ABSTRACT
Objective To evaluate the safety, feasibility and other potential advantages of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for tubal pregnancy. Methods We manually searched Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, web of science, CNKI and China Biology Medicine for the relevant references about comparison of single-port laparoscopic salpingectomy with multi-port laparoscopic salpingectomy in the treatment of tubal pregnancy. The quality of the studies was evaluated, then meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software. Result Eventually, 2 RCTS and 14 retrospective studies including a total of 1541 cases were identi昀ed. The results of the meta-analysis for LESS versus CLS were as follows: a longer operative time [WMD=8.54, 95%CI (2.43, 14.64), P = 0.006], no significant differences in terms of total complications [OR= 0.68, 95%CI (0.27,1.71), P = 0.410]/operative blood loss [WMD = -0.01, 95%CI (-2.51,2.48), P = 0.990]/gastrointestinal function recovery time [WMD = -0.45, 95%CI (-1.72,0.82), P = 0.490], but shorter hospital stay [WMD=-0.40, 95% (-0.75, -0.06), P = 0.020], less postoperative analgesic treatment [OR= 0.38, 95%CI (0.22,0.67), P = 0.000]. Conclusions LESS for surgical treatment of tubal pregnancy is safe and feasible with shorter hospitalstay, less postoperative pain. LESS may therefore be a feasible alternative of CLS in the surgical approach of tubal pregnancy.