Users Online : 564 About us |  Subscribe |  e-Alerts  | Feedback | Login   |   
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery Current Issue | Archives | Ahead Of Print Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
           Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
  Search
 
  
     Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Gozukucuk M
    -  Karasu Y
    -  Kaya SM
    -  Yangır E
    -  Üstün Y
    Article in PDF
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


   Abstract
  Introduction
   Materials and Me...
  Results
  Discussion
  Conclusion
   References
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed238    
    PDF Downloaded10    

Recommend this journal

 

Previous Article  Table of Contents   Next Article  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year :   |  Volume :   |  Issue :   |  Page :
 

Conventional versus single-incision laparoscopy for the surgical treatment of ovarian torsion


1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ankara Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, VM Medical Park Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

Date of Submission28-Mar-2021
Date of Decision31-Jul-2021
Date of Web Publication22-Oct-2021

Correspondence Address:
Murat Gozukucuk,
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ankara Training and Research Hospital, Ulucanlar Street No: 89, Altındağ, Ankara
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_114_21

  Abstract 


Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of single-incision laparoscopy with conventional laparoscopy in cases of ovarian torsion.
Materials and Methods: Patients who were surgically treated for ovarian torsion in our clinic were retrospectively analysed. The demographic information and surgical records of the patients were obtained from the patient files. Patients treated with single-incision laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy were compared in terms of demographic characteristics, surgical procedure performed, duration of surgery, amount of bleeding, laboratory results, post-operative pain scores and length of hospital stay.
Results: There were 19 patients in the single-incision laparoscopy and 30 in the conventional laparoscopy groups. The two groups were similar in terms of age, obstetric history and body mass index (P > 0.05). The mean operation time was 56.26 ± 15.34 min in the single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) group and 55.07 ± 10.78 min in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of complications, duration of hospital stay, pre- and post-operative haematocrit difference and visual analogue scale-pain scores at hours 0, 6, 12 and 24 (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: SILS appears to be as feasible, effective and safe as conventional laparoscopy in the treatment of ovarian torsion cases.


Keywords: Conventional, laparoscopic surgery, ovarian torsion, single incision



How to cite this URL:
Gozukucuk M, Karasu Y, Kaya SM, Yangır E, Üstün Y. Conventional versus single-incision laparoscopy for the surgical treatment of ovarian torsion. J Min Access Surg [Epub ahead of print] [cited 2021 Dec 9]. Available from: https://www.journalofmas.com/preprintarticle.asp?id=329034





  Introduction Top


Ovarian torsion is defined as the complete or partial bending of the ovaries on ovarian ligaments, resulting in the disruption of circulation. It is more common in post-menarche patients; however, it can occur at all ages and is the fifth most common gynaecological emergency.[1] Torsion may also be seen in normal ovaries, although it has been shown that the risk of torsion increases in pelvic masses exceeding 5 cm.[2]

In the past, oophorectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy was usually performed in case of torsion, but today, the preservation of the adnexa is essential.[3] Therefore, the early diagnosis and correction of torsion are very important for preserving ovarian function. In the treatment of ovarian torsion, laparoscopic surgery can be performed at all ages and is less invasive. The duration of hospital stay and post-operative pain are less. Patients can return to daily life more quickly.[4]

Various techniques are used to improve the surgical outcomes of minimally invasive surgery. One of the widely used minimally invasive techniques is single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), which has a history dating back to the 1970s.[5] The major advantage of SILS is that multichannel trocars require only a single abdominal incision in the umbilical region with the advances in technology.

Studies in the literature have shown no difference in complication rates between conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) and SILS in various gynaecological procedures; however, different results have been reported for the two methods in terms of operation time.[4],[5],[6] SILS has also been considered in the surgical treatment of ovarian torsion, but it has not yet been compared with the standard laparoscopic approach. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare SILS with CLS in the surgical treatment of ovarian torsion.


  Materials and Methods Top


After receiving approval from the institutional ethics committee, this retrospective case–control study was conducted with patients who were surgically treated for ovarian torsion in the Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic of a tertiary Training and Research Hospital between January 2015 and December 2020. The files and records of patients who underwent surgery with a pre-diagnosis of ovarian torsion and were intraoperatively confirmed to have torsion were retrospectively screened.

