Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 298, Issue 5, pp 921–926 | Cite as

Single-incision laparoscopic hysterectomy using conventional laparoscopic instruments: initial experience with 25 cases

  • Jinhai Gou
  • Zhengyu LiEmail author
  • Xin Liao
  • Dan Nie
  • Luqi Xue
  • Lin Li
General Gynecology



To evaluate the feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic hysterectomy using conventional instruments.


Twenty-five patients undergoing single-incision laparoscopic hysterectomy (SI-LAH) using conventional instruments at West China Second University Hospital between July, 2017 and December, 2017 were selected for participation. Another 25 cases undergoing traditional multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (MP-LAH) matched with similar uterine size were selected as controls. Characteristics and clinical data of patients including operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, catheter retention time, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.


The baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. The estimated blood loss was less in SI-LAH with respect to MP-LAH (30 mL [range 20–50] vs 50 mL [range 10–200], P < 0.05), with no statistically significant difference in terms of decrease of hemoglobin level (17 g/dL [range 2–24] vs 18 g/dL [range 5–28], P > 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of operative time (150 min [range 85–225] vs 145 min [range 100–220], P > 0.05), intraoperative injury, catheter retention time, time to exhausting, postoperative hospital stay. In all cases, no additional port incision was needed and no conversion to laparotomy was necessary in two groups. No patient had development of intraoperative or postoperative complications. After a follow-up of 2 months, no incisional hernia occurred in all patients.


Single-incision laparoscopic hysterectomy using conventional instruments is a feasible and safe technique for patients with uterine size less than 12 weeks of pregnancy and no serious pelvic adhesion, requiring for more experienced skill of surgeons.


Hysterectomy Laparoscopy Single-incision Conventional instruments 



This work was supported by Sichuan Youth Foundation of Science of Technology (Grant Number: 2015JQ0026).

Authors’ contributions

JG: Data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing; ZL: Project development and responsible for surgery; XL and DN: Data collection, data analysis, follow-up; LX and LL: Data collection.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest and nothing to disclose.

Informed consent

Since this is a retrospective study, formal consent is not required. However, an informed consent was obtained from individual participants for taking and publishing photographs.


  1. 1.
    Reich HDJ, Mc Glynn F (1989) Laparaoscopic hysterectomy. J Gynecol Surg 5:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R, van Voorst S, Mol BW, Kluivers KB (2009) Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD003677. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson N, Barlow D, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R (2006) Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD003677. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choi YS, Shin KS, Choi J, Park JN, Oh YS, Rhee TE (2012) Single-port access laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: our initial experiences with 100 cases. Minim Invasive Surg 2012:543627. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tormena RA, Ribeiro SC, Maciel GA, Baracat EC (2015) Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy: preliminary results. Rev Assoc Med Bras 61(5):446–451. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pelosi MA (1991) Laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy using a single umbilical puncture. N J Med 88:6Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koyanagi T, Motomura S (2011) Transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic surgery: application to laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 283(2):305–309. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim TJ, Lee YY, Cha HH, Kim CJ, Choi CH, Lee JW, Bae DS, Lee JH, Kim BG (2010) Single-port-access laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a comparison of perioperative outcomes. Surg Endosc 24(9):2248–2252. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choi YS, Park JN, Oh YS, Sin KS, Choi J, Eun DS (2013) Single-port vs. conventional multi-port access laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: comparison of surgical outcomes and complications. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 169(2):366–369. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Park JY, Nho J, Cho IJ, Park Y, Kim DY, Suh DS, Kim JH, Nam JH (2015) Laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy for benign or pre-invasive uterine disease. Surg Endosc 29(4):890–897. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gynecologists ACoOa (2009) ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol 114(5):1156–1158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olive DL, Parker WH, Cooper JM, Levine RL (2000) The AAGL classification system for laparoscopic hysterectomy. Classification committee of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 7(1):9–15CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fanfani F, Fagotti A, Gagliardi ML, Monterossi G, Rossitto C, Costantini B, Gueli Alletti S, Vizzielli G, Ercoli A, Scambia G (2013) Minilaparoscopic versus single-port total hysterectomy: a randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 20(2):192–197. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li M, Han Y, Feng YC (2012) Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a prospective randomized trial. J Int Med Res 40(2):701–708. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jung YW, Lee M, Yim GW, Lee SH, Paek JH, Kwon HY, Nam EJ, Kim SW, Kim YT (2011) A randomized prospective study of single-port and four-port approaches for hysterectomy in terms of postoperative pain. Surg Endosc 25(8):2462–2469. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen YJ, Wang PH, Ocampo EJ, Twu NF, Yen MS, Chao KC (2011) Single-port compared with conventional laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 117(4):906–912. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moulton L, Jernigan AM, Carr C, Freeman L, Escobar PF, Michener CM (2017) Single-port laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology: seven years of experience at a single institution. Am J Obstet Gynecol 217(5):610611–610618. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Escobar PF, Fader AN, Paraiso MF, Kaouk JH, Falcone T (2009) Robotic-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology: initial report and technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16(5):589–591. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, West China Second University HospitalSichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Obstetrics and Gynecologic and Pediatric Diseases and Birth Defects of Ministry of Education, West China Second HospitalSichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations