Surgical outcomes of single-port vs multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer who underwent either single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SPLH) or multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (MPLH). We conducted a systematic literature search from the earliest records available up to May 2023. The...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2024, Vol.19 (12), p.e0314997 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 12 |
| container_start_page | e0314997 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 19 |
| creator | Ji, Feifei Chen, Guansheng Zhang, Mengyao Chen, Xianying Zhang, Jing Ding, Dong Wang, Yongjun |
| description | This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer who underwent either single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SPLH) or multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (MPLH).
We conducted a systematic literature search from the earliest records available up to May 2023. The databases searched included PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library.
A total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. Both the SPLH and MPLH groups had similar operative times (MD = -4.27, 95% CI [-35.75, 27.22], p = 0.98), conversion rates (odds ratio [OR] = 1.43, 95% CI [0.57, 3.59], p = 0.44), blood transfusion rates, intraoperative complications (bladder injury, bowel injury, and vascular injury), and postoperative complications (umbilical hernia, fever, fistula, lymphocyst, and wound-related issues). However, the SPLH group showed significant advantages in certain areas. There was a notable reduction in estimated intraoperative blood loss (EBL) compared to the MPLH group (mean difference [MD] = -23.80, 95% CI [-42.99, -4.62], p = 0.02) and a shorter hospital stay duration (MD = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.46, -0.20], p < 0.00001). Although there was some debate about postoperative pain, SPLH tended to have more favorable outcomes. Despite these advantages, the SPLH group was less efficient in para-aortic lymph node clearance compared to the MPLH group (MD = -0.96, 95% CI [-1.57, -0.35], p = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in overall lymph node dissection (MD = -0.91, 95% CI [-2.52, 0.70], p = 0.27) and pelvic lymph node dissection (MD = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.82, 1.27], p = 0.36) between the two groups. Additionally, both groups showed similar therapeutic results, with no significant differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).
SPLH and MPLH techniques are equally effective in treating endometrial cancer, with both showing low rates of surgical complications with similar rates of surgical complications and therapeutic outcomes. However, SPLH offers additional benefits, including smaller incisions, reduced estimated intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stays, making it an increasingly popular option for treating endometrial cancer. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0314997 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_3142550351</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_fdd654853c7642c99970e62b68d0bf43</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>3146608027</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-d3122-b00387161be5c04152d9c62272a7a6b4a03bcfb39cfeaf3f766a22103c5450ce3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptks1u1DAUhS1ERcvAGyCwxIZNBv_ETsIGVRXQSpVYAGvrxrmZeuTEwU4GzQvw3JjOULWoK_8df_eeYxPyirM1lxV_vw1LHMGvpzDimkleNk31hJzxRopCCyaf3pufkucpbRlTstb6GTmVjVZCKXlGfn9b4sZZ8DQssw0DJhp6mty48VhMIc50l-iw-NkdVh4miCHZMDlLb_Zpxoh2DsOe9iFSHLuMmKPLPAujxfiBntP0VzbAnG9E3Dn8RWHsaNZBAdnBPrn0gpz04BO-PI4r8uPzp-8Xl8X11y9XF-fXRSe5EEXLmKwrrnmLyrKSK9E1VgtRCahAtyUw2dq-lY3tEXrZV1qDEJxJq0rFLMoVeXPgTj4kc4wwmZxejoNJxbPi6qDoAmzNFN0AcW8COHO7EeLGQMxWPJq-67QqayVtpUthm_wADLVodd2xti9lZn08VlvaATuL4xzBP4A-PBndjdmEneFci0pm8oq8OxJi-Llgms3gkkXvYcSw3DauNatZVq_I2_-kj9t7fb-lu17-_Qj5B0cQvC8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3142550351</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Surgical outcomes of single-port vs multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Ji, Feifei ; Chen, Guansheng ; Zhang, Mengyao ; Chen, Xianying ; Zhang, Jing ; Ding, Dong ; Wang, Yongjun</creator><creatorcontrib>Ji, Feifei ; Chen, Guansheng ; Zhang, Mengyao ; Chen, Xianying ; Zhang, Jing ; Ding, Dong ; Wang, Yongjun</creatorcontrib><description>This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer who underwent either single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SPLH) or multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (MPLH).
