Single-Port Laparoscopy vs Conventional Laparoscopy in Benign Adnexal Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Single-port laparoscopy (SPL) was developed approximately 30 years ago in minimally invasive surgery. Literature comparing SPL with conventional laparoscopy (CL) for adnexal surgery (i.e., cystectomy and adnexectomy) is inconsistent. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the advantage of SPL over CL for adnexal surgery. PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE were searched for publications in English and in French published between 1975 and November 2015 using the following key words: (((single port) or (single site) or (one port) or (single-port access laparoscopy) or (single-site laparoscopy) or (laparoscopic single-site surgery)) and ((adnexal disease) or (ovarian cystectomy) or (ovariectomy) or (adnexectomy))) not (pregnancy). The primary outcome was postoperative pain assessed at 24 hours postsurgery. The secondary outcomes were postoperative pain at 6 and 48 hours postsurgery, analgesic consumption, operative time, blood loss, laparotomy conversion rate, mean hospital stay, and cosmetic results at 1 month. Sixteen relevant articles were identified by electronic search. The pooled analysis of randomized trials showed no significant difference between SPL and CL in terms of postoperative pain at 6 and 24 hours, blood loss, mean length of hospital stay, cosmetic results, and laparotomy conversion rate; however, operative time was longer for SPL (p = .03). The pooled analysis including all the selected studies showed no significant difference for all of these outcomes. This review and meta-analysis found no significant difference between SPL and CL for adnexal surgery, except for operative time. Further large-scale randomized trials should be conducted to investigate the potential advantages of SPL over CL before this laparoscopic approach can be recommended.

Keywords: Adnexal disease; Laparoscopic; Meta-analysis; Single incision; Single port; Single site.