Age, gravida and parity, body mass index (BMI), complaints, gynaecological and abdominal examination and radiological findings at presentation, pre- and post-operative laboratory parameters, post-operative visual analogue scale (VAS)-pain scores at hours 0, 6, 12 and 24 h after surgery, requirement of an additional analgesic dose and duration of hospital stay were recorded retrospectively. For post-operative analgesia, all patients received 25 mg dexketoprofen (Deksalgin 25 mg/tb, Nobel İlaç, Istanbul, Turkey) during wakening, followed by oral administration every 12 h for 24 h routinely. An additional 25 mg dexketoprofen (Deksalgin 50 mg/amp, Nobel İlaç, Istanbul, Turkey) was administered to when required and noted as an additional analgesic dose.

The types of operations were examined from the operation records, and those involving the use of single port and conventional methods were determined. During SILS, a 20-mm intraumbilical incision was performed, and the Covidien SILS port (Tyco Healthcare Pty Ltd, Lane Cove, NSW) was placed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Then, the port was equipped with a 10-mm camera and 5-mm laparoscopic instruments. In CLS, after the umbilical incision, a 10-mm trocar was inserted for the camera, and then, at least one auxiliary 5-mm trocar for the other instruments was placed at a different point in the abdomen. The type of surgery performed, operation time, complications and final pathology results were recorded. The patients were examined in two groups as SILS and CLS, and the data obtained from the two groups were compared.

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS for Windows, version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The differences between the numerical variables of the two groups were analysed using the t-test as a parametric method and the Mann–Whitney U test as a non-parametric method. The differences between two or more categorical variables were analysed using Fisher's exact test. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


  Results Top


The data of 62 patients with an intraoperatively confirmed diagnosis of ovarian torsion were recorded retrospectively. Thirteen patients (21.0%) were treated by laparotomy and 49 (79.0%) laparoscopically. SILS was applied to 19 patients (38.8%), and the conventional method was used in 30 (61.2%). There was no significant difference between the ages of the two groups (27.53 ± 8.79 years in the SILS group and 27.47 ± 9.01 years in the CLS group) (P > 0.05). The demographic characteristics and clinical manifestations of the patients in the two groups are listed in [Table 1].
Table 1: Demographic characteristics and findings at the time of presentation

Click here to view


The mean operation time was 56.08 ± 14.02 min in all patients, 56.26 ± 15.34 min in the SILS group and 55.07 ± 10.78 min in the CLS group (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of operation time, complications, duration of hospitalisation, differences between pre- and post-operative haematocrit difference, VAS-pain scores at hours 0, 6, 12 and 24 h and requirement of an additional analgesic dose (P > 0.05) [Table 2].
Table 2: Data related to the operation and the post-operative period

Click here to view


While only detorsion was performed in 19 (38.8%) of the 49 patients, detorsion and ovarian cyst excision were performed in 24 (49.8%) patients. The surgical operations performed are shown in [Table 2]. In both the SILS and CLS groups, the operation time of the patients who underwent cystectomy with ovarian detorsion was significantly longer than those that underwent ovarian detorsion alone (48.32 ± 7.85 and 64.08 ± 11.84, respectively) (P < 0.001). However, when the pathology results of these patients were examined, it was found that the content of the cyst did not affect the duration of the operation and the other post-operative parameters (P > 0.05).


  Discussion Top


Early diagnosis and treatment are important in ovarian torsion, and laparoscopy is generally preferred as a minimally invasive method in surgical interventions as in other gynaecological operations. Today, SILS is increasingly used in the treatment of gynaecological pathologies;[7],[8] however, there are not many studies in the literature investigating the effectiveness of SILS in the treatment of ovarian torsion. To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing SILS with CLS in the treatment of ovarian torsion.

