Ectopic Pregnancy

Evaluation of Postsurgical Pain in Single- Port versus Three-Port Laparoscopic Surgery for Ectopic Pregnancy: A Preliminary Study | Open Access | OMICS Publishing Group

Objective: To retrospectively compare the postsurgical pain after single-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic salpingectomy for the surgical treatment of tubal pregnancy. Methods: The cases of two groups of patients with ectopic pregnancies were reviewed: those who had undergone a single-port laparoscopic surgery (n=6) and those who had undergone a conventional multi-port laparoscopic surgery (n=20). We compared these groups surgical outcomes, including operative time, blood loss, use of analgesics, and complications. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the surgical time, blood loss during surgery, or analgesics use after laparoscopic surgery. There were no serious complications and no need for conversion to conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy in both groups. Conclusion: Our present findings suggest that single-port laparoscopic surgery is feasible and practical for the surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancies. However, the results also indicate that the reduction of the number of laparoscopy ports did not offer further pain relief in these patients. Abstract Objective: To retrospectively compare the postsurgical pain after single-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic salpingectomy for the surgical treatment of tubal pregnancy. Methods: The cases of two groups of patients with ectopic pregnancies were reviewed: those who had undergone a single-port laparoscopic surgery (n=6) and those who had undergone a conventional multi-port laparoscopic surgery (n=20). We compared these groups surgical outcomes, including operative time, blood loss, use of analgesics, and complications. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the surgical time, blood loss during surgery, or analgesics use after laparoscopic surgery. There were no serious complications and no need for conversion to conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy in both groups. Conclusion: Our present findings suggest that single-port laparoscopic surgery is feasible and practical for the surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancies. However, the results also indicate that the reduction of the number of laparoscopy ports did not offer further pain relief in these patients. Keywords Ectopic pregnancy; Single-port laparoscopic surgery; Laparoscopic salpingectomy; Post-surgical pain; Analgesics; Feasibility; Safety; Cosmesis Introduction The frequency of ectopic pregnancy has gradually increased over the past 20 years [1,2]. The Fallopian tubes are the implantation site, in approx. 98% of the cases, usually in the ampullary region [2]. Both medical and surgical treatments are available for ectopic pregnancies. To date, laparoscopy is the standard surgical approach [3]. Ectopic pregnancy patients managed laparoscopically have less blood loss, fewer postoperative adhesions, less postoperative pain and less need for analgesics, and earlier recoveries compared to laparotomy [4-8]. Laparoscopy was introduced in the early 1990s, and in the ensuing two decades the development of laparoscopic skills and instruments has enabled surgeons to perform almost scarless surgery. In addition to better cosmetic consequences, the minimization of scar formation has provided less postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stays, fewer wound complications [4-8]. Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic surgery is carried out through the umbilicus, resulting in a virtually invisible abdominal scar [9]. Transumbilical single-port laparoscopy was introduced as a laparoscopic surgery for ectopic pregnancy and found to be a feasible procedure [10]. The aim of the present study is to evaluate whether the reduction of port number can reduce the postsurgical pain by comparing postsurgical analgesics use between single-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional multi-port laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of ectopic pregnancies. Materials and Methods Twenty-six women who were diagnosed as having a ectopic pregnancy between September 2013 and April 2014 were treated with laparoscopic surgery at Oita University Hospital. Six patients underwent single-port laparoscopic surgery, and the other 20 patients underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery with three ports. The patients were treated by single-port laparoscopic surgery or conventional three-port laparoscopic surgery based on the patient s desire and the availability of single-port endoscopic equipment. For the single-port laparoscopic surgery group patients, entry through a single port was established by a 3-cm umbilicus incision with a wound retractor (Lap Protector, Hakko, Tokyo, Japan). A 10-mm 30-degree laparoscope and two 5-mm disposable rigid forceps were used during the procedure. To remove the ectopic pregnancy, either a linear salpingotomy or salpingectomy was performed with standard techniques. Postsurgical pain was controlled with an intramuscular injection of pentazocine (30 mg) and atropine sulfate (0.5 mg), or diclofenac sodium suppositories (50 mg), depending on the patient s request. The following patient data were collected from medical records: age, weeks of gestation, marital status, history of parturition, laterality, site of pregnancy, rupture of fallopian tube, Chlamydia infection, surgical method, operative time, blood loss, and times of analgesics use. Statistical analyses were performed using Mann-Whitney U test and x2 test. Results Table 1 shows the clinical data of the two groups of patients. There were no significant differences between the single-port laparoscopy group and the conventional three-port laparoscopy group regarding the patients age, marriage status, history of parturition, gestational age at laparoscopic surgery, laterality, rupture of fallopian tube, presence of intra-abdominal hemorrhage ( 100 mL), or surgical method. Whereas, conventional three-port laparoscopy group contain more multigravid patients and ampulla pregnancy (p 0.05, x2 test). All six patients in the single-port laparoscopy group and 19 of the 20 patients in the conventional three-port laparoscopy group underwent a salpingectomy. There was no significant difference between these two groups regarding the surgical time, blood loss during surgery, or times of analgesics use after laparoscopic surgery. No serious complications occurred during the surgical procedures or during the postoperative period in both groups. There was no need for conversion to conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy in either group. Discussion We compared the postsurgical pain between patients who had undergone a transumbilical single-port laparoscopic surgery and those who underwent a conventional three-port laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy. We found that there was no significant difference in the analgesics use after laparoscopic surgery between these two groups. Since laparoscopic surgery itself is minimally invasive, the number of ports did not affect the postsurgical pain in these patients. Other clinical data have revealed that single-port laparoscopic surgery is feasible and safe for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Efforts to further enhance the advantages of laparoscopy over open surgery for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy have been bolstered by the recent improvements in laparoscopic surgical equipment and the development of surgical skills and techniques [11]. For example, minimizing the size and/or decreasing the number of ports has been done to reduce abdominal wall trauma [4-8]. Kumakiri et al. [12] and Yoon et al. [10] indicated that single-port laparoscopic surgery is feasible and safe in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Recently, Kim et al. [13] confirmed the feasibility and safety of single-port laparoscopic surgery for ectopic pregnancy by a prospective case-control study. Such single-port laparoscopy is nearly scarless, as it produces a single scar at the umbilicus, which can be concealed structurally. The potential benefits of gynecologic single-port laparoscopic surgery over conventional laparoscopic surgery include; faster recovery, shorter hospital stays, fewer perioperative complications, less pain, decreased analgesic requirements, improved cosmesis, and improved quality of life [14]. However, as demonstrated in the present study, single-port laparoscopic surgery is not effective to reduce the postsurgical pain in comparison with conventional multi-port laparoscopic surgery. Our findings suggested that, since the laparoscopic approach itself has already achieved almost painless postsurgical recovery, the reduction of the number of laparoscopy ports does not add significant benefits regarding the need for post-operative analgesics. The limitations of the present study are the small patient number, retrospective evaluation, and the utilization of two different treatment schedules, which probably do not guarantee a sufficient study power. In summary, our present findings suggest that single-port laparoscopic surgery is feasible and practical for the surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancies. However, the reduction of the port number did not offer further pain relief. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the usefulness of single-port laparoscopic surgery from the view of cosmetic advantage. References Alkatout I, Honemeyer U, Strauss A, Tinelli A, Malvasi A, et al. (2013) Clinical diagnosis and treatment of ectopic pregnancy. ObstetGynecolSurv 68: 571-581.Bouyer J, Coste J, Fernandez H, Pouly JL, Job-Spira N (2002) Sites of ectopic pregnancy: a 10 year population-based study of 1800 cases. Hum Reprod 17: 3224-3230.Mol F, Mol BW, Ankum WM, van der Veen F, Hajenius PJ (2008) Current evidence on surgery, systemic methotrexate and expectant management in the treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 14: 309-319.Schwenk W, Neudecker J, Mall J, Böhm B, Müller JM (2000) Prospective randomized blinded trial of pulmonary function, pain, and cosmetic results after laparoscopic vs. microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. SurgEndosc 14: 345-348.Mostafa G, Matthews BD, Sing RF, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2001) Mini-laparoscopic versus laparoscopic approach to appendectomy. BMC Surg 1: 4.Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J (2002) Microlaparoscopicvs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial. SurgEndosc 16: 458-464.Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Colombo G, Uccella S, Bergamini V, et al. (2005) Minimizing ancillary ports size in gynecologic laparoscopy: a randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12: 480-485.Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Fasola M, Bolis P (2005) One-trocar salpingectomy for the treatment of tubal pregnancy: a 'marionette-like' technique. BJOG 112: 1417-1419.Yoon BS, Park H, Seong SJ, Park CT, Jun HS, et al. (2011) Single-port versus conventional laparoscopic salpingectomy in tubal pregnancy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Eur J ObstetGynecolReprodBiol 159: 190-193.Yoon BS, Park H, Seong SJ, Park CT, Park SW, et al. (2010) Single-port laparoscopic salpingectomy for the surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17: 26-29.Takacs P, Chakhtoura N (2006) Laparotomy to laparoscopy: changing trends in the surgical management of ectopic pregnancy in a tertiary care teaching hospital. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13: 175-177.Kumakiri J, Kikuchi I, Kitade M, Matsuoka S, Tokita S, et al. (2010) Linear salpingotomy with suturing by single incision laparoscopic surgery for tubal ectopic pregnancy. ActaObstetGynecolScand 89: 1604-1607.Kim MK, Kim JJ, Choi JS, Eom JM, Lee JH (2014) Prospective comparison of single port versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for ectopic pregnancy. J ObstetGynaecol Res.Escobar PF, Bedaiwy MA, Fader AN, Falcone T (2010) Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery in patients with benign adnexal disease. FertilSteril 93: 2074. Tables at a glance Table 1 View PDF Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language Share This Article Relevant Topics Abortion Abortion Pill Adenocarcinomas Advances in In-vitro Fertilization Artificial Insemination Assisted Reproduction Birthcontrol Breast Cancer Cervical Cancer Cervical Dilation Cesarean Delivery Corpus Luteum Diarrhea in Pregnancy Endometreosis in Pregnancy Endometrial Cancer Endometriosis Endometriosis Treatment Fallopian Tube Fallopian Tubes Fertility Acupuncture Genitalia Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone Gynecology HIV and Pregnancy High Risk Pregnancy Hysterectomy IUD IVF Treatment Impact Factor In Vitro Fertilization Infertility Treatment Mammary Gland Menopause Symptoms Menstrualcycle Mother Health Nausea Pregnancy Obstetrics Ovarian Cancer Pheromone Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) Preclampsia in Pregnancy Pregnancy Pregnancy Care Pregnancy Constipation Pregnancy Diabetes Pregnancy Fitness Pregnancy Nutrition Premature Ovarian Failure (POF) Prenatal Care Prenatal Healthcare Reproductive Behavior Reproductive Genetics Reproductive Health Reproductive Medicine Reproductive System Semen Analysis and Sperm Characteristics Sex Hormones Sex Organ Sex-Determination Sexual Disorders Sexually Transmitted Disease Sexually Transmitted Diseases Smoking in Pregnancy Spermatogonia Spermatozoa Stress in Pregnancy Termination of Pregnancy Ultrasound Pregnancy Unisexual Reproduction Uterine Cancer Uterus Woman Cancer Woman Diabetes Woman Disorders Woman Hormones Woman Mental Health Woman Psychology Women's Fitness Women's Health Related Journals Journal of Fertilization: In Vitro - IVF-Worldwide Journal of Pregnancy and Child Health Journal of Womens Health Care Reproductive System Related Conferences 10th Nursing and Healthcare ConferenceDecember 05-07, 2016 Dallas, USA Article Tools Export citation Share/Blog this article Post your comment Name: E-mail: Your question: Anti Spam Code: Can't read the image? click here to refresh OMICS International Conferences 2016-17 Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings OMICS International Conferences By Country --> USA Spain Poland Australia Canada Austria UAE Switzerland Turkey Italy France Finland Germany India Ukraine UK Malaysia Denmark Japan Singapore Mexico Brazil South Africa Norway South Korea New Zealand China Netherlands Philippines Medical Cancer Diabetes Endocrinology Cardiology Nursing Dentistry Healthcare Management Physical Therapy Rehabilitation Neuroscience Psychiatry Immunology Infectious Diseases Gastroenterology Medical Ethics Health Policies Genetics Molecular Biology Palliativecare Pathology Reproductive Medicine Women Healthcare Alternative Healthcare Surgery Pediatrics Radiology Ophthalmology Conferences by Subject Pharmaceutical Sciences Pharma Marketing Industry Nutrition Environmental Science Physics Materials Science Environmental EEE Engineering Veterinary Chemical Engineering Business Management Massmedia Geology Earth science Browse by subjects Life Sciences Pharmaceutical Sciences Environmental Clinical Chemistry OMICS Engineering Medical Sciences Management Explore OMICS Open Access Journals Conferences Database Scholarscentral E-books Open Access Scientific Reports Benefits of Membership Instructions for Authors Open Access Policy Quick Links OMICS Engineering--> Journal indexed in CrossRef Google Scholar Index Copernicus Open J-Gate Ulrichs Web EBSCO A-Z JournalSeek Electronic Journals Library SHERPA Romeo Read More Feedback Name: Email: Country: Message: 2008-2016 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version


Related Posts:

Successful Treatment Of Advanced Interstitial Pregnancy With Methotrexate And Hysteroscopy
Pregnant After Tubal Ligation | About Wrongful Pregnancy Lawsuits - How Do You Know If You Need an Accident Attorney?
Managing Any Problems | Family Planning
My little miracle | Daily Mail Online
11 Weeks Pregnant Symptoms, Fetal Development, Ultrasound