Effectiveness of laparoendoscopic surgical treatment with single-site / single-incision laparoscopic surgery method in gynecological practice
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14739/2310-1210.2025.2.317096Keywords:
laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, tubo-ovarian pathologiesAbstract
Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) / single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is considered the effective minimally invasive laparoendoscopic method for solving gynecological problems.
The aim of the study was to clinically analyze and evaluate the main advantages and disadvantages of transumbilical LESS / SILS surgeries used in the surgical treatment of patients with tubo-ovarian pathologies.
Materials and methods. Depending on the tasks and the methods of examination and surgical treatment, patients were divided into 3 large groups: group I (comparison group I) patients underwent laparotomic surgical interventions on the pelvic organs; group II (comparison group II) patients were subjected to classical laparoscopic surgical treatment tactics, and group III (main group) patients underwent minimally invasive LESS / SILS surgeries.
Results. Pain intensity was statistically significantly lower measuring to 1.8 ± 0.1 cm on the Visual Analogue Scale in the postoperative period when applying LESS compared to other methods. The final analysis of intraumbilical scar on the Vancouver Scar Scale has revealed the highest cosmetic effect with a statistically significant score of 0.14 ± 0.08 6 months after LESS. In the long-term postoperative period, the least statistically significant complications have been observed after LESS / SILS with a rate of ventral hernia of 2.1 % and adhesions – 6.3 %.
Conclusions. The main advantages of LESS / SILS compared to laparotomy and laparoscopic surgeries are as follow: reduced blood loss, fewer postoperative complication rates, and faster recovery of patients in the early postoperative period. Since only a single incision is made, the pain sensation is minimal, and patients quicker return to usual daily activities. The main disadvantages of LESS are certain technical difficulties encountered during the procedure, as well as complications (conversion) observed during the intraoperative period. Since complications after LESS are minimal, this method is considered a more optimal approach for patients compared to classical laparoscopy. There is a need to optimize the application and functions of this method in clinical practice.
References
Massimello F, Cela V. Role of single port robotic surgery in gynecology. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2024;95:102497. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2024.102497
Al-Badawi IA, AlOmar O, Albadawi N, Abu-Zaid A. Single-port laparoscopic surgery for benign salpingo-ovarian pathology: a single-center experience from Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med. 2016;36(1):64-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2016.26.1.1200
Nakayama K, Yoshimura Y, Razia S, Yamashita H, Ishibashi T, Ishikawa M, et al. Single-port laparoscopic surgery for ovarian cystectomy: A single-center analysis of 25 cases. Mol Clin Oncol. 2021;15(2):160. doi: https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2021.2322
Schmitt A, Crochet P, Pivano A, Tourette C, Faust C, Baumstarck K, et al. The Effects of a Laparoscopy by Single-Port Endoscopic Access in Benign Adnexal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2024;31(5):397-405. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2024.01.017
Morcos RK, Oliveira Souza Lima SR, Bokhari SF, Almadhoun MK, Patel M, Hlyan NP. A Comprehensive Analysis of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Trends, Challenges, and Future Directions. Cureus. 2024;16(2):e54493. doi: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.54493
Kim JM, Lee SM, Seol A, Song JY, Ryu KJ, Lee S, et al. Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Port Laparoscopic Surgery and Da Vinci Single-Port Robotic Surgery. J Pers Med. 2023;13(2):205. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13020205
Han L, Wan Q, Chen Y, Zheng A. Single-Port Laparoscopic Surgery for Adnexal Mass Removal During Pregnancy: The Initial Experience of a Single Institute. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;8:800180. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.800180
Gafarov IA. Biostatistics. Baku: Tebib; 2022.
Lathouras K, Saso S, Jones BP, Bowden S, Kyrgiou M, Stienen-Durand A, et al. Transvaginal laparoscopic salpingo-oophorectomy: an oncological risk-reducing procedure. Future Sci OA. 2019;6(1):FSO429. doi: https://doi.org/10.2144/fsoa-2019-0089
Carlson S, Batra S, Billow M, El-Nashar SA, Chapman G. Perioperative Complications of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Pelvic Inflammatory Disease. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28(5):1060-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.488
Shigemi D, Matsui H, Fushimi K, Yasunaga H. Laparoscopic Compared With Open Surgery for Severe Pelvic Inflammatory Disease and Tubo-Ovarian Abscess. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(6):1224-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003259
Kim JS, Lee IO, Eoh KJ, Chung YS, Lee I, Lee JY, et al. Surgical technique for single-port laparoscopy in huge ovarian tumors: SW Kim's technique and comparison to laparotomy. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2017;60(2):178-86. doi: https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2017.60.2.178
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ilaha Ariz Guliyeva
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 
