切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2025, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (06) : 348 -353. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6899.2025.06.005

论著

单孔与多孔腹腔镜在巨大子宫肌瘤剔除术中的疗效与安全性对比
钟晓盈, 曹杨, 于昕, 史宏辉, 樊庆泊(), 刘海元()   
  1. 100730 中国医学科学院/北京协和医学院/北京协和医院妇产科/女性健康与妇产疾病国家临床医学研究中心
  • 收稿日期:2025-10-14 出版日期:2025-12-30
  • 通信作者: 樊庆泊, 刘海元
  • 基金资助:
    国家临床重点专科建设项目(U114000)

Comparison of efficacy and safety between single-port and multi-port laparoscopy in the removal of large uterine fibroids

Xiaoying Zhong, Yang Cao, Xin Yu, Honghui Shi, Haiyuan Liu()   

  1. National Clinical Research Center for Women′s Health and Obstetric and Gynecologic Diseases, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, 100730, China
  • Received:2025-10-14 Published:2025-12-30
  • Corresponding author: Haiyuan Liu
引用本文:

钟晓盈, 曹杨, 于昕, 史宏辉, 樊庆泊, 刘海元. 单孔与多孔腹腔镜在巨大子宫肌瘤剔除术中的疗效与安全性对比[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 18(06): 348-353.

Xiaoying Zhong, Yang Cao, Xin Yu, Honghui Shi, Haiyuan Liu. Comparison of efficacy and safety between single-port and multi-port laparoscopy in the removal of large uterine fibroids[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2025, 18(06): 348-353.

目的

回顾性分析单孔腹腔镜子宫肌瘤剔除术及多孔腹腔镜子宫肌瘤剔除术对巨大子宫肌瘤的治疗效果及围术期安全性。

方法

回顾性分析2022年8月至2024年9月北京协和医院普通妇科中心行单孔腹腔镜子宫肌瘤剔除术及腹腔镜子宫肌瘤剔除术共482例患者的临床资料,筛选出单个子宫肌瘤最大直径至少为10 cm的患者,其中单孔腹腔镜组24例,多孔腹腔镜组64例,通过手术指标(手术时间、加套管针、术后血红蛋白下降、输血次数、周围脏器损伤)、围术期恢复及安全性指标(术后6 h、24 h、48 h疼痛评分、术后有无发热、住院时间、住院费用、围术期并发症)、瘢痕美容评估与评级量表三大方面评估两组手术效果。

结果

单孔腹腔镜组和多孔腹腔镜组手术时间分别为136.81 ± 56.82 min和119.85 ± 42.07 min;两组间差异有统计学意义(P=0.025);单孔组术后血红蛋白下降水平18.26 ± 8.01 g/L,多孔组17.04 ± 7.70 g/L(P=0.480);单孔组术后6 h、24 h、48 h视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)均低于多孔组(3.88±1.14分vs. 4.51±1.15分、2.83±0.96分vs. 3.18±1.03分、1.57±0.83分vs. 1.83±0.90分,P均<0.05),两组在住院时间、住院费用方面的差异无统计学意义;术后瘢痕评分上,单孔组总得分为1.21±1.18分,多孔腹腔镜组为5.36±2.45分,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001),其中在瘢痕扩展、红斑、色素异常、手术痕迹及肥厚/萎缩五个方面,单孔腹腔镜组均优于多孔腹腔镜组(0.29±0.56 vs. 1.56±0.82、0.04±0.20 vs. 0.89±0.69、0.33±0.48 vs. 0.73±0.45、0.21±0.41 vs. 0.98±0.13、0.25±0.44 vs. 0.80±0.68,P均<0.001)。

结论

单孔腹腔镜手术对巨大子宫肌瘤而言是一种安全且可行的治疗方式,尤其在术后疼痛控制和美容效果方面优于多孔腹腔镜手术。

Objective

To retrospectively analyzed the therapeutic efficacy and perioperative safety of single-port laparoscopic myomectomy (SPLM) versus multiport laparoscopic myomectomy (MPLM) for large uterine fibroids.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 482 patients who underwent SPLM or MPLM at the General Gynecology Center of Peking Union Medical College Hospital between Aug. 2022 and Sep. 2024. Patients with a single uterine fibroid of maximum diameter ≥10 cm were selected, including 24 cases in the SPLM group and 64 cases in the MPLM group. Surgical outcomes were evaluated based on three main aspects: 1) surgical parameters (operative time, additional trocar use, postoperative hemoglobin decrease, frequency of blood transfusion, adjacent organ injury); 2) perioperative recovery and safety indicators (pain scores at 6 h, 24 h, and 48 h postoperatively, postoperative fever, hospital stay, hospitalization costs, perioperative complications); and 3) scar cosmesis assessed using a scar evaluation and rating scale. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 27.0 software, with a P-value<0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results

