The postoperative pain levels between transumbilical single-port laparoscopic surgery and multi-port laparoscopic surgery for benign gynecological diseases

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6899.2024.01.012

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To analyze the comparison of postoperative pain level and incision satisfaction between transumbilical single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) in the treatment of benign gynecological diseases.

Methods

The clinical data of 238 patients with benign gynecological diseases admitted to Shijiazhuang Maternity Hospital from Jan. 2020 to Jan. 2021 were analyzed, and the patients were divided into SPLS group (n=119) and MPLS group (n=119) according to the surgical method. The clinical indicators, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, self-assessment anxiety scale (SAS) and satisfaction with incision aesthetics at 12 hours and 24 hours after operation were compared between the two groups.

Results

The anal exhaust time and hospital stay in the SPLS group were shorter than those in the MPLS group, and the VAS scores and SAS scores in the SPLS group at 12 hours and 24 hours after operation were lower than those in the MPLS group (all P<0.05). The overall satisfaction with the aesthetic appearance of the incision in the SPLS group was 97.06% (115/119), which was higher than that in the MPLS group, which was 76.47% (91/119), with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with MPLS, the treatment of benign gynecological diseases with SPLS can reduce postoperative pain and increase treatment satisfaction.

Key words: Single-port laparoscopic surgery, Traditional laparoscopic surgery, Benign gynecological diseases, Post-operative pain level, Incision satisfaction

Haibin Zhang, Chunna Wei, Xuning Hou, Caihong Yu, Jingrun Yao, Zhen Zhang. The postoperative pain levels between transumbilical single-port laparoscopic surgery and multi-port laparoscopic surgery for benign gynecological diseases[J]. Chinese Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 17(01): 51-54.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhqjwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6899.2024.01.012

https://zhqjwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2024/V17/I01/51

Figures/Tables 5

References 16

1	Lin Y, Liu M, Ye H, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for benign ovarian masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. BMJ, 2020, 10(2)：e032331.
2	Heil J, Czink E, Golatta M, et al. Change of aesthetic and functional outcome over time and their relationship to quality of life after breast conserving therapy[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2011, 37(2)：116-121.
3	Matanes E, Boulus S, Lauterbach R, et al. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site compared with robotic multi-port sacrocolpopexy for apical compartment prolapse[J]. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2019, 222: 358.e351-358.e311.
4	Demirayak G, Zdemir SA, Comba C, et al. Comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery and conventional multiport laparoscopic (CMPL) surgery for hysterectomy: long-term outcomes of abdominal incisional scar[J]. Obstet Gynaecol, 2020, 40: 217-221.
5	Yi SW. Cosmesis and patient satisfaction following laparoscopic adnexal surgery[J]. JSLS, 2019, 23(4)：e2019.00050.
6	Sandberg EM, la Chapelle CF, van den Tweel MM, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2017, 295(5)：1089-1103.
7	Vilaça J, Pinto JP, Fernandes S, et al. Comparative study of 2d and 3d optical imaging systems: laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in an ex vivo model[J]. Surg Innov, 2017, 24(6)：598-604.
8	Michener CM, Lampert E, Yao M, et al. Meta-analysis of laparoendoscopic single-site and vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic hysterectomy compared with multiport hysterectomy: real benefits or diminishing returns？[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2021, 28(3)：698-709.e1.
9	Asakuma M, Komeda K, Yamamoto M, et al. A concealed "Natural Orifice" ：umbilicus anatomy for minimally invasive surgery[J]. Surg Innov, 2019, 26(1)：46-49.
10	Lee D, Lee JR, Chang SS, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing single port laparoscopic myomectomy with conventional laparoscopic myomectomy[J]. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 2019, 239(5)：2-9.
11	鲍明月，秦真岳，陈继明，等. 微切口单孔腹腔镜妇科手术现状与进展[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志，2021, 37(2)：4.
12	Parker WH, Kaunitz AM, Pritts EA, et al. U．S. Food and Drug Administration′s Guidance regarding morcellation of leiomyomas: well-intentioned, but is it harmful for women？[J]. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2015, 127(1): 18-22.
13	Kang BM, Lee YS, Kim JH, et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction after single- and multiport laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (SIMPLE Trial)[J]. Surg Endosc, 2021, 35(11)：6278-6290.
14	苏彬，李艳，唐文，等. 经脐单孔腹腔镜手术治疗妇科良性疾病的临床效果分析[J/CD]. 妇产与遗传(电子版), 2021, 11(2)：21-25.
15	王延洲，陈诚，徐嘉莉，等. "筷子法"单孔腹腔镜技术在宫颈癌中的应用[J/CD]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 11(1)：28-31.
16	唐均英，龚瑶. 单孔腹腔镜技术在妇科应用中的若干问题[J]. 第三军医大学学报，2019, 41(7)：631-636.

	SPLS组(n＝119)	MPLS组(n＝119)
年龄(岁)	30.57±8.64	30.2±10.85
BMI(kg/m²)	24.83±3.25	25.27±3.86
全子宫切除术	12(10.08%)	26(21.85%)
子宫肌瘤剥除	8(6.72%)	23(19.33%)
卵巢囊肿剥除	76(63.87%)	40(33.61%)
异位妊娠手术	23(19.33%)	30(25.21%)

	SPLS组(n＝119)	MPLS组(n＝119)
年龄(岁)	30.57±8.64	30.2±10.85
BMI(kg/m²)	24.83±3.25	25.27±3.86
全子宫切除术	12(10.08%)	26(21.85%)
子宫肌瘤剥除	8(6.72%)	23(19.33%)
卵巢囊肿剥除	76(63.87%)	40(33.61%)
异位妊娠手术	23(19.33%)	30(25.21%)

组别	术后12 h	术后24 h
SPLS组(n＝119)	2.18±0.61	1.11±0.48
MPLS组(n＝119)	3.45±1.17	1.55±0.95
t值	－2.223	－4.455
P值	0.027	0.001

组别	术后12 h	术后24 h
SPLS组(n＝119)	2.18±0.61	1.11±0.48
MPLS组(n＝119)	3.45±1.17	1.55±0.95
t值	－2.223	－4.455
P值	0.027	0.001

组别	术前SAS(分)	术后SAS(分)
SPLS组(n＝119)	67.35±11.25	45.33±6.25
MPLS组(n＝119)	69.47±11.43	60.02±8.75
t值	－1.442	－14.903
P值	0.151	<0.001

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export