Which Should Be the Preferred Technique During Laparoscopic Ovarian Cystectomy: Hemostatic Sutures or Bipolar Electrocoagulation? A Randomized Controlled Prospective Study of Long-Term Ovarian Reserve

In: Reproductive Sciences · 2016 · vol. 24(3) , pp. 393–399 · doi:10.1177/1933719116657195 · PMID:27436368 · W2503680469
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 12 in-corpus citations
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06+body, 2026-06-11

This study found that hemostatic sutures better preserved ovarian reserve after laparoscopic cystectomy compared to bipolar electrocoagulation, with no significant differences in pregnancy rates.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-08 · read from full text

This randomized controlled prospective study enrolled 90 patients with unilateral ovarian cysts undergoing laparoscopic stripping cystectomy, then compared hemostatic control using hemostatic sutures versus bipolar electrocoagulation. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and ovarian reserve markers (residual ovarian volume, antral follicle count) were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 1, 3, and 12 months, with pregnancy evaluated as an additional outcome. AMH was lower with bipolar electrocoagulation at 3 and 12 months, and in the bipolar group postoperative AMH decreased relative to baseline, whereas the suture group did not show a statistically significant AMH change; pregnancy rates did not differ between groups. The paper’s key limitation is that results are based on a unilateral ovarian cyst population, which may not fully generalize to endometrioma-specific settings. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — its broader corpus relevance is supported by the shared endometrioma-surgery theme (ovarian reserve after laparoscopic cystectomy and hemostatic technique), even though this specific trial enrolled unilateral ovarian cysts rather than exclusively endometriosis.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Full text 10,311 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 2 sections · click to expand

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to determine the long-term effects of different laparoscopic hemostatic techniques on ovarian reserve after ovarian cystectomy. Ninety patients with unilateral ovarian cysts were recruited and randomly distributed into 2 groups. Laparoscopic stripping cystectomy was performed in all patients. Afterward, cystectomy hemostasis was achieved via hemostatic suture or bipolar electrocoagulation. Serum levels of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) were determined preoperatively and postoperatively at 1, 3, and 12 months, and patients were evaluated for residual ovarian volume, antral follicle count, and pregnancy. The statistical difference was determined between the 2 groups in terms of AMH levels at 3 months (hemostatic suture group = 3.17 ± 3.40 vs bipolar electrocoagulation group = 2.38 ± 2.57, P =.006) and 12 months (hemostatic suture group = 3.71 ± 3.09 vs bipolar electrocoagulation group = 2.78 ± 2.85, P =.005). In addition, in the hemostatic suture group, there was no statistically significant difference between preoperative and postoperative AMH levels (P =.165) and between the postoperative antral follicle count (P =.779) and the residual ovarian volume (P =.248), whereas in the bipolar electrocoagulation group, postoperative AMH levels were lower than preoperative levels (P =.028) and postoperative residual ovarian volumes at 3 and 12 months were lower than those at 1 month (P =.001). Nonetheless, pregnancy rates were not significantly different (P =.546). Bipolar electrocoagulation is more destructive compared with hemostatic suture. However, the ovarian reserve does not decrease further during the follow-up period. Similar content being viewed by others