In some studies on the treatment of adnexal masses, SILS has been shown to be effective and safe.[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] Dursun et al. and Lee et al. used SILS safely in pregnant patients with ovarian torsion,[13],[14] and Lancher et al. also reported that they safely performed SILS in seven cases of ovarian torsion.[15]

In a meta-analysis covering a total of 21 publications, of which 6 belonged to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 were cohort studies, SILS and CLS were compared in terms of various parameters, and only 3 found single-incision laparoscopy to take 6.97 min longer than conventional laparoscopy.[6] It was noteworthy that these studies with higher operative time were RCTs investigating cases that underwent adnexal surgery. The authors explained this diversity with small sample sizes and severe limitations of the RCT design. Considering that the operation time is closely related to multiple patient factors (e.g. BMI, uterine size, surgical history, pathology and surgical procedure), it can be stated that the operation time does not actually differ between the two methods in gynaecological surgery, and this is also valid in the treatment of ovarian torsion, as shown in our study.

It has been reported that the reduction in the number or size of incisions was associated with better results in healing time, pain after surgery and cosmetic satisfaction.[16] However, with a few exceptions,[7],[17],[18] it has been shown that post-operative pain in single-incision laparoscopy does not differ from the conventional method in gynaecological surgery,[6] and we also found similar findings in ovarian torsion. In a recent meta-analysis comparing SILS and CLS in benign ovarian masses, the post-operative pain scores using VAS at 4 h after the end of surgery were evaluated in seven studies including 1033 patients, and there was no significant difference between the two groups. However, a significant difference was reported in relation to post-operative analgesic consumption, with the SILS group requiring a lower analgesic dose.[19] In our study, there was no difference in the VAS pain scores, and we also found similar additional analgesic dose requirements for the two groups. Pain sensation is related to several factors, including the amount of gas remaining in the abdomen after laparoscopic surgery, temperature of gas and irrigation fluid used, coagulation or direct tissue trauma, number and size of the ports used and patient-related factors.[11] It is not easy to objectively determine the difference between the two techniques in terms of pain since it is not possible to minimise sociocultural and individual differences between the patients.

It has been suggested that there is no significant difference in the risk of complications between SILS and CLS for gynaecologic surgery.[6] In another meta-analysis comparing the use of SILS and CLS in ectopic pregnancy, it was revealed that there was no difference in surgical outcomes.[4] Similarly, in laparoscopic operations performed, we did not see any complications between the two groups, and there was also no difference in surgical results.

A longer learning curve, limited field of view and longer operating time are the main limitations of SILS.[20] Some authors have reported that SILS is practically more difficult due to the loss of triangulation (greatest challenge in SILS) caused by the proximity of instruments.[21],[22],[23] Thus, some researchers have considered that strict patient selection criteria should be applied,[24] including smaller adnexal masses, no obesity and no previous history of abdominal surgery.[25] However, in a recent meta-analysis,[19] no significant difference was observed in these characteristics of the patients between SILS and CLS, and disease and patient characteristics were not considered to be a limitation of SILS.[26] In our study, the adnexal masses were significantly larger in the SILS group than in the CLS group, but the other characteristics of the patients were similar. While we acknowledge the presence of certain difficulties, we do not think that they are enough to make a decision against SILS in the treatment of patients with ovarian torsion.