The operative time was 136.81±56.82 min for the SPLM group and 119.85±42.07 min for the MPLM group, with a significant difference between groups (P=0.025). The postoperative hemoglobin decrease was 18.26±8.01 g/L in the SPLM group and 17.04±7.70 g/L in the MPLM group (P=0.480). Postoperative VAS scores at 6 h, 24 h, and 48 h were significantly lower in the SPLM group compared to the MPLM group (3.88±1.14 vs. 4.51±1.15, 2.83±0.96 vs. 3.18±1.03, 1.57±0.83 vs. 1.83±0.90, respectively; all P<0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups regarding hospital stay or hospitalization costs. The total scar score was significantly lower in the SPLM group (1.21±1.18) compared to the MPLM group (5.36±2.45, P<0.001). Specifically, the SPLM group demonstrated superior outcomes in scar spread, erythema, pigmentation abnormality, suture marks, and hypertrophy/atrophy compared to the MPLM group (0.29±0.56 vs. 1.56±0.82, 0.04±0.20 vs. 0.89±0.69, 0.33±0.48 vs. 0.73±0.45, 0.21±0.41 vs. 0.98±0.13, 0.25±0.44 vs. 0.80±0.68, respectively; all P<0.001).

Conclusion

Single-port laparoscopic surgery is a safe and feasible treatment option for large uterine fibroids. It is superior to multiport laparoscopic surgery, particularly in terms of postoperative pain control and cosmetic outcomes.

