Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31832010›Full record

ArticleJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons

Cosmesis and Patient Satisfaction Following Laparoscopic Adnexal Surgery.

Sang Wook Yi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sang Wook YiDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery and Gynecological Laparoendoscopy, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gangneung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesLaparoendoscopic single site surgery (LESS), a minimally invasive procedure, is performed in many hospitals. Although its cosmetic superiority is widely touted, some authors have disputed this view. Here, we compare the surgical and long-term cosmetic outcomes of and patient satisfaction with postoperative wounds for LESS and over 2-port laparoscopy (OTPL), including 2-port laparoscopy (TPL) and standard laparoscopy (SL), after a 6-mo follow-up period.

methodsA total of 125 patients who underwent adnexal surgery performed by the same surgeon at the same institution between March 2005 and May 2017 were included. The patients were divided into 2 groups: the LESS group and the OTPL group. The patients completed an evaluation using the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS, used to evaluate linear scars) and the Ultimate Question (UQ, used to determine overall patient satisfaction). We evaluated surgical scars using the Observer Scar Assessment Scale, which includes the Umbilical Scar Overall Shape Assessment Scale (USOSAS) and the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS).

resultsThere were no significant differences in the PSAS, UQ, USOSAS, and VSS results between the study groups. The USOSAS score was consistently correlated with VSS scores of 2, 3, and 4 and the total VSS score, indicating that the USOSAS score may be as effective as the VSS score.

conclusionsBecause the long-term patient satisfaction with and cosmetic wound outcomes of LESS were not significantly different from those achieved by OTPL, surgeons should consider performing LESS after weighing the pros and cons with regard to the patient's condition.

Indexed as

EstheticsLaparoscopyPatient SatisfactionAdnexa UteriAdultCicatrixCohort StudiesFemaleHumansRetrospective StudiesAdnexaCosmesisLaparoendoscopic single site surgerySatisfactionStandard laparoscopy

Identifiers

PMID31832010
PMCPMC6901172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.