Enhancing Safety in Gynecologic Surgery: Innovative Access and Lymphadenectomy Techniques to Reduce Complications
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Surgical Access and Instrumentation
3.2. Extraperitoneal Lymphadenectomy and Minimally Invasive Surgery
3.3. Gasless Laparoscopy and Intraoperative Monitoring
4. Discussion
4.1. Preoperative Assessment and Imaging
4.2. Considerations for Patient Selection
4.3. Standardization vs. Individualization of Access
4.4. Lymph Node Dissection Strategies and Oncologic Outcomes
4.5. Gasless Laparoscopy: Balancing Risks and Benefits
4.6. Risk Mitigation and Intraoperative Vigilance
4.7. Postoperative Care and Surveillance
4.8. Ongoing Controversies and Future Perspectives
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
ICG | indocyanine green |
References
- Jain, N.; Sareen, S.; Kanawa, S.; Jain, V.; Gupta, S.; Mann, S. Jain point: A new safe portal for laparoscopic entry in previous surgery cases. J. Hum. Reprod. Sci. 2016, 9, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer, R. Safety in laparoscopy. J. Reprod. Med. 1974, 13, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.J.; Yang, F.; Gao, T.; Li, L.; Xia, H.; Li, H.F. Gasless laparoscopy versus conventional laparoscopy in uterine myomectomy: A single-centre randomized trial. J. Int. Med. Res. 2011, 39, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- D’Ercole, C.; Cravello, L.; Guyon, F.; De Montgolfier, R.; Boubli, L.; Blanc, B. Gasless laparoscopy gynecologic surgery. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 1996, 66, 137–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iacoponi, S.; De Santiago, J.; Diestro, M.D.; Hernández, A.; Zapardiel, I. Single-port laparoscopic extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2013, 23, 1712–1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farghaly, S.A. Current diagnosis and management of ovarian cyst. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2014, 41, 609–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vilos, G.A.; Ternamian, A.; Dempster, J.; Laberge, P.Y.; Clinical Practice Gynaecology Committee. Laparoscopic entry: A review of techniques, technologies, and complications. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2007, 29, 433–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramirez, P.T.; Jhingran, A.; Macapinlac, H.A.; Euscher, E.D.; Munsell, M.F.; Coleman, R.L.; Soliman, P.T.; Schmeler, K.M.; Frumovitz, M.; Ramondetta, L.M. Laparoscopic extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy in locally advanced cervical cancer: A prospective correlation of surgical findings with positron emission tomography/computed tomography findings. Cancer 2011, 117, 1928–1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hurd, W.W.; Bude, R.O.; DeLancey, J.O.; Newman, J.S. The location of abdominal wall blood vessels in relationship to abdominal landmarks apparent at laparoscopy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1994, 171, 642–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erdem, B.; Erciyestepe, S.G.; Aldanmaz, B.; Salman, S. An open comparative randomized prospective study: Direct trocar insertion vs Veress needle technique in laparoscopic surgeries. Medicine 2024, 103, e39929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mosehle, S.; Guidozzi, F. Laparoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection in carcinoma of the vulva: Experience and intermediate results at one institution. S. Afr. J. Gynaecol. Oncol. 2021, 13, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, M.; Zhao, G.; Huang, A.; Zhang, K.; Wang, B.; Jiang, Z.; Ding, K.; Hu, H. Comparison of a new gasless method and the conventional CO2 pneumoperitoneum method in laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Updates Surg. 2021, 73, 2231–2238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ramirez, P.T.; Frumovitz, M.; Pareja, R.; Lopez, A.; Vieira, M.; Ribeiro, R.; Buda, A.; Yan, X.; Shuzhong, Y.; Chetty, N.; et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 15, 1895–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Molloy, D.; Kaloo, P.D.; Cooper, M.; Nguyen, T.V. Laparoscopic entry: A literature review and analysis of techniques and complications of primary port entry. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2002, 42, 246–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkatout, I.; Mechler, U.; Mettler, L.; Pape, J.; Maass, N.; Biebl, M.; Gitas, G.; Laganà, A.S.; Freytag, D. The Development of laparoscopy-A Historical Overview. Front. Surg. 2021, 8, 799442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granata, M.; Tsimpanakos, I.; Moeity, F.; Magos, A. Are we underutilizing Palmer’s point entry in gynecologic laparoscopy? Fertil. Steril. 2010, 94, 2716–2719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasson, H.M. A modified instrument and method for laparoscopy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1971, 110, 886–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diaz-Feijoo, B.; Luna-Guibourg, R.; Cabrera, S.; Manrique, S.; Gil-Moreno, A. Laparoscopic Extraperitoneal Pelvic Lymph Node Debulking in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2019, 26, 366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janda, M.; Gebski, V.; Brand, A.; Hogg, R.; Jobling, T.W.; Land, R.; Manolitsas, T.; McCartney, A.; Nascimento, M.; Neesham, D.; et al. Quality of life after total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy for stage I endometrial cancer (LACE): A randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010, 11, 772–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellegrino, A.; Damiani, G.R.; Tartagni, M.; Speciale, D.; Villa, M.; Sportelli, C.; Corso, S.; Pezzotta, M.G. Isobaric laparoscopy using LaparoTenser system in surgical gynecologic oncology. