Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

LESS vs conventional laparoscopy shows no significant differences in perioperative outcomes for benign adnexal diseasesDoes single-incision surgery offer real benefits for ovarian conditions?

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider LESS as an option for benign adnexal diseases, but note limited evidence on safety and unreported outcomes.

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 8 randomized controlled trials comparing laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) to conventional laparoscopy (CL) in patients with benign adnexal diseases. The study design was a meta-analysis of RCTs, but key details such as sample size, setting, and follow-up duration were not reported. The intervention was LESS, with CL as the comparator, focusing on perioperative outcomes.

Main results showed no significant differences between LESS and CL for primary outcomes: perioperative complication rate (risk ratio 2.88, 95% CI 0.70 to 11.78, p = 0.14), postoperative pain at 6 hours (weighted mean difference -0.31, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.13, p = 0.16), 24 hours (WMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.00, p = 0.05), and 48 hours (WMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.77 to 0.30, p = 0.39). Secondary outcomes also showed no significant differences: operative time (WMD 3.68, 95% CI -0.81 to 8.17, p = 0.11), hospital stay (WMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.03, p = 0.11), estimated blood loss (WMD -7.63, 95% CI -31.83 to 16.57, p = 0.54), and hemoglobin drop (WMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.39, p = 0.08). Absolute numbers for these outcomes were not reported.

Safety and tolerability data, including adverse events, serious adverse events, and discontinuations, were not reported. Key limitations include unreported sample sizes, absolute outcome numbers, and results for cosmetic satisfaction and conversion to laparotomy, which were listed as outcomes but not detailed in the abstract. Funding and conflicts of interest were also not reported. In practice, LESS appears effective and safe for benign adnexal diseases based on equivalence to CL in perioperative outcomes, but clinicians should consider the evidence incomplete due to these gaps.

When you need surgery for a benign ovarian condition, you might wonder if newer single-incision techniques offer real benefits over traditional laparoscopic surgery. A comprehensive analysis of existing research suggests the answer might be 'not really' for most practical measures.

The study pooled data from eight randomized trials comparing laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) with conventional laparoscopy. It found no significant differences in what matters most to patients: complication rates during and after surgery, pain levels at 6, 24, and 48 hours after surgery, how long the surgery takes, blood loss during the procedure, or how long you stay in the hospital.

It's important to note what this analysis doesn't tell us. The researchers didn't report results for cosmetic satisfaction or how often surgeons had to switch to more invasive open surgery during the procedure. They also didn't provide the actual number of patients in the studies or report on specific safety issues. This means while the techniques appear generally equivalent based on current evidence, we're missing some pieces of the picture.

For now, this analysis suggests that for benign ovarian conditions, single-incision surgery doesn't offer clear advantages over traditional laparoscopic approaches in terms of pain, complications, or recovery time. Patients considering their surgical options should discuss both approaches with their doctors, knowing that current evidence shows they're generally similar for these key outcomes.

What this means for you:
Single-incision surgery shows no clear advantage over traditional methods for ovarian conditions.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
Laparoscopic surgery has become the gold standard for the surgical management of benign gynecologic pathologies. Our objective was to assess the current evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) in the treatment of benign adnexal diseases. We comprehensively searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 18 October 2025. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LESS with conventional laparoscopy (CL) for the treatment of benign adnexal diseases. Primary outcomes were the perioperative complication rate, postoperative pain, and cosmetic satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss during surgery, hemoglobin drop, conversion to laparotomy, and length of hospital stay after surgery. All analyses were performed using random effects or fixed effects models. Clinical heterogeneity was explored using subgroup and sensitivity analyses. We included eight articles reporting results from RCTs comparing LESS and CL in the final analysis. There were no significant differences between LESS and CL in terms of the perioperative complication rate (risk ratio (RR), 2.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70 to 11.78; p = 0.14) and postoperative pain scores at 6 h (weighted mean difference (WMD), −0.31; 95% CI, −0.75 to 0.13; p = 0.16), 24 h (WMD, −0.23; 95% CI, −0.46 to 0.00; p = 0.05), and 48 h (WMD, −0.24; 95% CI, −0.77 to 0.30; p = 0.39). There were also no differences in terms of operative time (WMD, 3.68; 95% CI, −0.81 to 8.17; p = 0.11), hospital stay after surgery (WMD, −0.13; 95% CI, −0.29 to 0.03; p = 0.11), estimated blood loss during surgery (WMD, −7.63; 95% CI, −31.83 to 16.57; p = 0.54), and hemoglobin drop (WMD, 0.18; 95% CI, −0.02 to 0.39; p = 0.08). This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that LESS appears effective and safe for the treatment of benign adnexal diseases, as it is generally equivalent to CL in terms of perioperative outcomes. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024608657, Identifier: CRD42024608657.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.