Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of a side-port smoke evacuation device during laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) total laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy. Methods: A total of 24 female patients undergoing LESS total laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy from July 2023 to September 2024 were enrolled and randomly assigned to an experimental group (n = 12) or control group (n = 12). The experimental group used a custom-designed side-port smoke evacuation device, while the control group used the conventional built-in smoke channel of the single-port platform. Intraoperative metrics such as total operation time, cumulative surgical pause time, blood loss, and postoperative anal exhaust time were recorded. Postoperative questionnaires were used to evaluate surgical field clarity by the primary surgeon and assistant. Results: No significant differences were observed in age, blood loss, or postoperative exhaust time between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, the experimental group had significantly shorter operation time (70.75 ± 19.32 min vs. 98.16 ± 31.16 min, P = 0.015) and pause time (17.33 ± 12.75 sec vs. 37 ± 16.32 sec, P = 0.015). Subjective clarity scores from both surgeon and assistant were significantly higher in the experimental group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The side-port smoke evacuation device enhances surgical visibility during LESS procedures, reduces intraoperative pauses, and contributes to safer, more efficient operations. It also reduces surgical smoke exposure, thereby protecting healthcare staff and improving occupational safety.
References
[1]
Nitecki, R., Ramirez, P.T., Frumovitz, M., Krause, K.J., Tergas, A.I., Wright, J.D., et al. (2020) Survival after Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMAOncology, 6, 1019-1027. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1694
[2]
Mereu, L., Dalprà, F. and Tateo, S. (2021) Laparoendoscopic Single Site Hysterectomy: Literature Review and Procedure Description. JournalofClinicalMedicine, 10, Article 2073. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10102073
[3]
Ranjan, A., Joshi, K.S., Pajai, S. and Mohammad, S. (2022) Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery (LESS): A Shift in Gynecological Minimally Invasive Surgery. Cureus, 14, e32205. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.32205
[4]
Wang, Y., Yao, Y., Dou, Y., Tang, S., Chen, C., Li, Y., et al. (2021) Chopstick Technique Used in Laparoendoscopic Single Site Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer. ScientificReports, 11, Article No. 6882. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85783-5
[5]
von Rüden, C., Trapp, O., Augat, P., Stuby, F.M. and Friederichs, J. (2020) Evolution of Imaging in Surgical Fracture Management. Injury, 51, S51-S56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2019.10.080
[6]
Spruce, L. (2021) Surgical Smoke Safety. AORNJournal, 114, 493-501. https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.13543
[7]
Ostapovych, U. and Vortman, R. (2022) Implementing a Surgical Smoke Evacuation Policy and Procedure: A Quality Improvement Project. AORNJournal, 115, 139-146. https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.13603
[8]
LeDuc, R., Eikani, C., Dickens, B., Schiff, A. and Brown, N. (2023) Surgical Smoke and the Orthopedic Surgeon: A Non-Systematic Review of the Hazards and Strategies for Mitigating Risk. ArchivesofOrthopaedicandTraumaSurgery, 143, 6975-6981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-023-04967-y
[9]
Hu, X., Zhou, Q., Yu, J., Wang, J., Tu, Q. and Zhu, X. (2020) Prevalence of HPV Infections in Surgical Smoke Exposed Gynecologists. InternationalArchivesofOccupationalandEnvironmentalHealth, 94, 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-020-01568-9
[10]
Soysal, G.E., Ilce, A., Lakestani, S., Sit, M. and Avcioglu, F. (2023) Comparison of the Effects of Surgical Smoke on the Air Quality and on the Physical Symptoms of Operating Room Staff. BiologicalResearchforNursing, 25, 444-453. https://doi.org/10.1177/10998004221151157
[11]
Feng, X., Ding, B. and Shen, Y. (2023) The Feasibility and Efficacy of a Novel Nano Filter in Reducing the Hazards of Surgical Smoke Exposure during Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery. SurgicalInnovation, 30, 654-656. https://doi.org/10.1177/15533506231157169
[12]
Liu, Y., Zhao, M., Shao, Y., Yan, L. and Zhu, X. (2021) Chemical Composition of Surgical Smoke Produced during the Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure When Treating Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia. WorldJournalofSurgicalOncology, 19, Article No. 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-021-02211-8
[13]
Canicoba, A.R.B. and Poveda, V.D.B. (2022) Surgical Smoke and Biological Symptoms in Healthcare Professionals and Patients: A Systematic Review. JournalofPeriAnesthesiaNursing, 37, 130-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2021.06.106
[14]
Fox-Lewis, A., Allum, C., Vokes, D. and Roberts, S. (2020) Human Papillomavirus and Surgical Smoke: A Systematic Review. OccupationalandEnvironmentalMedicine, 77, 809-817. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2019-106333
[15]
Dennis, V. (2022) Needed Practice Change: Surgical Smoke Evacuation. AORNJournal, 116, 103-105. https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.13756
[16]
Pennock, J. (2020) Surgical Smoke: Discussing the Solution. AORNJournal, 111, P19-P20. https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.13054
[17]
Reiter, W. (2021) Co-Occurrence Balanced Time Series Classification for the Semi-Supervised Recognition of Surgical Smoke. InternationalJournalofComputerAssistedRadiologyandSurgery, 16, 2021-2027. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-021-02411-3
