Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sandberg, Evelien M., la Chapelle, Claire F., van den Tweel, Marjolein M., Schoones, Jan W., Jansen, Frank Willem
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388711/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28357561
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4323-y
_version_ 1782521162148872192
author Sandberg, Evelien M.
la Chapelle, Claire F.
van den Tweel, Marjolein M.
Schoones, Jan W.
Jansen, Frank Willem
author_facet Sandberg, Evelien M.
la Chapelle, Claire F.
van den Tweel, Marjolein M.
Schoones, Jan W.
Jansen, Frank Willem
author_sort Sandberg, Evelien M.
collection PubMed
description 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00404-017-4323-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5388711
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53887112017-04-27 Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Sandberg, Evelien M. la Chapelle, Claire F. van den Tweel, Marjolein M. Schoones, Jan W. Jansen, Frank Willem Arch Gynecol Obstet Review 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00404-017-4323-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-03-29 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5388711/ /pubmed/28357561 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4323-y Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Review
Sandberg, Evelien M.
la Chapelle, Claire F.
van den Tweel, Marjolein M.
Schoones, Jan W.
Jansen, Frank Willem
Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388711/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28357561
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4323-y
work_keys_str_mv AT sandbergevelienm laparoendoscopicsinglesitesurgeryversusconventionallaparoscopyforhysterectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lachapelleclairef laparoendoscopicsinglesitesurgeryversusconventionallaparoscopyforhysterectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT vandentweelmarjoleinm laparoendoscopicsinglesitesurgeryversusconventionallaparoscopyforhysterectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT schoonesjanw laparoendoscopicsinglesitesurgeryversusconventionallaparoscopyforhysterectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jansenfrankwillem laparoendoscopicsinglesitesurgeryversusconventionallaparoscopyforhysterectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis