Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 9, 2025

Introduction of Intracapsular Rotary-cut Procedures IRCP: A Modified Hysteromyomectomy Procedures Facilitating Fertility Preservation
Published on: January 17, 2019
Recovery after low-impact laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled clinical trial
Karim Bouattour1, Christine Louis-Sylvestre2, Richard Berry2
1Department of Anesthesiology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.
Background:
Low-impact laparoscopy, a surgical protocol using mini-laparoscopic instruments and low and stable pneumoperitoneal pressure, was developed as a minimally invasive approach to mitigate local and systemic effects of laparoscopy. However, its real clinical impact is still poorly documented.
Objective:
To evaluate low-impact laparoscopy impact on the postoperative recovery quality 6 hours after laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy.
Study Design:
Single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, conducted between December 2019 and August 2023, evaluating different approaches for outpatient laparoscopic hysterectomies. Sixty-eight adult patients scheduled for outpatient laparoscopic hysterectomy were included and randomized into 2 groups: low-impact laparoscopy with mini-trocars and low peritoneal pressure or conventional laparoscopy with standard-sized trocars and higher peritoneal insufflation pressure. The primary outcome was recovery quality 6 hours after laparoscopic hysterectomy, assessed with the multidimensional Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale. Secondary outcomes were: Analgesia Nociception Index-guided intraoperative remifentanil administration, intraoperative pain stimulation, postoperative pain intensity, opioid use, surgeon-assessed surgical conditions, adverse events, time to discharge, and patient satisfaction.
Results:
Two homogeneous groups were obtained. Protocol deviations attributable to surgical difficulties requiring larger instruments and higher pneumoperitoneal pressures to complete the intervention occurred in 6 low-impact laparoscopy-group patients. Recovery quality 6 hours after laparoscopic hysterectomy was comparable for the low-impact laparoscopy and conventional groups (10/34 [29%] and 8/34 [24%] of patients recovered their preoperative Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale values, respectively; P=.58). The low-impact laparoscopy group had lower intraoperative pain stimulation, with less remifentanil consumption. Postoperative pain intensity at rest and coughing and morphine requirement, adverse event, same-day discharge, and patient satisfaction rates did not differ between the 2 groups. Surgical conditions were deemed poorer in the low-impact laparoscopy group.
Conclusion:
Despite slightly less intraoperative pain stimulation, attesting to its minimally invasive nature, low-impact laparoscopy did not appear to improve 6 hours after laparoscopic hysterectomy recovery compared to conventional laparoscopy. Surgical conditions were rated poorer for the low-impact laparoscopy group. Low-impact laparoscopy does not seem to provide any clinical benefit.

