title: Single-incision laparoscopy in gynecologic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate surgical outcomes for gynecologic surgery performed by single-incision laparoscopy compared with conventional multi-incision laparoscopy.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinicaltrials.gov through August 2012. We also screened reference lists of retrieved articles and manually searched abstracts from conference proceedings.
  
  
  METHODS
  We included randomized control trials (RCTs) and high-quality observational studies that compared outcomes for single-incision laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy for gynecologic surgery in patients. Included studies met predefined quality criteria and reported, at minimum, on complications, conversions, and operative time. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, RESULTS: Six RCTs and 15 observational studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 2,085 patients (899 single-incision laparoscopies and 1,186 conventional laparoscopies). In the pooled analysis, there was no significant difference in the risk of total complications between single-incision laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy groups (relative risk 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-1.40; P=.97, random effects model). The meta-analysis was powered to detect a 5% difference in complications (power=0.8, alpha=0.05). Mean operative time for adnexal surgery performed by single-incision laparoscopy was 6.97 minutes longer than conventional laparoscopy (95% CI 0.16-13.77; P=.045; I=47.2; random effects based on three RCTs). There was no significant difference in mean operative time for hysterectomy procedures performed by single-incision laparoscopy (8.29 minutes, 95% CI -5.85 to 22.43; P=.251; I=83.6; random effects based on three RCTs). Clinical outcomes of postoperative pain, change in hemoglobin, length of hospital stay, and scar cosmesis could not be pooled because of paucity of data and lack of uniform reporting.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There was no difference in the risk of complications between single-incision laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy approaches in gynecologic surgery. Studies with imprecise effect sizes suggest that single-incision laparoscopy may have longer operative time for adnexal surgery, but not for hysterectomy. Effects on other surgical outcomes remain uncertain.
authors: Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; and the Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
authors: Ally
authors: A
authors: Murji
authors: Virendra I
authors: VI
authors: Patel
authors: Nicholas
authors: N
authors: Leyland
authors: Matthew
authors: M
authors: Choi
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D013509:Gynecologic Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000379:methods*
references: Wheeless CR. Elimination of second incision in laparoscopic sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 1972;39:134–6.
references: Pelosi MA, Pelosi MA III. Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy using a single-umbilical puncture (mini-laparoscopy). J Reprod Med 1992;37:777–84.
references: Jackson T, Einarsson J. Single-port gynecologic surgery. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2010;3:133–9.
references: Uppal S, Frumovitz M, Escobar P, Ramirez PT. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology: review of literature and available technology. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011;18:12–23.
references: Fader AN, Levinson KL, Gunderson CC, Winder AD, Escobar PF. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynaecology: a new frontier in minimally invasive surgery. J Minim Access Surg 2011;7:71–7.
references: Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, Treadwell JR, Reston JT, Bass EB, et al.. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions—agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:513–23.
references: Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5:13.
references: Jung YW, Lee M, Yim GW, Lee SH, Paek JH, Kwon HY, et al.. A randomized prospective study of single-port and four-port approaches for hysterectomy in terms of postoperative pain. Surg Endosc 2011;25:2462–9.
references: Im KS, Koo YJ, Kim JB, Kwon YS. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for adnexal tumors: a comparison of surgical outcomes and postoperative pain outcomes. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2011;27:91–5.
references: Hoyer-Sørensen C, Vistad I, Ballard K. Is single-port laparoscopy for benign adnexal disease less painful than conventional laparoscopy? A single-center randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2012;98:973–9.
references: Cho YJ, Kim ML, Lee SY, Lee HS, Kim JM, Joo KY. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for adnexal preservation: a randomized controlled study. Int J Womens Health 2012;4:85–91.
references: Chen YJ, Wang PH, Ocampo EJ, Twu NF, Yen MS, Chao KC. Single-port compared with conventional laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:906–12.
references: Li M, Han Y, Feng YC. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a prospective randomized trial. J Int Med Res 2012;40:701–8.
references: Bedaiwy MA, Starks D, Hurd W, Escobar PF. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in patients with benign adnexal disease: a comparative study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2012;73:294–8.
references: Fagotti A, Rossitto C, Marocco F, Gallotta V, Bottoni C, Scambia G, et al.. Perioperative outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) versus conventional laparoscopy for adnexal disease: a case-control study. Surg Innov 2011;18:29–33.
references: Kavallaris A, Chalvatzas N, Hornemann A, Luedders D, Diedrich K, Bohlmann MK. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS)—is it feasible in gynecological surgery? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011;90:195–7.
references: Lee YY, Kim TJ, Kim CJ, Park HS, Choi CH, Lee JW, et al.. Single port access laparoscopic adnexal surgery versus conventional laparoscopic adnexal surgery: a comparison of peri-operative outcomes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010;151:181–4.
references: Marcelli M, Lamourdedieu C, Lazard A, Cravello L, Gamerre M, Agostini A. Salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy by transumbilical single-site laparoscopy with the SILS system. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012;162:67–70.
references: Yoon BS, Park H, Seong SJ, Park CT, Jun HS, Kim IH. Single-port versus conventional laparoscopic salpingectomy in tubal pregnancy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;159:190–3.
references: Jung MH, Lee BY. Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy via 12-mm trocar incision site. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2011;21:599–602.
references: Kim TJ, Lee YY, Cha HH, Kim CJ, Choi CH, Lee JW, et al.. Single-port-access laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a comparison of perioperative outcomes. Surg Endosc 2010;24:2248–52.
references: Koyanagi T, Motomura S. Single-incision laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy: operative outcomes and its learning curve. Exp Ther Med 2011;2:867–71.
references: Lee JH, Choi JS, Jeon SW, Son CE, Hong JH, Bae JW. A prospective comparison of single-port laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy using transumbilical GelPort access and multiport laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;158:294–7.
references: Wang T, Chong GO, Park NY, Hong DG, Lee YS. Comparison study of single-port (Octoport™) and four-port total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012;161:215–8.
references: Escobar PF, Frumovitz M, Soliman PT, Frasure HE, Fader AN, Schmeler KM, et al.. Comparison of single-port laparoscopy, standard laparoscopy, and robotic surgery in patients with endometrial cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:1583–8.