A Comparison of Laparotomy and Laparoscopy in the Management of Ovarian Masses

Abstract

To compare the results of laparoscopy with laparotomy in the management of ovarian masses not suspected of being malignant, a retrospective review was made of 115 patients with ovarian masses operated on, 50 by laparotomy and 65 by laparoscopy, in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, from November 1, 1992, to October 31, 1993. In the laparoscopy group, the average size of the ovarian masses was smaller, and there was a significant reduction in the intraoperative blood loss, postoperative analgesic requirement, morbidity (particularly febrile morbidity and urinary retention), length of hospital stay, and recuperation period. The incidence of rupture of the ovarian mass was not related to the operative approach but to the underlying pathology. Two patients in the laparoscopy group were converted to laparotomy, and 1 in the laparotomy group required a second laparotomy. The operating time was longer in the laparoscopic approach, but this could be reduced with experience and improved technique in specimen removal. Laparoscopy appears to be a better approach than laparotomy in the management of ovarian masses where malignancy is not suspected and a competent surgeon is available.