OBJECTIVE: To compare the feasibility, operative time, specimen retrieval time, and effect on postoperative pain of laparoscopic retrieval of benign adnexal masses between a 10-mm transumbilical and a 10-mm transabdominal port. STUDY DESIGN:Fifty women with adnexal masses who were scheduled for a laparoscopic procedure between July 2008 and April 2009 were enrolled. The patients were randomized into two groups; these were patients where a transumbilical port was used for specimen retrieval (transumbilical group, n=25) and patients where a transabdominal port was used for specimen retrieval (transabdominal group, n=25). Preoperative suspicion of malignancy and indications suggesting a need for hysterectomy or myomectomy were considered to be exclusion criteria. Randomization was centralized and computer-based. Patients recorded the severity of incisional pain on a visual analog scale (VAS) with 0 meaning no pain and 10 meaning unbearable pain. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, body mass index, umbilical thickness, abdominal thickness, cyst size, cyst amount, cyst weight, histology, complications and duration of hospital stay when the two groups were compared. Patients in the transumbilical group had a significantly shorter specimen retrieval time (0.7 ± 1.8 min vs. 4.9 ± 12.6 min, p=0.006) and a significantly lower postoperative day (POD) 0 VAS pain score (5.2 ± 2.1 vs. 6.6 ± 2.2, p=0.015). Significantly fewer patients in the transumbilical group had a specimen retrieval time of ≥10 min (0% vs. 20%, p=0.025) and a POD 0 VAS pain score of >5 (36% vs. 84%, p<0.001). However, the average POD 1 VAS pain score (3.2 ± 1.8, vs. 3.6 ± 1.6) and the proportion with a POD 1 VAS pain score >5 (12% vs. 12%) were similar for the two groups. CONCLUSION: When laparoscopic surgery on benign adnexal masses is carried out using a 10-mm incision wound, removal of the specimen via the umbilical port has a shorter retrieval time and produces less postoperative pain than retrieval via a lateral abdominal port.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the feasibility, operative time, specimen retrieval time, and effect on postoperative pain of laparoscopic retrieval of benign adnexal masses between a 10-mm transumbilical and a 10-mm transabdominal port. STUDY DESIGN: Fifty women with adnexal masses who were scheduled for a laparoscopic procedure between July 2008 and April 2009 were enrolled. The patients were randomized into two groups; these were patients where a transumbilical port was used for specimen retrieval (transumbilical group, n=25) and patients where a transabdominal port was used for specimen retrieval (transabdominal group, n=25). Preoperative suspicion of malignancy and indications suggesting a need for hysterectomy or myomectomy were considered to be exclusion criteria. Randomization was centralized and computer-based. Patients recorded the severity of incisional pain on a visual analog scale (VAS) with 0 meaning no pain and 10 meaning unbearable pain. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, body mass index, umbilical thickness, abdominal thickness, cyst size, cyst amount, cyst weight, histology, complications and duration of hospital stay when the two groups were compared. Patients in the transumbilical group had a significantly shorter specimen retrieval time (0.7 ± 1.8 min vs. 4.9 ± 12.6 min, p=0.006) and a significantly lower postoperative day (POD) 0 VAS pain score (5.2 ± 2.1 vs. 6.6 ± 2.2, p=0.015). Significantly fewer patients in the transumbilical group had a specimen retrieval time of ≥10 min (0% vs. 20%, p=0.025) and a POD 0 VAS pain score of >5 (36% vs. 84%, p<0.001). However, the average POD 1 VAS pain score (3.2 ± 1.8, vs. 3.6 ± 1.6) and the proportion with a POD 1 VAS pain score >5 (12% vs. 12%) were similar for the two groups. CONCLUSION: When laparoscopic surgery on benign adnexal masses is carried out using a 10-mm incision wound, removal of the specimen via the umbilical port has a shorter retrieval time and produces less postoperative pain than retrieval via a lateral abdominal port.
Authors: Ali Akdemir; Ahmet Mete Ergenoğlu; Levent Akman; Ahmet Özgür Yeniel; Fatih Sendağ; Mehmet Kemal Oztekin Journal: J Res Med Sci Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 1.852