loading page

Impact on ovarian reserve after minimally invasive single-port laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy in patients with benign ovarian cysts: A systematic review and meta-analysis
  • +2
  • Eleni Tsiampa,
  • Eleftherios Spartalis,
  • Gerasimos Tsourouflis,
  • Dimitrios Dimitroulis,
  • Nikolaos Nikiteas
Eleni Tsiampa

Corresponding Author:elenitsiampa@hotmail.com

Author Profile
Eleftherios Spartalis
Author Profile
Gerasimos Tsourouflis
Author Profile
Dimitrios Dimitroulis
Author Profile
Nikolaos Nikiteas
Author Profile

Abstract

Background/Aim: The purpose of this article is to review the published literature on single-port laparoscopic (SPL) ovarian cystectomy and to assess whether the reduced port number affects the ovarian reserve in comparison with the conventional multiport laparoscopic (MPL) ovarian cystectomy. Materials and methods: Serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) had been proposed as the most accurate marker of ovarian reserve. A review of the current literature was performed based on the preoperative and postoperative AMH after SPL and MPL ovarian cystectomy in adult patients with benign ovarian cysts. Results: Ovarian cystectomy causes a non-statistically significant reduction in AMH levels four weeks postoperatively in the SPL group compared to MPL group[MD=0.11, 95%CI (-0.01, 0.24), p=0.07] . Operative time was significantly longer and blood loss was significantly higher in SPL group. No difference was found to major or overall postoperative complications between the two groups Conclusion: SPL cystectomy recommended as a safe surgical choice for patients who want to preserve their fertility.
07 Jan 2021Submitted to International Journal of Clinical Practice
11 Jan 2021Submission Checks Completed
11 Jan 2021Assigned to Editor
17 Jan 2021Reviewer(s) Assigned
17 Jan 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
09 Feb 20211st Revision Received
11 Feb 2021Submission Checks Completed
11 Feb 2021Assigned to Editor
03 Jun 2021Reviewer(s) Assigned
07 Jun 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
16 Jul 2021Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
16 Jul 20212nd Revision Received
19 Jul 2021Submission Checks Completed
19 Jul 2021Assigned to Editor
19 Jul 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
02 Aug 2021Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
04 Aug 20213rd Revision Received
05 Aug 2021Submission Checks Completed
05 Aug 2021Assigned to Editor
05 Aug 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
12 Sep 2021Editorial Decision: Accept
22 Sep 2021Published in International Journal of Clinical Practice. 10.1111/ijcp.14875