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
Review
. 2023 Mar;160(3):742-750.
doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14412. Epub 2022 Sep 1.

Laparoscopic entry techniques: Which should you prefer?

Diego Raimondo  1 , Antonio Raffone  1   2 , Antonio Travaglino  3 , Stefano Ferla  1   2 , Manuela Maletta  1   2 , Giulia Rovero  1   2 , Federica Renzulli  1   2 , Umberto de Laurentiis  4 , Giulia Borghese  1 , Marco Ambrosio  1 , Paolo Salucci  2 , Paolo Casadio  1 , Antonio Mollo  4 , Renato Seracchioli  1   2
Affiliations
Review

Laparoscopic entry techniques: Which should you prefer?

Diego Raimondo et al. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Despite a debate spanning two decades, no consensus has been achieved about the safest laparoscopic entry technique.

Objectives: To update the evidence about the safety of the main different laparoscopic entry techniques.

Search strategy: Six electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2021.

Selection criteria: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different laparoscopic entry techniques were included.

Data collection and analysis: Entry-related complications and total time for entry were compared among the different methods of entry calculating pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Main results: In total, 25 RCTs (6950 patients) were included. Complications considered were vascular, visceral and omental injury, failed entry, extraperitoneal insufflation, bleeding and infection at the trocar site bleeding, and incisional hernia. Compared to direct trocar, the OR for Veress needle was significantly higher for omental injury (OR 3.65, P < 0.001), for failed entry (OR 4.19, P < 0.001), and for extraperitoneal insufflation (OR 5.29, P < 0.001). Compared to the open method, the OR for Veress needle was significantly higher for omental injury (OR 4.93, P = 0.001), for failed entry (OR 2.99, P < 0.001), for extraperitoneal insufflation (OR 4.77; P = 0.04), and for incisional hernia. Compared to the open method, the OR for direct trocar was significantly lower for visceral injury (OR 0.17, P = 0.002) and for trocar site infection (OR 0.27, P = 0.001).

Conclusions: The direct trocar method may be preferred over Veress needle and open methods as a laparoscopic entry technique since it appears associated to a lower risk of complications.

Keywords: access; complications; guidelines; laparoscopy; minimally invasive; recommendation; safety; surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Forest plot reporting individual and pooled Peto odds ratios with 95% CIs for omental injury using a Veress needle compared to a direct trocar as the laparoscopic entry technique. CI, confidence interval.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Forest plot reporting individual and pooled Peto odds ratios with 95% CIs for failed entry using a Veress needle compared to a direct trocar as the laparoscopic entry technique. CI, confidence interval.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Forest plot reporting individual and pooled Peto odds ratios with 95% CIs for extraperitoneal insufflation using a Veress needle compared to a direct trocar as the laparoscopic entry technique. CI, confidence interval.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Forest plot of mean difference with 95% CIs in total time for entry between a Veress needle and direct trocar as the laparoscopic entry technique. CI, confidence interval.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Forest plot reporting individual and pooled Peto odds ratios with 95% CIs for omental injury using a Veress needle compared to the open technique as the laparoscopic entry technique. CI, confidence interval.
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Forest plot reporting individual and pooled Peto odds ratios with 95% CIs for extraperitoneal insufflation using a Veress needle compared to the open technique as the laparoscopic entry technique. CI, confidence interval.
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7
Forest plot reporting individual and pooled Peto odds ratios with 95% CIs for incisional hernia using a Veress needle compared to the open technique as the laparoscopic entry technique. CI, confidence interval.
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 8
Forest plot reporting individual and pooled Peto odds ratios with 95% CIs for visceral injury using a direct trocar compared to the open technique as the laparoscopic entry technique. CI, confidence interval.
FIGURE 9
FIGURE 9
Forest plot reporting individual and pooled Peto odds ratios with 95% CIs for trocar site infection using a direct trocar compared to the open technique as the laparoscopic entry technique. CI, confidence interval.
FIGURE 10
FIGURE 10
Forest plot of mean difference with 95% CIs in total time for entry between a direct trocar and the open technique as the laparoscopic entry technique. CI, confidence interval.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Siesto G, et al. Use of laparoscopy in older women undergoing gynecologic procedures: is it time to overcome initial concerns? Menopause. 2010;17:96‐103. - PubMed
    1. Canis M, Botchorishvili R, Ang C, et al. When is laparotomy needed in hysterectomy for benign uterine disease? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:38‐43. - PubMed
    1. Jansen FW, Kapiteyn K, Trimpos T, et al. Complication of laparoscopy: a prospective multicentre observational study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104:595‐600. - PubMed
    1. Palmer R. Safety in laparoscopy. J Reprod Med. 1974;13:1‐5. - PubMed
    1. Jansen FW, Kolman W, Bakkum EA, et al. Complications of laparoscopy: an inquiry about closed versus open entry technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:634‐638. - PubMed