Noninferiority of single-incision laparoscopy vs conventional laparoscopy in salpingectomy or salpingotomy for ectopic pregnancy: a meta-analysis

Greg J. Marchand MD , Ahmed Massoud MD , Hollie Ulibarri BS , Amanda Arroyo BS , Daniela Gonzalez Herrera BS , Brooke Hamilton BS , Kate Ruffley BS , Mckenna Robinson BS , Marissa Dominick BS , Ali Azadi MD
{"title":"Noninferiority of single-incision laparoscopy vs conventional laparoscopy in salpingectomy or salpingotomy for ectopic pregnancy: a meta-analysis","authors":"Greg J. Marchand MD ,&nbsp;Ahmed Massoud MD ,&nbsp;Hollie Ulibarri BS ,&nbsp;Amanda Arroyo BS ,&nbsp;Daniela Gonzalez Herrera BS ,&nbsp;Brooke Hamilton BS ,&nbsp;Kate Ruffley BS ,&nbsp;Mckenna Robinson BS ,&nbsp;Marissa Dominick BS ,&nbsp;Ali Azadi MD","doi":"10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>OBJECTIVE</h3><div>Ectopic pregnancy is an emergency frequently requiring laparoscopic intervention. This study aimed to determine whether single-incision laparoscopic surgery is a safe and effective treatment method compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery with multiple ports.</div></div><div><h3>DATA SOURCES</h3><div>This study searched 6 databases from their inception to May 15, 2024, for articles comparing the safety outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery with conventional laparoscopic surgery in managing women with ectopic pregnancy.</div></div><div><h3>STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA</h3><div>This study included all studies that evaluated the safety outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery in patients with ectopic pregnancy and included at least 1 of our preselected outcomes. In addition, this study included both randomized controlled trials and observational studies.</div></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><div>Review Manager (version 5.4.1) and OpenMetaAnalyst software were used to analyze the extracted data. In addition, this study used odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes, mean difference for continuous outcomes, a fixed effects model for homogeneous outcomes, and a random effects model for heterogeneous outcomes. Furthermore, heterogeneity was evaluated using the <em>I<sup>2</sup></em> and <em>P</em> values. After removing duplicates, this study identified 83 studies. Using a 2-step screening process, this study excluded non-English and animal studies and included randomized controlled trials and observational studies that included at least 1 of our preselected outcomes. Ultimately, 12 studies were included in the final synthesis.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><div>Our analysis showed a significant favoring of the single-incision laparoscopic surgery group in the pain visual analog scale score (median difference=−0.57; <em>P</em>&lt;.01). However, our study found no statistically significant difference between both procedures in the times of analgesic use (median difference=−0.08; <em>P</em>=.19), intraoperative complications (odds ratio=1.17; <em>P</em>=.8), postoperative complications (odds ratio=1.02; <em>P</em>=.96), conversion to laparotomy (odds ratio=1.40; <em>P</em>=.59), bowel injury (odds ratio=1.42; <em>P</em>=.8), and postoperative fever (odds ratio=0.52; <em>P</em>=.42).</div></div><div><h3>CONCLUSION</h3><div>The use of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for treating ectopic pregnancy may reduce postoperative pain with similar rates of analgesic use. The incidences of intraoperative and postoperative complications were comparable. Furthermore, the rates of conversion to laparotomy, bowel injury, and postoperative fever were similar between the 2 techniques. Our results seem to show that single-incision laparoscopic surgery is noninferior to conventional laparoscopic surgery for the safe treatment of ectopic pregnancy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72141,"journal":{"name":"AJOG global reports","volume":"5 1","pages":"Article 100435"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11773238/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOG global reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666577824001291","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Ectopic pregnancy is an emergency frequently requiring laparoscopic intervention. This study aimed to determine whether single-incision laparoscopic surgery is a safe and effective treatment method compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery with multiple ports.

DATA SOURCES

This study searched 6 databases from their inception to May 15, 2024, for articles comparing the safety outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery with conventional laparoscopic surgery in managing women with ectopic pregnancy.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

This study included all studies that evaluated the safety outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery in patients with ectopic pregnancy and included at least 1 of our preselected outcomes. In addition, this study included both randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

METHODS

Review Manager (version 5.4.1) and OpenMetaAnalyst software were used to analyze the extracted data. In addition, this study used odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes, mean difference for continuous outcomes, a fixed effects model for homogeneous outcomes, and a random effects model for heterogeneous outcomes. Furthermore, heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 and P values. After removing duplicates, this study identified 83 studies. Using a 2-step screening process, this study excluded non-English and animal studies and included randomized controlled trials and observational studies that included at least 1 of our preselected outcomes. Ultimately, 12 studies were included in the final synthesis.

RESULTS

Our analysis showed a significant favoring of the single-incision laparoscopic surgery group in the pain visual analog scale score (median difference=−0.57; P<.01). However, our study found no statistically significant difference between both procedures in the times of analgesic use (median difference=−0.08; P=.19), intraoperative complications (odds ratio=1.17; P=.8), postoperative complications (odds ratio=1.02; P=.96), conversion to laparotomy (odds ratio=1.40; P=.59), bowel injury (odds ratio=1.42; P=.8), and postoperative fever (odds ratio=0.52; P=.42).

CONCLUSION

The use of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for treating ectopic pregnancy may reduce postoperative pain with similar rates of analgesic use. The incidences of intraoperative and postoperative complications were comparable. Furthermore, the rates of conversion to laparotomy, bowel injury, and postoperative fever were similar between the 2 techniques. Our results seem to show that single-incision laparoscopic surgery is noninferior to conventional laparoscopic surgery for the safe treatment of ectopic pregnancy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AJOG global reports
AJOG global reports Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Perinatology, Pediatrics and Child Health, Urology
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ghana abortion care—a model for others: analysis of the 2017 Ghana Maternal Health Survey Utilizing machine learning to predict the risk factors of episiotomy in parturient women Immediate postplacental intrauterine device placement: retrospective cohort study of expulsion and associated risk factors Effect of maternal beta-blocker treatment on mean fetal heart rate Balancing screen time during pregnancy: implications for maternal and fetal health
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1