Skip to main content
Log in

Preventing Complications in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery

Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Laparoscopic gynecologic surgery is associated with several potential complications. Over 50 % of complications occur during the initial entry into the abdomen. No consensus has been reached on the optimal entry technique. When difficulty is expected, Palmer’s point may be used as the entry point, and blunt conical trocars are recommended. One of the most feared intraoperative complications of laparoscopic gynecologic surgery is damage to the lower urinary tract. Lateral thermal spread from energy sources has been postulated to be one possible mechanism. After surgery, for port sites over 10 mm, closure of the fascia is recommended under direct visualization or using a device. Surgical site infection can also occur, although less commonly than with laparotomy. Risk factors for infection include long operating times, and loss of a large volume of blood. Proper surgical technique and attention to potential trouble spots will minimize postoperative morbidity in women undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Chapron C et al. Laparoscopic surgery is not inherently dangerous for patients presenting with benign gynaecologic pathology. Results of a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(5):1334–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jiang X, Anderson C, Schnatz PF. The safety of direct trocar versus Veress needle for laparoscopic entry: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22(4):362–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sigel B et al. Technique of ultrasonic detection and mapping of abdominal wall adhesions. Surg Endosc. 1991;5(4):161–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nezhat C et al. Preoperative periumbilical ultrasound-guided saline infusion (PUGSI) as a tool in predicting obliterating subumbilical adhesions in laparoscopy. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2714–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tinelli A et al. Bladeless direct optical trocar insertion in laparoscopic procedures on the obese patient. JSLS. 2013;17(4):521–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahmad G et al. Laparoscopic entry techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2:CD006583. This meta-analysis of randomized studies on entry techniques found no difference in vascular or visceral injuries based on entry technique.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hurd WH et al. Abdominal wall characterization with magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. The effect of obesity on the laparoscopic approach. J Reprod Med. 1991;36(7):473–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McDanald DM, Levine RL, Pasic R. Left upper quadrant entry during gynecologic laparoscopy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2005;15(6):325–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Granata M et al. Are we underutilizing Palmer’s point entry in gynecologic laparoscopy? Fertil Steril. 2010;94(7):2716–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Teoh B, Sen R, Abbott J. An evaluation of four tests used to ascertain Veress needle placement at closed laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12(2):153–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Abu-Rafea B et al. Effect of body habitus and parity on insufflated CO2 volume at various intraabdominal pressures during laparoscopic access in women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13(3):205–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vilos GA et al. Laparoscopic entry: a review of techniques, technologies, and complications. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007;29(5):433–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Reich H et al. High-pressure trocar insertion technique. JSLS. 1999;3(1):45–8.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Abu-Rafea B et al. High-pressure laparoscopic entry does not adversely affect cardiopulmonary function in healthy women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12(6):475–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Antoniou SA et al. Blunt versus bladed trocars in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(7):2312–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Adelman MR, Bardsley TR, Sharp HT. Urinary tract injuries in laparoscopic hysterectomy: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(4):558–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Law KS, Lyons SD. Comparative studies of energy sources in gynecologic laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(3):308–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Law KS, Abbott JA, Lyons SD. Energy sources for gynecologic laparoscopic surgery: a review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2014;69(12):763–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sutton PA et al. Comparison of lateral thermal spread using monopolar and bipolar diathermy, the Harmonic scalpel and the LigaSure. Br J Surg. 2010;97(3):428–33. This article compares lateral spread with various surgical devices and expounds on the relative safety of advanced sealing devices.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Litta P et al. A randomized controlled study comparing harmonic versus electrosurgery in laparoscopic myomectomy. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(5):1882–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Janssen PF et al. Perioperative outcomes using LigaSure compared with conventional bipolar instruments in laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2011;118(13):1568–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Montz FJ, Holschneider CH, Munro MG. Incisional hernia following laparoscopy: a survey of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84(5):881–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nezhat C et al. Incisional hernias after operative laparoscopy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1997;7(2):111–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tarnay CM, Glass KB, Munro MG. Incision characteristics associated with six laparoscopic trocar-cannula systems: a randomized, observer-blinded comparison. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94(1):89–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Munro MG, Tarnay CM. The impact of trocar-cannula design and simulated operative manipulation on incisional characteristics: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(4):681–5. This animal study showed smaller facial defects with blunt tipped trocars compared to laded one.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shaher Z. Port closure techniques. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(8):1264–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mahdi H et al. Predictors of surgical site infection in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease: a multicenter analysis using the national surgical quality improvement program data. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(5):901–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Courtney D. Bailey declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Michael Frumovitz declares serving on the Advisory Board for Baxter.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Frumovitz.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bailey, C.D., Frumovitz, M. Preventing Complications in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 4, 176–180 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-015-0123-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-015-0123-1

Keywords

Navigation