Randomized controlled trial of postoperative pain and activity following microlaparoscopy and standard laparoscopy
article
OA: closed
CC0
Abstract
Objective To compare postoperative pain and recovery of patients undergoing surgery with the 2‐mm microlaparosope and the 10‐mm standard laparoscope. Design A double‐blind prospective randomized clinical study to assess pain. Setting Monash Medical Centre Women's Health Program, Melbourne, Australia. Subjects 29 women of reproductive age (24–45 years) undergoing diagnostic procedures for fertility were randomly allocated to either microlaparoscopy (ML) or standard laparoscopy (SL). Interventions Of these patients 13 received a microlaparoscopy and 16 received standard laparoscopy. All patients agreed to complete the self‐administered Short‐Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF‐MPQ), immediately after surgery before any analgesia and at 48 h after surgery, in order to assess pain and recovery. Main outcome measures Pain intensity and recovery time for patients undergoing microlaparoscopy were compared with those for standard laparoscopy. Results There was no significant difference between the two groups when the affective, sensory and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, immediately after recovery and at 48 h, were compared. However there was a significant difference in the time to return to normal activity as perceived by the patients, with the ML group scoring a quicker return to normal activity (mean ± SD, 3.6 ± 3.6 compared with the SL group (7.1 ± 3.3) ( P = 0.01). This was despite a significant difference in operating times between the two groups. The mean operating time for the ML group was 22.6 min (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.8–26.5), compared with a mean for the SL group of 16.4 min (95% CI, 13.9–18.8) ( P = 0.01). The ML group required no narcotic postoperative analgesia. Conclusion There was no significant difference in pain scores between groups in whom the microlaparoscope or the standard laparoscope were used. However the microlaparoscopy group experienced a quicker post‐surgical recovery, required less analgesia and were more satisfied with their scar.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Outcome instruments
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.
References (10)
- W55213078 via openalex
- W1970630331 via openalex
- W2023800329 via openalex
- W2026889962 via openalex
- W2049281874 via openalex
- W2063080880 via openalex
- W2083263782 via openalex
- W2138407894 via openalex
- W2160037294 via openalex
- W2272537075 via openalex
Source provenance
- openalex
- last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
- unpaywall
- last seen: 2026-09-01T06:29:04.589233+00:00
License: CC0
· commercial use OK