A Retrospective Study Comparing Operative Time Between Single-Glove Port Laparoscopic Hysterectomy and Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Gynecology Diseases: Hospital-Based Study in Thailand

Watcharin   Chirdchim; Saroch Wannako

doi:10.33165/rmj.2023.46.1.260055

Authors

Watcharin Chirdchim Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Phrapokklao Hospital, Chanthaburi, Thailand
Saroch Wannako Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Phrapokklao Hospital, Chanthaburi, Thailand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33165/rmj.2023.46.1.260055

Keywords:

Operative time, Hysterectomy, Single-glove port, Conventional multiport laparoscopic hysterectomy

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic hysterectomy is popular today. Using a 3- to 4-port for laparoscopic hysterectomy. But laparoscopic hysterectomy can be done by using a single-modified glove port. It was found to have good performance and low price.

Objective: To compare operative time and other surgical outcomes between single-glove port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SGPLH) and conventional multiport laparoscopic hysterectomy (MPLH).

Methods: A retrospective study, data were extracted from medical records of patients diagnosed with benign gynecologic diseases and underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy at Prapokklao Hospital, Chanthaburi, Thailand from February 2016 to April 2021.

Results: A total of 125 patients were divided into 2 groups, 65 (52%) in the SGPLH group and 60 (48%) in the MPLH group. The operative time of SGPLH was significantly shorter than conventional MPLH (mean [SD], 96 [31.35] vs 161.4 [57.37] minutes; P < .001). There was significant difference between 2 groups in terms of previous abdominal surgery (P = .01). In multivariate regression analysis, independent factors correlated with operative time were type of laparoscopic operation (P < .001), additional procedure of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (P = .02), unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (P = .01), and complication with bladder injury (P = .03).

Conclusions: The operative time of SGPLH is shorter than the conventional MPLH. SGPLH is also feasible and economical for patients with symptomatic benign gynecologic diseases.

References

Wheeless CR Jr, Thompson BH. Laparoscopic sterilization. review of 3600 cases. Obstet Gynecol. 1973;42(5):751-758.

Pelosi MA, Pelosi MA 3rd. Laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy using a single umbilical puncture. N J Med. 1991;88(10):721-726.

Bonilla DJ, Mains L, Whitaker R, Crawford B, Finan M, Magnus M. Uterine weight as a predictor of morbidity after a benign abdominal and total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Reprod Med. 2007;52(6):490-498.

Park HS, Kim TJ, Song T, et al. Single-port access (SPA) laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: a surgeon’s experience with an initial 200 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;154(1):81-84. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.09.004

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(5):785-791. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2015.02.022

Xie W, Cao D, Yang J, Yu M, Shen K, Zhao L. Single-port vs multiport laparoscopic hysterectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(7):1049-1056. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2016.08.826

Phongnarisorn C, Chinthakanan O. Transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic hysterectomy with conventional laparoscopic instruments in patients with symptomatic leiomyoma and/or adenomyosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;284(4):893-900. doi:10.1007/s00404-010-1770-0

Wang Y, Zhang S, Li C, Li B, Ouyang L. Minimally invasive surgery for uterine fibroids. Ginekol Pol. 2020;91(3):149-157. doi:10.5603/GP.2020.0032

Song T, Lee Y, Kim ML, et al. Single-port access total laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uterus. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2013;75(1):16-20. doi:10.1159/000341141

Gou J, Li Z, Liao X, Nie D, Xue L, Li L. Single-incision laparoscopic hysterectomy using conventional laparoscopic instruments: initial experience with 25 cases. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;298(5):921-926. doi:10.1007/s00404-018-4858-6

Chung JH, Baek JM, Chung K, et al. 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. 2015;94(12):1290-1296. doi:10.1111/aogs.12767

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(4):460-467. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2013.01.010

Pontis A, Sedda F, Mereu L, et al. 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. 2016;294(3):567-577. doi:10.1007/s00404-016-4108-8

Yang YS, Oh KY, Hur MH, Kim SY, Yim HS. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery using conventional laparoscopic instruments and glove port technique in gynecology: a single surgeon’s experience. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(1):87-93. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2014.07.013

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(1):26.e1-26.e266. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.02.026

Shen H, Torng PL, Chen IH, Hsu HC. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy for uteri greater than 500 grams. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;59(4):502-507. doi:10.1016/j.tjog.2020.05.006

Torng PL, Pan SP, Hsu HC, Chen IH, Hwang JS. GnRHa before single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy in a large barrel-shaped uterus. JSLS. 2019;23(3):e2019.00019. doi:10.4293/JSLS.2019.00019

Jung YW, Kim YT, Lee DW, et al. The feasibility of scarless single-port transumbilical total laparoscopic hysterectomy: initial clinical experience. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(7):1686-1692. doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0830-7