General Surgery

Laparoscopic Surgery - Keyhole Surgery

Keyhole surgery reliably delivers fewer wound infections, less blood loss and a faster first six weeks. It has not improved cancer survival anywhere, and in two operations randomized trials found it worse.

About This Department

In 2018 a randomized trial of keyhole surgery for early cervical cancer was stopped early because the women in the keyhole arm were dying. Four and a half year survival free of disease was 86.0 percent with keyhole surgery and 96.5 percent with open surgery, and the hazard ratio for death from any cause was 6.00. That result is the reason this page exists, because keyhole surgery is usually sold as a straightforward improvement and the evidence says something more precise, which is that it reliably buys you the first six weeks and only sometimes buys you anything after that. That is not an argument against keyhole surgery, which remains the right operation for most of the abdomen and has the randomized evidence to prove it, and it is an argument for asking a much narrower question than the one most consultations answer. The narrow question is whether your operation is one of the ones where it has been tested.

Free consultation

Ask whether keyhole is proven for your particular operation

Send your diagnosis and biopsy report, every scan report together with the images, a list of any previous abdominal or pelvic operations with their operative notes if you have them, your height and weight, and your medication list including blood thinners. A surgeon reviews the file and tells you whether the keyhole approach is supported by randomized evidence for your specific condition, what the expected conversion rate is, and where the honest uncertainty sits. No fee, no obligation, and a coordinator replies in your own language, usually within the same working day.

WhatsApp: +90 549 648 55 11 Send your reports and scans +90 549 648 55 11

What it actually is

Small holes, and a belly full of gas

Three to five ports, each somewhere between five and twelve millimeters wide, are placed through the abdominal wall. Carbon dioxide is pumped in to lift the wall away from the organs and make a working space, usually at a pressure between twelve and sixteen millimeters of mercury. A camera goes through one port and instruments through the others. The gas is what makes the operation possible and it is also the source of several problems that belong to keyhole surgery alone.

The operation inside is the same operation

This is the part most often misunderstood. Keyhole surgery is a different way of reaching the target, and the removal, the repair or the join that follows is meant to be identical to what would have been done through a long incision. When it is not identical, that is when trials find problems, and both of the rectal cancer trials described further down failed on exactly that point and not on anything to do with the wounds.

The specimen still has to come out

Whatever is removed leaves through an incision, and for a bowel resection or a kidney that incision is not small. This is why the wound advantages of keyhole surgery are much larger in operations where nothing bulky is removed, such as gallbladder or appendix, than in operations where a specimen has to be extracted intact.

What it reliably buys

Four benefits show up repeatedly across specialties, in pooled analyses of randomized trials, and they are worth stating with their numbers instead of as adjectives.

Fewer wound infections

Across 63 randomized trials and 7,612 adults having their appendix removed, the odds of a wound infection were 0.42 with keyhole surgery, with a confidence interval of 0.35 to 0.51. In children the effect was larger still, at odds of 0.25 across 10 trials. This is the most consistent single advantage in the whole literature and it follows directly from the size of the holes.

Less blood lost

Pooling 18 comparative studies of kidney removal for tumors larger than seven centimeters, keyhole surgery lost 237 milliliters less blood on average, with a confidence interval running from 174 to 300 milliliters, and the odds of needing a transfusion fell to 0.37. Those studies were not randomized, which matters, and the size of the difference is hard to explain away.

Fewer days in hospital

Three days fewer after gallbladder removal in a review of 38 trials and 2,338 patients. Just under one day fewer after appendix surgery across 46 trials. Just under three days fewer after kidney removal. The size of the saving tracks the size of the operation, and it is real in every specialty that has measured it.

An earlier return to ordinary life

Five days earlier after appendix surgery. Around seven days earlier after groin hernia repair, on a hazard ratio of 0.56 pooled from 41 reports and 7,161 participants. Nearly fourteen days earlier after hysterectomy for benign disease, from six trials. Twenty two days earlier after gallbladder removal, though that figure carries a very wide confidence interval and comes largely from older trials.