  Conclusion Top


SILS presents as a minimally invasive method that can be safely preferred in cases of ovarian torsion, but well-designed and larger randomised controlled studies are needed to confirm our results.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Kives S, Gascon S, Dubuc É, Van Eyk N. No. 341-diagnosis and management of adnexal torsion in children, adolescents, and adults. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2017;39:82-90.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Riccabona M, Lobo ML, Ording-Muller LS, Thomas Augdal A, Fred Avni E, Blickman J, et al. European Society of Paediatric Radiology abdominal imaging task force recommendations in paediatric uroradiology, Part IX: Imaging in anorectal and cloacal malformation, imaging in childhood ovarian torsion, and efforts in standardising paediatric uroradiology terminology. Pediatr Radiol 2017;47:1369-80.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Adnexal Torsion in Adolescents: ACOG Committee Opinion No, 783. Obstet Gynecol 2019;134:e56-63.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Gasparri ML, Mueller MD, Taghavi K, Papadia A. Conventional versus single port laparoscopy for the surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy: A meta-analysis. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2018;83:329-37.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Pontis A, Sedda F, Mereu L, Podda M, Melis GB, Pisanu A, et al. Review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparo-endoscopic single site and multiport laparoscopy in gynecologic operative procedures. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016;294:567-77.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Murji A, Patel VI, Leyland N, Choi M. Single-incision laparoscopy in gynecologic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:819-28.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Karasu Y, Akselim B, Kavak Cömert D, Ergün Y, Ülker K. Comparison of single-incision and conventional laparoscopic surgery for benign adnexal masses. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2017;26:278-83.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Wang SY, Yin L, Guan XM, Xiao BB, Zhang Y, Delgado A. Single port transumbilical laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for benign adnexal masses: A retrospective study of feasibility and safety. Chin Med J (Engl) 2016;129:1305-10.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Huang BS, Wang PH, Tsai HW, Hsu TF, Yen MS, Chen YJ. Single-port compared with conventional laparoscopic cystectomy for ovarian dermoid cysts. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2014;53:523-9.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Oh NJ, Kim WY. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for large benign adnexal tumors: One surgeon's experience over one-year period. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2014;41:319-22.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Yoo EH, Shim E. Single-port access compared with three-port laparoscopic adnexal surgery in a randomized controlled trial. J Int Med Res 2013;41:673-80.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
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;36:64-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Dursun P, Gülümser C, Cağlar M, Araz C, Zeyneloğlu H, Haberal A. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for acute adnexal pathology during pregnancy: Preliminary experience. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013;26:1282-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Lee JH, Lee JR, Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim SH. Safety and feasibility of a single-port laparoscopic adnexal surgery during pregnancy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013;20:864-70.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Lacher M, Kuebler JF, Yannam GR, Aprahamian CJ, Perger L, Beierle EA, et al. Single-incision pediatric endosurgery for ovarian pathology. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2013;23:291-6.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Schwenk W, Neudecker J, Mall J, Böhm B, Müller JM. Prospective randomized blinded trial of pulmonary function, pain, and cosmetic results after laparoscopic vs microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2000;14:345-8.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Eom JM, Choi JS, Choi WJ, Kim YH, Lee JH. Does single-port laparoscopic surgery reduce postoperative pain in women with benign gynecologic disease? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2013;23:999-1005.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Chen YJ, Wang PH, Ocampo EJ, Twu NF, Yen MS, Chao KC. Single-port compared with conventional laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:906-12.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Lin Y, Liu M, Ye H, He J, Chen J. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for benign ovarian masses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2020;10:e032331.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Rettenmaier MA, Abaid LN, Erwin MR, John CR, Micha JP, Brown JV 3rd, et al. A retrospective review of the GelPort system in single-port access pelvic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2009;16:743-7.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Brown-Clerk B, de Laveaga AE, LaGrange CA, Wirth LM, Lowndes BR, Hallbeck MS. Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery: Comparison of surgical port performance in a surgical simulator with novices. Surg Endosc 2011;25:2210-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Scerbo MW, Britt RC, Stefanidis D. Differences in mental workload between traditional and single-incision laparoscopic procedures measured with a secondary task. Am J Surg 2017;213:244-8.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Koca D, Yıldız S, Soyupek F, Günyeli İ, Erdemoglu E, Soyupek S, et al. Physical and mental workload in single-incision laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopy. Surg Innov 2015;22:294-302.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Fan X, Lin T, Xu K, Yin Z, Huang H, Dong W, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2012;62:601-12.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Moulton L, Jernigan AM, Carr C, Freeman L, Escobar PF, Michener CM. Single-port laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology: Seven years of experience at a single institution. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;217:610.e1-610.e8.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Corrado G, Cutillo G, Pomati G, Mancini E, Baiocco E, Patrizi L, et al. Single-access laparoscopic approach in the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer: A single-institution experience and review of literature. J Minim Access Surg 2016;12:360-5.  Back to cited text no. 26
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous Article  Next Article

    

2004 Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 15th August '04