图1 单孔腹腔镜子宫肌瘤剔除术后切口形态注:A.术后即刻;B.术后2周复查
表1 两组基线资料比较(±s)
表2 两组手术及围术期相关指标比较(±s)
表3 两组术后SCAR评分比较(±s)
1
中华医学会妇产科学分会妇科单孔腹腔镜手术技术协作组. 妇科单孔腹腔镜手术(含vNOTES)专家共识(2025版)[J]. 中华妇产科杂志202560(6):417-421.
2
Nava Silerio MI, García Aguayo V, Esparza Guzmán AA, et al. Comparison of single-site to multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with benign or malignant gynecological diseases: A meta-analysis of 3309 patients[J]. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod, 2025, 54(8):102997.
3
Wu T, Nie K, Gao Y, et al. Research trends and hotspots in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery: a bibliometric and visualization analysis[J]. Int J Womens Health, 2025, 17:3331-3345.
4
Zimmermann A, Bernuit D, Gerlinger C, et al. Prevalence, symptoms and management of uterine fibroids: an international internet-based survey of 21,746 women[J]. BMC Womens Health, 2012, 12:6.
5
Schlaff WD, Ackerman RT, Al-Hendy A, et al. Elagolix for heavy menstrual bleeding in women with uterine fibroids[J]. N Engl J Med, 2020, 382(4):328-340.
6
Yoshino O, Hayashi T, Osuga Y, et al. Decreased pregnancy rate is linked to abnormal uterine peristalsis caused by intramural fibroids[J]. Hum Reprod, 2010, 25(10):2475-2479.
7
Bajekal N, Li TC. Fibroids, infertility and pregnancy wastage[J]. Hum Reprod Update, 2000, 6(6):614-620.
8
Don EE, Middelkoop MA, Hehenkamp WJK, et al. Endometrial angiogenesis of abnormal uterine bleeding and infertility in patients with uterine fibroids-a systematic review[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2023, 24(8):7011.
9
Ciavattini A, Clemente N, Delli Carpini G, et al. Laparoscopic uterine artery bipolar coagulation plus myomectomy vs traditional laparoscopic myomectomy for "large" uterine fibroids: comparison of clinical efficacy[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2017, 296(6):1167-1173.
10
黄群欢,黄燕,蒋宋薇,等. 腹腔镜与开腹对子宫巨大肌瘤剔除的疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2014, (4):280-282.
11
王文莉,段华. 巨大,多发子宫肌瘤3例报告及文献复习[C]. 2016北京地区妇产科学专业学术年会.
12
陈扬,王永清,江元慧,等. 妊娠合并复发巨大子宫肌瘤1例[J]. 2022, 4(1):E02127-E.
13
Price DD, McGrath PA, Rafii A, et al. The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain[J]. Pain, 1983, 17(1):45-56.
14
Roh MR. The SCAR (Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating) scale: new evaluation method for postoperative scars[J]. Br J Dermatol, 2016, 175(6):1151-1152.
15
Yang Q, Ciebiera M, Bariani MV, et al. Comprehensive review of uterine fibroids: developmental origin, pathogenesis, and treatment[J]. Endocr Rev, 2022, 43(4):678-719.
16
Tanos V, Lee SC, Alexander K, et al. Laparoscopic myomectomy complications: META analysis on RCTs and review of large cohort studies[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2023, 287:109-118.
17
中华医学会妇产科学分会妇科单孔腹腔镜手术技术协助组. 妇科单孔腹腔镜手术技术的专家意见[J]. 中华妇产科杂志2016, 51(10):724-726.
18
Kim SK, Lee JH, Lee JR, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site myomectomy versus conventional laparoscopic myomectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2014, 21(5):775-781.
19
Choi CH, Kim TH, Kim SH, et al. Surgical outcomes of a new approach to laparoscopic myomectomy: single-port and modified suture technique[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2014, 21(4):580-585.
20
Lee SW, Park EK, Lee SJ, et al. Comparison study of consecutive 100 cases of single port vs. multiport laparoscopic myomectomy; technical point of view[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol, 2017, 37(5):616-621.
21
Song T, Cho J, Kim TJ, et al. Cosmetic outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site hysterectomy compared with multi-port surgery: randomized controlled trial[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2013, 20(4):460-467.
22
Zhou SF, Wang HY, Wang K. An analysis of the surgical outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site myomectomy and multi-port laparoscopic myomectomy[J]. Ann Transl Med, 2021, 9(11):927.
23
Hafermann J, Silas U, Saunders R. Efficacy and safety of V-Loc™barbed sutures versus conventional suture techniques in gynecological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2024, 309(4):1249-1265.
24
Jeong JH, Kim YR, Kim EJ, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes according to suturing methods in single port access laparoscopic myomectomy[J]. J Menopausal Med, 2015, 21(1):47-55.
25
Jeong JH, Kim YR, Kim EJ, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes according to suturing methods in single port access laparoscopic myomectomy[J]. J Menopausal Med, 2015, 21(1):47-55.
26
Kantor J. Reliability and photographic equivalency of the Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating (SCAR) scale, an outcome measure for postoperative scars[J]. JAMA Dermatol, 2017, 153(1):55-60.
27
Lee D, Kim SK, Kim K, et al. Advantages of single-port laparoscopic myomectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic myomectomy: a randomized controlled study[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2018, 25(1):124-132.
28
张海滨,魏春娜,侯旭宁,等. 妇科良性疾病经脐单孔腹腔镜手术后疼痛程度与美观效果研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(1): 51-54.
[1] 袁琳, 王静, 朱红艳, 陈雅雪, 马彩玲. 加速康复外科在妇科微创手术围术期应用的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2020, 16(06): 733-738.
[2] 袁琳, 洪安澜, 杨丽, 马彩玲. 术后快速康复在妇科手术围手术期中的应用[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2017, 13(06): 740-744.
[3] 张海滨, 魏春娜, 侯旭宁, 于彩虹, 姚景润, 张真. 妇科良性疾病经脐单孔腹腔镜手术后疼痛程度与美观效果研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(01): 51-54.
[4] 封意兰, 赵仁峰. 经脐单孔腹腔镜剔除特殊部位子宫肌瘤[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(01): 26-29.
[5] 缪妙, 王一娜, 陈继明, 汤慧敏, 陈尧, 单武林, 贾秋成, 魏炜炜, 唐斌, 郑虹. 经腹壁瘢痕入路单孔腹腔镜子宫肌瘤剥除术临床分析[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(06): 348-352.
[6] 杨晓英, 张葛, 徐晓萌, 孙雅欣, 苗月圆, 马迎春. 三种不同腹腔镜入路行大子宫切除术临床疗效评估[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(06): 331-337.
[7] 王乔, 郑莹. 机器人手术在妇科领域的应用及展望[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(05): 304-307.
[8] 张葛, 金振伟, 李颖, 刘腾, 杨晓英, 徐晓萌, 马迎春. 经脐单孔腹腔镜加辅助孔行卵巢巨大恶性肿瘤全面分期手术一例[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 15(01): 58-61.
[9] 金贝贝, 张玉泉, 李季, 高赛楠, 朱春玉, 丁晓颖, 杨晓清. 普通及机器人辅助经脐单孔腹腔镜在子宫肌瘤剔除术中的应用比较[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 14(03): 163-167.
[10] 范秀华, 耿艳红, 范佳佳, 罗滢, 王锋良, 张冉. 经脐单孔腹腔镜与传统腹腔镜治疗妇科良性疾病的对比研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 12(06): 347-350.
[11] 黄晖媛, 赵仁峰. 经脐单孔腹腔镜子宫切除术的安全性研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 11(01): 32-34.
[12] 王洋, 刘俐惠, 刘伟, 田红梅, 毛永鹏, 李旭阳, 曹冉, 王振威, 艾笛, 张腾, 毛子木, 姜双鹏. ERAS理念早期康复的医护患新模式在肩袖损伤关节镜术后的临床效果研究[J/OL]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2021, 09(04): 360-364.
[13] 谢礼锋, 贾静, 陈琦玮, 柳燕, 李新宇. 定锚法脐部整形缝合技术在经脐单孔腹腔镜减重手术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华肥胖与代谢病电子杂志, 2025, 11(02): 92-99.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?