Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 8/2011

01-08-2011

A randomized prospective study of single-port and four-port approaches for hysterectomy in terms of postoperative pain

Authors: Yong Wook Jung, Maria Lee, Ga Won Yim, San Hui Lee, Ji Heum Paek, Ha Yan Kwon, Eun Ji Nam, Sang Wun Kim, Young Tae Kim

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 8/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to compare single-port transumbilical total laparoscopic hysterectomy (SPLS-TLH) and four-port total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) in terms of postoperative pain.

Methods

The study enrolled 68 patients who underwent TLH from October 2009 to March 2010 and randomly assigned them to one of two groups. Patient demographics, operative outcomes, and postoperative pain were prospectively examined.

Results

Four cases in the SPLS-TLH group were converted to other laparoscopic approaches. The two study groups did not differ in terms of patient demographics and surgical outcomes. Postoperative pain scores, measured using a visual analog scale, did not differ between the two groups. However, significantly higher total requests for analgesics were observed in the SPLS-TLH group (11.3 ± 4.1 vs. 7.7 ± 2.7; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Compared with four-port TLH, SPLS-TLH is a feasible approach with comparable operative outcomes. However, reduction of postoperative pain is not evident with SPLS-TLH.
Literature
1.
Wu JM, Wechter ME, Geller EJ, Nguyen TV, Visco AG (2007) Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003. Obstet Gynecol 110:1091–1095PubMedCrossRef
2.
Johnson N, Barlow D, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R (2006) Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD003677
3.
Pelosi MA, Pelosi MA III (1991) Laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy using a single umbilical puncture. N J Med 88:721–726PubMed
4.
Lee YY, Kim TJ, Kim CJ, Kang H, Choi CH, Lee JW, Kim BG, Lee JH, Bae DS (2009) Single-port access laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a novel method with a wound retractor and a glove. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16:450–453PubMedCrossRef
5.
Lim MC, Kim TJ, Kang S, Bae DS, Park SY, Seo SS (2009) Embryonic natural orifice transumbilical endoscopic surgery (E-NOTES) for adnexal tumors. Surg Endosc 23:2445–2449PubMedCrossRef
6.
Jung YW, Kim SW, Kim YT (2009) Recent advances of robotic surgery and single-port laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology. J Gynecol Oncol 20:137–144PubMedCrossRef
7.
Jung YW, Kim YT, Lee DW, Hwang YI, Nam EJ, Kim JH, Kim SW (2010) The feasibility of scarless single-port transumbilical total laparoscopic hysterectomy: initial clinical experience. Surg Endosc 24:1686–1692PubMedCrossRef
8.
Fader AN, Escobar PF (2009) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) in gynecologic oncology: technique and initial report. Gynecol Oncol 114:157–161PubMedCrossRef
9.
Breivik H, Borchgrevink PC, Allen SM, Rosseland LA, Romundstad L, Hals EK, Kvarstein G, Stubhaug A (2008) Assessment of pain. Br J Anaesth 101:17–24PubMedCrossRef
10.
Kim TJ, Lee YY, Cha HH, Kim CJ, Choi CH, Lee JW, Bae DS, Lee JH, Kim BG (2010) Single-port access laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a comparison of perioperative outcomes. Surg Endosc 24:2248–2252PubMedCrossRef
11.
Tsimoyiannis EC, Tsimogiannis KE, Pappas-Gogos G, Farantos C, Benetatos N, Mavridou P, Manataki A (2010) Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 24:1842–1848PubMedCrossRef
12.
Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J (2000) Pain after microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized double-blind controlled study. Surg Endosc 14:340–344PubMedCrossRef
13.
Leggett PL, Churchman-Winn R, Miller G (2000) Minimizing ports to improve laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 14:32–36PubMedCrossRef
14.
Poon CM, Chan KW, Lee DW, Chan KC, Ko CW, Cheung HY, Lee KW (2003) Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17:1624–1627PubMedCrossRef
15.
Drahonovsky J, Haakova L, Otcenasek M, Krofta L, Kucera E, Feyereisl J (2010) A prospective randomized comparison of vaginal hysterectomy, laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy, and total laparoscopic hysterectomy in women with benign uterine disease. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 148:172–176PubMedCrossRef
16.
Alexander JI, Hull MG (1987) Abdominal pain after laparoscopy: the value of a gas drain. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 94:267–269PubMedCrossRef
17.
Korell M, Schmaus F, Strowitzki T, Schneeweiss SG, Hepp H (1996) Pain intensity following laparoscopy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 6:375–379PubMedCrossRef
18.
Sharp JR, Pierson WP, Brady CE III (1982) Comparison of CO2- and N2O-induced discomfort during peritoneoscopy under local anesthesia. Gastroenterology 82:453–456PubMed
19.
Vitale GC, Collet D, Larson GM, Cheadle WG, Miller FB, Perissat J (1991) Interruption of professional and home activity after laparoscopic cholecystectomy among French and American patients. Am J Surg 161:396–398PubMedCrossRef
20.
Chow A, Purkayastha S, Aziz O, Paraskeva P (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy: an evolving technique. Surg Endosc 24:709–714PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A randomized prospective study of single-port and four-port approaches for hysterectomy in terms of postoperative pain
Authors
Yong Wook Jung
Maria Lee
Ga Won Yim
San Hui Lee
Ji Heum Paek
Ha Yan Kwon
Eun Ji Nam
Sang Wun Kim
Young Tae Kim
Publication date
01-08-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 8/2011
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1567-z

Other articles of this Issue 8/2011

Surgical Endoscopy 8/2011 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Endoscopic mucosal resection using a cap-fitted panendoscope and endoscopic submucosal dissection as optimal endoscopic procedures for superficial esophageal carcinoma

OriginalPaper

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional option after gastric band failure

Letter

Proximal gastric cancer: advances of laparoscopic surgery

OriginalPaper

Collagen–elastin ratio predicts burst pressure of arterial seals created using a bipolar vessel sealing device in a porcine model

Dynamic Manuscript

Multiple nerve blocks after video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS)

OriginalPaper

Survey of opinions on operative management of adhesive small bowel obstruction: laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the state of connecticut