title: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  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), I2= 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), I2= 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), I2= 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.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Gynecology, Minimally Invasive Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Evelien M
authors.initials: EM
authors.lastname: Sandberg
authors.affiliation: Department of Gynecology, Minimally Invasive Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Claire F
authors.initials: CF
authors.lastname: la Chapelle
authors.affiliation: Department of Gynecology, Minimally Invasive Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Marjolein M
authors.initials: MM
authors.lastname: van den Tweel
authors.affiliation: Walaeus Library, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Jan W
authors.initials: JW
authors.lastname: Schoones
authors.affiliation: Department of Gynecology, Minimally Invasive Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands. f.w.jansen@lumc.nl.|Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. f.w.jansen@lumc.nl.
authors.forename: Frank Willem
authors.initials: FW
authors.lastname: Jansen
mesh_terms: D015331:Cohort Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007044:Hysterectomy / Q000379:methods*; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D019060:Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods; D016017:Odds Ratio; D061646:Operative Time; D010149:Postoperative Pain / Q000453:epidemiology; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000453:epidemiology; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
keywords: Conventional laparoscopy; Hysterectomy; LESS; Single-port surgery