Laparoscopic Single-Port versus Mini-Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: An International Study

Objectives: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and mini-laparoscopic surgery (Mini-LPS) have been performed with comparable results to conventional laparoscopy. However, there are few data on the comparison between them. Our main objective was to compare LESS and Mini-LPS in terms of surgical time, postoperative pain, and hospital stay in patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign pathology. Design: It is a retrospective international multicentric study carried out in 5 centers including 2 Spanish and 3 Italian. Methods: Data from patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign pathology between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015, were reviewed. We collected the clinical-pathological characteristics of the patients and the perioperative results. The main variables of the study were surgical time, the switch to oral analgesia, and the hospital stay. The two comparison groups in the study included patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign pathology by LESS or by Mini-LPS. The decision to perform the type of procedure was left to the discretion of the surgeon, based primarily on the surgical skills and experience of the center. All data were collected retrospectively by an online encrypted platform. Results: 161 patients were included in the study. 104 (64.6%) patients underwent LESS hysterectomy and 57 (35.4%) Mini-LPS. Median surgical time was significantly longer in the LESS group when compared to the Mini-LPS group (120 vs. 75 min, respectively; p < 0.001). Moreover, longer median hospital stay was observed in the LESS group compared to Mini-LPS (48 vs. 36 h, respectively; p < 0.001). Conversion of the technique to conventional LPS was performed in 4 (2.5%) patients, all of them in the Mini-LPS group (p = 0.015). Limitations: It is a retrospective study with the biases that this implies. Furthermore, some variables have been incompletely registered in the database, which implies loss of information. This is a nonrandomized study since the decision to intervene with one or another technique was made by the surgeon, which generated 2 nonhomogeneous groups in terms of the number of patients. On the other hand, all the patients who underwent Mini-LPS hysterectomy belonged to the same center, which may have made these results center dependent. Conclusions: Significant shorter surgical time and shorter hospital stay were observed in patients undergoing Mini-LPS hysterectomy compared to LESS technique; however, intraoperative complications related to instrumentation flaws were higher in the mini-LPS group that required conversion to standard laparoscopy in all cases. Both ultra-minimally invasive techniques seem safe to perform hysterectomies for benign pathology and emphasize the importance in surgical training to adapt them to our current practice.