Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 May;295(5):1089-1103.
doi: 10.1007/s00404-017-4323-y. Epub 2017 Mar 29.

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

Evelien M Sandberg  1 , Claire F la Chapelle  1 , Marjolein M van den Tweel  1 , Jan W Schoones  2 , Frank Willem Jansen  3   4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

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

Evelien M Sandberg et al. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017 May.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

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)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

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. - PMC - PubMed
    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. - DOI - PubMed
    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. - DOI - PubMed
    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. - DOI - PubMed
    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. - DOI - PubMed