ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2025
Comparative analysis of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery and versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in adnexectomy: A systematic review and metaanalysis of surgical outcome.
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the removal of the adnexa technically removes more tissue, it may require less fine manipulation and dissection than cystectomy. Secondary to this, we sought to measure the effectiveness and safety of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) versus conventional laparoscopy (CLS). We search six databases to find studies comparing LESS and CLS for ovarian lesions where removal of the entire ovary, with or without the fallopian tube, is necessary. Criteria used for study eligibility: both controlled trials and observational studies were included in this analysis. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: we used the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for the randomized clinical trials and the national heart, lung, and blood quality assessment tools for the observational studies. The statistical analysis was done using the review manager software. LESS showed a significantly longer operative time [mean difference (MD)=2.96 (-1.97, 7.90), p=0.24], but with moderate heterogeneity. Estimated blood loss was significantly lower for LESS [MD=-18.62 (-33.83, -3.42), p=0.02]. The length of patient hospital stay was comparable [MD=-0.02 (-0.50, 0.47), p=0.95]. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores at 24 hours [MD=0.23 (-0.09, 0.56), p=0.16] and 6 hours postoperatively [MD=0.15 (-0.04, 0.33), p=0.12] were similar. The LESS group required less postoperative analgesia [risk ratios (RR)=0.47 (0.32, 0.68), p=0.001]. The change in hemoglobin was comparable [MD=-0.11 (-0.26, 0.03), p=0.14]. Perioperative complications were higher in the LESS group [RR=2.236 (1.031, 4.851), p=0.04]. Compared with CLS, LESS required more operative time but resulted in significantly less blood loss and lower postoperative analgesic use. Hospital stays and VAS pain scores were similar. LESS had a higher incidence of perioperative complications, which questions the feasibility of its use in some situations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.