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2013, 20, 686–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takeda, A.; Hayashi, S.; Imoto, S.; Nakamura, H. Gasless single-port laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy for large uteri weighing 500g or more. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016, 203, 239–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Emons, G.; Beckmann, M.W.; Schmidt, D.; Mallmann, P.; Uterus Commission of the Gynecological Oncology Working Group (AGO). New WHO Classification of Endometrial Hyperplasias. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2015, 75, 135–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Bechtolsheim, F.; Bielert, F.; Schmidt, S.; Buck, N.; Bodenstedt, S.; Speidel, S.; Lüneburg, L.M.; Müller, T.; Fan, Y.; Bobbe, T.; et al. Can you feel the force just right? Tactile force feedback for training of minimally invasive surgery-evaluation of vibration feedback for adequate force application. Surg. Endosc. 2024, 38, 3917–3928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, G.; Duffy, J.M.; Watson, A.J. Laparoscopic entry techniques and complications. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2007, 99, 52–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stadtmauer, L.; Shah, A. Gynecologic Surgery: Preoperative Assessment With Ultrasound. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 60, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harth, S.; Roller, F.C.; Zeppernick, F.; Meinhold-Heerlein, I.; Krombach, G.A. Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis: Diagnostic Accuracy of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Respect to Morphological Criteria. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moulder, J.K.; Louie, M.; Toubia, T.; Schiff, L.D.; Siedhoff, M.T. The role of simulation and warm-up in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 29, 212–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, J.L.; Piedmonte, M.R.; Spirtos, N.M.; Eisenkop, S.M.; Schlaerth, J.B.; Mannel, R.S.; Spiegel, G.; Barakat, R.; Pearl, M.L.; Sharma, S.K. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 27, 5331–5336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pantelis, A.G.; Machairiotis, N.; Stavros, S.; Disu, S.; Drakakis, P. Current applications of indocyanine green (ICG) in abdominal, gynecologic and urologic surgery: A meta-review and quality analysis with use of the AMSTAR 2 instrument. Surg. Endosc. 2024, 32, 511–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Criniti, A.; Lin, P.C. Applications of intraoperative ultrasound in gynecological surgery. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2005, 17, 339–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gutierrez, M.; Stuparich, M.; Behbehani, S.; Nahas, S. Does closure of fascia, type, and location of trocar influence occurrence of port site hernias? A literature review. Surg. Endosc. 2020, 34, 5250–5258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nitecki, R.; Ramirez, P.T.; Frumovitz, M.; Krause, K.J.; Tergas, A.I.; Wright, J.D.; Rauh-Hain, J.A.; Melamed, A. Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2020, 6, 1019–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Picozzi, P.; Nocco, U.; Puleo, G.; Labate, C.; Cimolin, V. Telemedicine and Robotic Surgery: A Narrative Review to Analyze Advantages, Limitations and Future Developments. Electronics 2024, 13, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Authors/Year | Study Design | Population/Intervention | Main Outcomes/Key Findings | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
Jain et al. (2016) | Technical Description/Descriptive Analysis | Proposed the “Jain Point” (2.5 cm below and lateral to the ASIS) as an alternative site for Veress needle entry in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery. | Demonstrated reduced risk of vascular or bowel injury compared to traditional umbilical entry, especially in cases with possible periumbilical adhesions. | [1] |
Palmer (1974) | Technical Description/Safety Commentary | Advocated the left upper quadrant (Palmer’s point) for primary trocar insertion to circumvent umbilical adhesions. | Highlighted safety advantages in patients with suspected midline scars or previous surgeries; lower likelihood of intra-abdominal organ injury. | [2] |
Wang et al. 2011 | Single-centre randomized clinical trial | Assessed the utility of gasless laparoscopy in myomectomy compared to conventional CO2 pneumoperitoneum. | Gasless laparoscopic myomectomy showed reduced blood loss, shorter surgery time, and lower drainage volume than conventional laparoscopy, with no adverse effect on recovery. | [3] |
Iacoponi et al. (2015) | Prospective Study | Examined the feasibility and the safety of single-port extraperitoneal laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy for patients with gynecologic cancer | Demonstrated the feasibility of single-port laparoscopic extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy | [5] |