We conducted a systematic literature search from the earliest records available up to May 2023. The databases searched included PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library.
A total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. Both the SPLH and MPLH groups had similar operative times (MD = -4.27, 95% CI [-35.75, 27.22], p = 0.98), conversion rates (odds ratio [OR] = 1.43, 95% CI [0.57, 3.59], p = 0.44), blood transfusion rates, intraoperative complications (bladder injury, bowel injury, and vascular injury), and postoperative complications (umbilical hernia, fever, fistula, lymphocyst, and wound-related issues). However, the SPLH group showed significant advantages in certain areas. There was a notable reduction in estimated intraoperative blood loss (EBL) compared to the MPLH group (mean difference [MD] = -23.80, 95% CI [-42.99, -4.62], p = 0.02) and a shorter hospital stay duration (MD = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.46, -0.20], p < 0.00001). Although there was some debate about postoperative pain, SPLH tended to have more favorable outcomes. Despite these advantages, the SPLH group was less efficient in para-aortic lymph node clearance compared to the MPLH group (MD = -0.96, 95% CI [-1.57, -0.35], p = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in overall lymph node dissection (MD = -0.91, 95% CI [-2.52, 0.70], p = 0.27) and pelvic lymph node dissection (MD = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.82, 1.27], p = 0.36) between the two groups. Additionally, both groups showed similar therapeutic results, with no significant differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).
SPLH and MPLH techniques are equally effective in treating endometrial cancer, with both showing low rates of surgical complications with similar rates of surgical complications and therapeutic outcomes. However, SPLH offers additional benefits, including smaller incisions, reduced estimated intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stays, making it an increasingly popular option for treating endometrial cancer.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314997</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39652553</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Aorta ; Blood Loss, Surgical - statistics & numerical data ; Blood transfusion ; Blood Transfusion - statistics & numerical data ; Cancer ; Clinical trials ; Complications ; Dissection ; Endometrial cancer ; Endometrial Neoplasms - pathology ; Endometrial Neoplasms - surgery ; Endometrium ; Female ; Hernia ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Hysterectomy ; Hysterectomy - adverse effects ; Hysterectomy - instrumentation ; Hysterectomy - methods ; Injuries ; Laparoscopy ; Laparoscopy - adverse effects ; Laparoscopy - instrumentation ; Laparoscopy - methods ; Length of Stay ; Literature reviews ; Lymph Node Excision - methods ; Lymph nodes ; Medical prognosis ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Meta-analysis ; Operative Time ; Patients ; Physical Sciences ; Postoperative ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Robotics ; Surgery ; Surgical outcomes ; Survival ; Systematic review ; Treatment Outcome ; Uterine cancer</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2024, Vol.19 (12), p.e0314997</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © 2024 Ji et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</rights><rights>2024 Ji et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2024 Ji et al 2024 Ji et al</rights><rights>2024 Ji et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0003-4877-2694</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11627385/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11627385/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,4024,23866,27923,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39652553$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ji, Feifei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Guansheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Mengyao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Xianying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Jing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ding, Dong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Yongjun</creatorcontrib><title>Surgical outcomes of single-port vs multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer who underwent either single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SPLH) or multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (MPLH).
We conducted a systematic literature search from the earliest records available up to May 2023. The databases searched included PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library.