References

Borgfeldt C, Andolf E. Transvaginal sonographic ovarian findings in a random sample of women 25-40 years old. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999;13(5):345–350. Brun JL, Fritel X, Aubard Y, et al. Management of presumed benign ovarian tumors: updated French guidelines. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;183:52–58. Tsolakidis D, Pados G, Vavilis D, et al. The impact on ovarian reserve after laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy versus three-stage management in patients with endometriomas: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(1):71–77. Hirokawa W, Iwase A, Goto M, et al. The post-operative decline in serum anti-Mullerian hormone correlates with the bilaterality and severity of endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):904–910. Dan H, Limin F. Laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy versus fenestration/coagulation or laser vaporization for the treatment of endometriomas: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2013;76(2):75–82. Canis M, Pouly JL, Tamburro S, Mage G, Wattiez A, Bruhat MA. Ovarian response during IVF-embryo transfer cycles after laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy for endometriotic cysts of >3 cm in diameter. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(12):2583–2586. Busacca M, Riparini J, Somigliana E, et al. Postsurgical ovarian failure after laparoscopic excision of bilateral endometriomas. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(2):421–425. Di Prospero F, Micucci G. Is operative laparoscopy safe in ovarian endometriosis? Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18(2):167. Hwu YM, Wu FS, Li SH, Sun FJ, Lin MH, Lee RK. The impact of endometrioma and laparoscopic cystectomy on serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:80. Hart RJ, Hickey M, Maouris P, Buckett W. Excisional surgery versus ablative surgery for ovarian endometriomata. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(2):CD004992. Song T, Lee SH, Kim WY. Additional benefit of hemostatic sealant in preservation of ovarian reserve during laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy: a multi-center, randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(8):1659–1665. Coric M, Barisic D, Pavicic D, Karadza M, Banovic M. Electrocoagulation versus suture after laparoscopic stripping of ovarian endometriomas assessed by antral follicle count: preliminary results of randomized clinical trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283(2):373–378. Özgönen H, Erdemoglu E, Günyeli I, Güney M, Mungan T. Comparison of the effects of laparoscopic bipolar electrocoagulation and intracorporeal suture application to ovarian reserve in benign ovarian cysts. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(4):729–732. Song T, Kim WY, Lee KW, Kim KH. Effect on ovarian reserve of hemostasis by bipolar coagulation versus suture during laparoendoscopic single-site cystectomy for ovarian endometriomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(3):415–420. Ercan CM, Duru NK, Karasahin KE, Coksuer H, Dede M, Baser I. Ultrasonographic evaluation and anti-Mullerian hormone levels after laparoscopic stripping of unilateral endometriomas. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;158(2):280–284. Vural B, Cakiroglu Y, Vural F, Filiz S. Hormonal and functional biomarkers in ovarian response. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;289(6):1355–1361. Ferrero S, Venturini PL, Gillott DJ, Remorgida V, Leone Roberti Maggiore U. Hemostasis by bipolar coagulation versus suture after surgical stripping of bilateral ovarian endometriomas: a randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(6):722–730. Candiani M, Barbieri M, Bottani B, et al. Ovarian recovery after laparoscopic enucleation of ovarian cysts: insights from echographic short-term postsurgical follow-up. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12(5):409–414. Beretta P, Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Busacca M, Zupi E, Bolis P. Randomized clinical trial of two laparoscopic treatments of endometriomas: cystectomy versus drainage and coagulation. Fertil Steril. 1998;70(6):1176–1180. Dilek U, Pata O, Tataroglu C, Aban M, Dilek S. Excision of endometriotic cyst wall may cause loss of functional ovarian tissue. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(3):758–760. Somigliana E, Berlanda N, Benaglia L, Viganò P, Vercellini P, Fedele L. Surgical excision of endometriomas and ovarian reserve: a systematic review on serum antimüllerian hormone level modifications. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(6):1531–1538. Ragni G, Somigliana E, Benedetti F, et al. Damage to ovarian reserve associated with laparoscopic excision of endometriomas: a quantitative rather than a qualitative injury. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(6):1908–1914. Muzii L, Bianchi A, Crocè C, Manci N, Panici PB. Laparoscopic excision of ovarian cysts: is the stripping technique a tissue-sparing procedure? Fertil Steril. 2002;77(3):609–614. Maneschi F, Marasá L, Incandela S, Mazzarese M, Zupi E. Ovarian cortex surrounding benign neoplasms: a histologic study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;169(2 pt 1):388–393. Seyhan A, Ata B, Uncu G. The impact of endometriosis and its treatment on ovarian reserve. Semin Reprod Med. 2015;33(6):422–428. Muzii L, Bellati F, Bianchi A, et al. Laparoscopic stripping of endometriomas: a randomized trial on different surgical techniques. Part II: pathological results. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(7):1987–1992. Yu HT, Huang HY, Soong YK, Lee CL, Chao A, Wang CJ. Laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy of endometriomas: surgeons’ experience may affect ovarian reserve and live-born rate in infertile patients with in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;152(2):172–175. Donnez J, Lousse JC, Jadoul P, Donnez O, Squifflet J. Laparoscopic management of endometriomas using a combined technique of excisional (cystectomy) and ablative surgery. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(1):28–32. Ata B, Turkgeldi E, Seyhan A, Urman B. Effect of hemostatic method on ovarian reserve following laparoscopic endometrioma excision; comparison of suture, hemostatic sealant, and bipolar dessication. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(3):363–372. Mohamed ML, Nouh AA, El-Behery MM, Mansour SA. Effect on ovarian reserve of laparoscopic bipolar electrocoagulation versus laparotomic hemostatic sutures during unilateral ovarian cystectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;114(1):69–72. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Zanconato G, Bergamini V, Berlanda N. Bipolar electrocoagulation versus suture of solitary ovary after laparoscopic excision of ovarian endometriomas. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2004;11(3):344–347. Ferrero S, Venturini PL, Gillott DJ, Remorgida V, Leone Roberti Maggiore U. Hemostasis by bipolar coagulation versus suture after surgical stripping of bilateral ovarian endometriomas: a randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(6):722–730. Li CZ, Liu B, Wen ZQ, Sun Q. The impact of electrocoagulation on ovarian reserve after laparoscopic excision of ovarian cysts: a prospective clinical study of 191 patients. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(4):1428–1435. Hansen KR, Hodnett GM, Knowlton N, Craig LB. Correlation of ovarian reserve tests with histologically determined primordial follicle number. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(1):170–175. Pacchiarotti A, Frati P, Milazzo GN, Catalano A, Gentile V, Moscarini M. Evaluation of serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels to assess the ovarian reserve in women with severe endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;172:62–64. Shah DK. Diminished ovarian reserve and endometriosis: insult upon injury. Semin Reprod Med. 2013;31(2):144–149. Vercellini P, DE Matteis S, Somigliana E, Buggio L, Frattaruolo MP, Fedele L. Long-term adjuvant therapy for the prevention of postoperative endometrioma recurrence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(1):8–16. Dewailly D, Andersen CY, Balen A, et al. The physiology and clinical utility of anti-Mullerian hormone in women. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(3):370–385. Takashima A, Takeshita N, Otaka K, Kinoshita T. Effects of bipolar electrocoagulation versus suture after laparoscopic excision of ovarian endometrioma on the ovarian reserve and outcome of in vitro fertilization. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2013;39(7):1246–1252. Author information Authors and Affiliations Corresponding author Rights and permissions About this article Cite this article Sahin, C., Akdemir, A., Ergenoglu, A.M. et al. Which Should Be the Preferred Technique During Laparoscopic Ovarian Cystectomy: Hemostatic Sutures or Bipolar Electrocoagulation? A Randomized Controlled Prospective Study of Long-Term Ovarian Reserve. Reprod. Sci. 24, 393–399 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719116657195 Published: Issue date: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719116657195

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (39)

Cited by (12)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK