões Abrão
Oct 20, 2018·International Journal of Gynecological Cancer : Official Journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society·Hee-Jung JungJoo-Hyun Nam
Mar 26, 2019·Surgical Innovation·Paul TyanGaby N Moawad
Dec 5, 2017·Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics·Marco Aurelio Pinho OliveiraRudy Leon De Wilde
Jul 1, 2017·Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy·Hyun-Jin ChoiDuk-Soo Bae
Mar 28, 2019·Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine·Philipp LirkUNKNOWN PROSPECT Working Group
Dec 22, 2020·Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology·Chad M MichenerLaura M Chambers
Jun 3, 2021·Journal of Clinical Medicine·Liliana MereuSaverio Tateo
Sep 2, 2021·Surgical Innovation·Adel FathiAmr Abouzid