A total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. Both the SPLH and MPLH groups had similar operative times (MD = -4.27, 95% CI [-35.75, 27.22], p = 0.98), conversion rates (odds ratio [OR] = 1.43, 95% CI [0.57, 3.59], p = 0.44), blood transfusion rates, intraoperative complications (bladder injury, bowel injury, and vascular injury), and postoperative complications (umbilical hernia, fever, fistula, lymphocyst, and wound-related issues). However, the SPLH group showed significant advantages in certain areas. There was a notable reduction in estimated intraoperative blood loss (EBL) compared to the MPLH group (mean difference [MD] = -23.80, 95% CI [-42.99, -4.62], p = 0.02) and a shorter hospital stay duration (MD = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.46, -0.20], p < 0.00001). Although there was some debate about postoperative pain, SPLH tended to have more favorable outcomes. Despite these advantages, the SPLH group was less efficient in para-aortic lymph node clearance compared to the MPLH group (MD = -0.96, 95% CI [-1.57, -0.35], p = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in overall lymph node dissection (MD = -0.91, 95% CI [-2.52, 0.70], p = 0.27) and pelvic lymph node dissection (MD = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.82, 1.27], p = 0.36) between the two groups. Additionally, both groups showed similar therapeutic results, with no significant differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).
SPLH and MPLH techniques are equally effective in treating endometrial cancer, with both showing low rates of surgical complications with similar rates of surgical complications and therapeutic outcomes. However, SPLH offers additional benefits, including smaller incisions, reduced estimated intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stays, making it an increasingly popular option for treating endometrial cancer.</description><subject>Aorta</subject><subject>Blood Loss, Surgical - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Blood transfusion</subject><subject>Blood Transfusion - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Dissection</subject><subject>Endometrial cancer</subject><subject>Endometrial Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Endometrial Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Endometrium</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hernia</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hysterectomy</subject><subject>Hysterectomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Hysterectomy - instrumentation</subject><subject>Hysterectomy - methods</subject><subject>Injuries</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - instrumentation</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Length of Stay</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Lymph Node Excision - methods</subject><subject>Lymph nodes</subject><subject>Medical prognosis</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Operative Time</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Postoperative</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Robotics</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical outcomes</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Uterine cancer</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptks1u1DAUhS1ERcvAGyCwxIZNBv_ETsIGVRXQSpVYAGvrxrmZeuTEwU4GzQvw3JjOULWoK_8df_eeYxPyirM1lxV_vw1LHMGvpzDimkleNk31hJzxRopCCyaf3pufkucpbRlTstb6GTmVjVZCKXlGfn9b4sZZ8DQssw0DJhp6mty48VhMIc50l-iw-NkdVh4miCHZMDlLb_Zpxoh2DsOe9iFSHLuMmKPLPAujxfiBntP0VzbAnG9E3Dn8RWHsaNZBAdnBPrn0gpz04BO-PI4r8uPzp-8Xl8X11y9XF-fXRSe5EEXLmKwrrnmLyrKSK9E1VgtRCahAtyUw2dq-lY3tEXrZV1qDEJxJq0rFLMoVeXPgTj4kc4wwmZxejoNJxbPi6qDoAmzNFN0AcW8COHO7EeLGQMxWPJq-67QqayVtpUthm_wADLVodd2xti9lZn08VlvaATuL4xzBP4A-PBndjdmEneFci0pm8oq8OxJi-Llgms3gkkXvYcSw3DauNatZVq_I2_-kj9t7fb-lu17-_Qj5B0cQvC8</recordid><startdate>2024</startdate><enddate>2024</enddate><creator>Ji, Feifei</creator><creator>Chen, Guansheng</creator><creator>Zhang, Mengyao</creator><creator>Chen, Xianying</creator><creator>Zhang, Jing</creator><creator>Ding, Dong</creator><creator>Wang, Yongjun</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4877-2694</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2024</creationdate><title>Surgical outcomes of single-port vs multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Ji, Feifei ; Chen, Guansheng ; Zhang, Mengyao ; Chen, Xianying ; Zhang, Jing ; Ding, Dong ; Wang, Yongjun</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-d3122-b00387161be5c04152d9c62272a7a6b4a03bcfb39cfeaf3f766a22103c5450ce3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Aorta</topic><topic>Blood Loss, Surgical - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Blood transfusion</topic><topic>Blood Transfusion - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Dissection</topic><topic>Endometrial cancer</topic><topic>Endometrial Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Endometrial Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Endometrium</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hernia</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hysterectomy</topic><topic>Hysterectomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Hysterectomy - instrumentation</topic><topic>Hysterectomy - methods</topic><topic>Injuries</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - instrumentation</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Length of Stay</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Lymph Node Excision - methods</topic><topic>Lymph nodes</topic><topic>Medical prognosis</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Operative Time</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Postoperative</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Robotics</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical outcomes</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Uterine cancer</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ji, Feifei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Guansheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Mengyao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Xianying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Jing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ding, Dong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Yongjun</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ji, Feifei</au><au>Chen, Guansheng</au><au>Zhang, Mengyao</au><au>Chen, Xianying</au><au>Zhang, Jing</au><au>Ding, Dong</au><au>Wang, Yongjun</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Surgical outcomes of single-port vs multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2024</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>e0314997</spage><pages>e0314997-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer who underwent either single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SPLH) or multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (MPLH).
We conducted a systematic literature search from the earliest records available up to May 2023. The databases searched included PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library.
A total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. Both the SPLH and MPLH groups had similar operative times (MD = -4.27, 95% CI [-35.75, 27.22], p = 0.98), conversion rates (odds ratio [OR] = 1.43, 95% CI [0.57, 3.59], p = 0.44), blood transfusion rates, intraoperative complications (bladder injury, bowel injury, and vascular injury), and postoperative complications (umbilical hernia, fever, fistula, lymphocyst, and wound-related issues). However, the SPLH group showed significant advantages in certain areas. There was a notable reduction in estimated intraoperative blood loss (EBL) compared to the MPLH group (mean difference [MD] = -23.80, 95% CI [-42.99, -4.62], p = 0.02) and a shorter hospital stay duration (MD = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.46, -0.20], p < 0.00001). Although there was some debate about postoperative pain, SPLH tended to have more favorable outcomes. Despite these advantages, the SPLH group was less efficient in para-aortic lymph node clearance compared to the MPLH group (MD = -0.96, 95% CI [-1.57, -0.35], p = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in overall lymph node dissection (MD = -0.91, 95% CI [-2.52, 0.70], p = 0.27) and pelvic lymph node dissection (MD = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.82, 1.27], p = 0.36) between the two groups. Additionally, both groups showed similar therapeutic results, with no significant differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).
SPLH and MPLH techniques are equally effective in treating endometrial cancer, with both showing low rates of surgical complications with similar rates of surgical complications and therapeutic outcomes. However, SPLH offers additional benefits, including smaller incisions, reduced estimated intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stays, making it an increasingly popular option for treating endometrial cancer.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>39652553</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0314997</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4877-2694</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2024, Vol.19 (12), p.e0314997 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_3142550351 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Aorta Blood Loss, Surgical - statistics & numerical data Blood transfusion Blood Transfusion - statistics & numerical data Cancer Clinical trials Complications Dissection Endometrial cancer Endometrial Neoplasms - pathology Endometrial Neoplasms - surgery Endometrium Female Hernia Hospitals Humans Hysterectomy Hysterectomy - adverse effects Hysterectomy - instrumentation Hysterectomy - methods Injuries Laparoscopy Laparoscopy - adverse effects Laparoscopy - instrumentation Laparoscopy - methods Length of Stay Literature reviews Lymph Node Excision - methods Lymph nodes Medical prognosis Medicine and Health Sciences Meta-analysis Operative Time Patients Physical Sciences Postoperative Postoperative Complications - epidemiology Postoperative Complications - etiology Research and Analysis Methods Robotics Surgery Surgical outcomes Survival Systematic review Treatment Outcome Uterine cancer |
| title | Surgical outcomes of single-port vs multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T01%3A30%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Surgical%20outcomes%20of%20single-port%20vs%20multi-port%20laparoscopic%20hysterectomy%20for%20endometrial%20cancer:%20A%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Ji,%20Feifei&rft.date=2024&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=e0314997&rft.pages=e0314997-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0314997&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_plos_%3E3146608027%3C/proquest_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3142550351&rft_id=info:pmid/39652553&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_fdd654853c7642c99970e62b68d0bf43&rfr_iscdi=true |