Vilos et al. (2007) | Narrative Review of Techniques | Reviewed and analyzed various laparoscopic entry methods (Veress needle, open Hasson, direct trocar, optical trocar) in gynecologic surgeries. | Concluded that selecting the appropriate entry technique based on patient history and anatomy can significantly reduce entry-related complications. | [7] |
Ramírez et al. (2014) | Prospective Study | Sixty patients with stage IB2–IVA cervical cancer and no para-aortic lymphadenopathy on CT or MRI underwent preoperative PET/CT, followed by laparoscopic extraperitoneal lymphadenectomy from the common iliac vessels to the left renal vein. | Laparoscopic extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy is both safe and feasible, and surgical staging of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer should be considered before planning radiation and chemotherapy. | [8] |
Hurd et al. (1994) | Anatomical Study | Investigated the location of abdominal wall vessels in female patients to inform safer trocar insertion. | Identified precise vasculature patterns, guiding safer insertion at alternative sites to avoid epigastric vessels and potential bleeding complications. | [9] |
Erdem et al. (2024) | Comparative Prospective Study | Compared the efficacy and safety of Veress needle insertion and direct trocar insertion in laparoscopic gynecological surgeries | Direct trocar insertion has been shown to reduce insertion time, lower perioperative complication rates, minimize decreases in hemoglobin, and shorten hospital stays. | [10] |
Mosehle et al. (2021) | Retrospective Case Series | Evaluated the feasibility of Laparoscopic Minimally Invasive Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection (L-MILND) in vulvar carcinoma patients ineligible for sentinel lymph node biopsy | L-MILND reduces wound complications compared to open surgery, but is associated with longer operative times and seroma formation, and while it appears feasible and safe, larger prospective studies with extended follow-up are needed. | [11] |
Jiang et al. (2021) | Prospective randomized clinical trial | Compared CO2 pneumoperitoneum vs. gasless laparoscopy for laparoscopic cholecystectomy | Showed reduced cardiopulmonary alterations in the gasless group and shortening extubation time compared to conventional CO2-assisted procedures | [12] |
Ramírez et al. (2022) | Randomized clinical trial | Women with stage IA1 (with lymphovascular invasion), IA2, or IB1 cervical cancer (squamous-cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma) were randomized to undergo minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) versus open radical hysterectomy. | Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy resulted in lower disease-free and overall survival rates than open abdominal radical hysterectomy among women with early-stage cervical cancer. | [13] |
Thoroughly evaluate each patient’s surgical history (e.g., previous laparotomies, obesity, comorbidities) and perform imaging to tailor access (Palmer’s or Jain points, open Hasson, etc.). |
Maintain a broad skill set in laparoscopic entry techniques (Veress needle, direct optical trocar, open approach) to address variable patient anatomy and adhesions. |
Incorporate extraperitoneal lymphadenectomy in appropriate oncologic cases, especially endometrial or cervical cancer staging, to reduce bowel handling and adhesion formation. |
Consider gasless laparoscopy in high-risk cardiopulmonary patients or in settings with limited CO2 supply while ensuring that specialized retractors are available. |
Use advanced visualization tools (laparoscopic ultrasound, near-infrared imaging) and continuously monitor insufflation pressures to prevent vascular or visceral injuries. |
Close fascial defects ≥ 10 mm to decrease port-site herniation risk and adopt prophylactic measures to minimize infection (antibiotics, careful wound closure). |
Develop institutional protocols and standardized practices for recognizing and rapidly managing complications (vascular injury, bowel perforation). |
Encourage simulation-based training and mentoring for surgeons to master techniques such as extraperitoneal dissection and advanced laparoscopic suturing. |
Conduct formal perioperative counseling with patients about possible complications and signs of infection or hernia, facilitating earlier intervention if issues arise. |
Routinely review morbidity and mortality data within surgical teams to identify areas for improvement and update protocols based on new evidence. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chimenea, A.; Calderón, A.M. Enhancing Safety in Gynecologic Surgery: Innovative Access and Lymphadenectomy Techniques to Reduce Complications. Complications 2025, 2, 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/complications2010008
Chimenea A, Calderón AM. Enhancing Safety in Gynecologic Surgery: Innovative Access and Lymphadenectomy Techniques to Reduce Complications. Complications. 2025; 2(1):8. https://doi.org/10.3390/complications2010008
Chicago/Turabian StyleChimenea, Angel, and Ana María Calderón. 2025. "Enhancing Safety in Gynecologic Surgery: Innovative Access and Lymphadenectomy Techniques to Reduce Complications" Complications 2, no. 1: 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/complications2010008
APA StyleChimenea, A., & Calderón, A. M. (2025). Enhancing Safety in Gynecologic Surgery: Innovative Access and Lymphadenectomy Techniques to Reduce Complications. Complications, 2(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/complications2010008