Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: results of a randomized trial

• Published in: Journal of minimally invasive gynecology Vol. 18; no. 4; p. 455
• Main Authors: Ghezzi, Fabio, Cromi, Antonella, Siesto, Gabriele, Uccella, Stefano, Boni, Luigi, Serati, Maurizio, Bolis, Pierfrancesco
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.07.2011
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy - methods; Laparoscopy - methods; Middle Aged
• ISSN: 1553-4669
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2011.03.019

To compare operative outcomes and postoperative pain of laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus minilaparoscopic hysterectomy (MLH). Randomized controlled trial (Canadian Task Force Classification I). Tertiary care center. Seventy-six women scheduled to undergo a hysterectomy for a supposed benign gynecologic condition. Participants were randomly assigned to LH (n = 38) or MLH (n = 38). MLH was performed with use of 3-mm ports. Both patients and assessors of the postoperative outcomes were blinded to the size of port used, and patients' wounds were concealed by standard-size nontransparent dressings. Primary outcome was postoperative pain (both rest and incident on coughing and abdominal pain, as well as shoulder pain) by use of a 100-mm visual analogue scale. The two groups were similar in terms of operative outcomes. No intraoperative conversion from MLH to both LH and open surgery occurred. No significant difference in pain scores at 1, 3, 8, and 24 hours after surgery between groups was found. Rescue analgesic requirement was similar in the MLH and LH groups (21.1% vs 13.2%, p =.54). Ports can safely be reduced in size without a negative impact on the surgeon's ability to perform LH. MLH appears to have no advantage over LH in terms of postoperative pain.