Scholarlink

Objective <p>While laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) theoretically improves cosmesis through a single umbilical incision, evidence on patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction remains equivocal. Technical challenges in umbilical incision closure and reliance on costly disposable devices further limit its adoption in resource-constrained settings. The transumbilical single-site dual-incision (SSDI) approach circumvents these challenges through strategic dual umbilical incision placement. This design enables surgeons to apply conventional instruments and umbilical incision suturing techniques which are comparable to multiport laparoscopy. This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes and cosmetic satisfaction between transumbilical SSDI laparoscopic surgery using conventional instruments and standard LESS for benign adnexal diseases.</p> Methods <p>A total of 116 patients with benign adnexal diseases underwent transumbilical SSDI laparoscopic surgery using conventional laparoscopic instruments (<i>n</i> = 52) or standard LESS (<i>n</i> = 64) were retrospectively analyzed.</p> Results <p>Both procedures were successfully performed in all patients. SSDI technique preserved the integrity of the base of umbilical fossa in 88.5% (46/52) of cases, obviating the need for complex umbilical reconstruction. Compared to the LESS group, the SSDI group demonstrated significantly shorter total operation time (44.6 ± 18.9 vs. 56.8 ± 14.9&#xa0;min, P &lt; 0.001) and incision suturing time (3.6 ± 4.4 vs. 15.4 ± 2.5&#xa0;min, P &lt; 0.001). Additionally, hospital costs were significantly lower in the SSDI group (9,137.4 ± 891.3 vs. 11,920.2 ± 924.5 RMB, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of estimated blood loss, delayed discharge, wound infection, trocar-site hernia, or cosmetic satisfaction. At the 3-month postoperative follow-up, the majority of patients in both groups reported great satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes.</p> Conclusion <p>Transumbilical SSDI laparoscopic surgery using conventional instruments represents a technically feasible and economically advantageous alternative to standard LESS for benign adnexal diseases. This “back-to-basics” approach may enhance the accessibility of single-site laparoscopy, particularly in resource-limited settings.</p> Graphical abstract <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Concealing scars in a simple way: transumbilical single-site dual-incision laparoscopic surgery for benign adnexal diseases

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月6日

查看全文
  • Peng Yuan,
  • Jiejing Zhou,
  • Yan Nan,
  • Xiaohua Yang,
  • Fan Yu,
  • Xianli Zhao,
  • Hongwei Tan

摘要

Objective

While laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) theoretically improves cosmesis through a single umbilical incision, evidence on patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction remains equivocal. Technical challenges in umbilical incision closure and reliance on costly disposable devices further limit its adoption in resource-constrained settings. The transumbilical single-site dual-incision (SSDI) approach circumvents these challenges through strategic dual umbilical incision placement. This design enables surgeons to apply conventional instruments and umbilical incision suturing techniques which are comparable to multiport laparoscopy. This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes and cosmetic satisfaction between transumbilical SSDI laparoscopic surgery using conventional instruments and standard LESS for benign adnexal diseases.

Methods

A total of 116 patients with benign adnexal diseases underwent transumbilical SSDI laparoscopic surgery using conventional laparoscopic instruments (n = 52) or standard LESS (n = 64) were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Both procedures were successfully performed in all patients. SSDI technique preserved the integrity of the base of umbilical fossa in 88.5% (46/52) of cases, obviating the need for complex umbilical reconstruction. Compared to the LESS group, the SSDI group demonstrated significantly shorter total operation time (44.6 ± 18.9 vs. 56.8 ± 14.9 min, P < 0.001) and incision suturing time (3.6 ± 4.4 vs. 15.4 ± 2.5 min, P < 0.001). Additionally, hospital costs were significantly lower in the SSDI group (9,137.4 ± 891.3 vs. 11,920.2 ± 924.5 RMB, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of estimated blood loss, delayed discharge, wound infection, trocar-site hernia, or cosmetic satisfaction. At the 3-month postoperative follow-up, the majority of patients in both groups reported great satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes.

Conclusion

Transumbilical SSDI laparoscopic surgery using conventional instruments represents a technically feasible and economically advantageous alternative to standard LESS for benign adnexal diseases. This “back-to-basics” approach may enhance the accessibility of single-site laparoscopy, particularly in resource-limited settings.

Graphical abstract