The six weeks, then what

Somebody measured this properly

A quality of life substudy inside a large gynecological cancer trial followed 802 women, 535 of whom had keyhole surgery and 267 of whom had open surgery, and asked them at one, three and six weeks and again at six months. Over the six week period the keyhole group scored better on general wellbeing, physical functioning, body image, pain, interference of pain with daily life, resumption of normal activities and return to work, all with statistically significant differences. At six months only one of those differences was still there, and it was body image. Everything else had converged. Six months is not a long time in the life of someone recovering from cancer surgery, and the fact that a carefully measured advantage in pain, function and daily life had almost entirely dissolved by then is the most useful single finding on this page. It tells you what to expect and what not to expect.

The honest size of the effect

Investigators also reported something which rarely makes it into hospital brochures, which is that the difference in the main quality of life score did not reach the threshold at which patients notice a change. The authors described their own findings as providing modest support for a quality of life advantage, hedged twice in a single sentence, and that hedging is more informative than the list of significant p values above it. Statistically detectable and personally noticeable are different standards, and keyhole surgery clears the first one comfortably while clearing the second one only sometimes.

Where the advantage does survive

One trial tested whether the keyhole advantage disappears once both groups get a modern recovery program, randomizing patients twice over, first to keyhole or open colon surgery and then to a fast track recovery protocol or standard care. Median total hospital stay was five days for keyhole with fast track, seven days for open with fast track, six days for keyhole with standard care and seven days for open with standard care. When the analysis asked which single factor independently shortened both hospital stay and complications, the answer was the keyhole approach and not the recovery protocol. So the advantage is not an artifact of better aftercare, and it remains an advantage measured in days instead of years. Trials of this kind are unusual and expensive, since randomizing patients twice over requires roughly four times the sample size of an ordinary comparison, which is why the question has been answered properly only once and why the answer deserves more attention than it gets.

Operation by operation

Keyhole surgery covers dozens of operations and the evidence is different for each one. Find yours before you accept any general statement about keyhole surgery, including the general statements on this page.

Wide table. Swipe or drag it sideways on a narrow screen, because it scrolls instead of shrinking.

What the pooled evidence shows, specialty by specialty
Operation	The gain	The catch
Gallbladder	Three days less in hospital and a much shorter convalescence across 38 trials.	In the trials that concealed their allocation properly, the difference in complications disappeared entirely.
Appendix, adults	Wound infection odds of 0.42 and a return to normal activity five days sooner.	Deep abscess inside the abdomen was more common, with odds of 1.65 across 53 trials.
Appendix, children	Wound infection odds of 0.25, a stronger effect than in adults.	The abscess signal did not appear at all, and pain and activity showed no clear difference.
Groin hernia	Less lasting pain and numbness, and about seven days earlier back to usual activity.	In a trial of 2,164 men, recurrence of a first-time hernia was 10.1 percent against 4.9 percent after open repair.
Hysterectomy, benign	Return to normal activity almost fourteen days earlier than after open surgery.	Urinary tract injuries were more common, with odds of 2.4, and the vaginal route beat keyhole surgery outright.
Kidney removal	237 milliliters less blood, a third the transfusion risk, three days less in hospital.	Five separate cancer outcomes showed no difference, and the operation ran sixteen minutes longer.
Prostate removal	Fewer complications, at 4 percent against 9 percent, though not statistically significant.	Urinary and sexual function at twelve weeks were indistinguishable, and margins were 15 percent against 10 percent.
Perforated ulcer	Less wound infection and less pain across five trials and 549 patients.	The analysis published no effect sizes, so nobody can say how large any of those differences were.

Where it lost

Radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer had been drifting toward the keyhole approach for years on the strength of retrospective series and the obvious appeal of smaller wounds. A randomized trial set out to confirm that it was no worse, using a margin of 7.2 percentage points on four and a half year survival free of disease, and the data monitoring committee stopped it.

Survival free of disease at four and a half years was 86.0 percent after keyhole or robotic surgery and 96.5 percent after open surgery, a difference of 10.6 percentage points with a confidence interval running from 4.7 to 16.4 points, entirely on the wrong side of the margin. At three years the hazard ratio for recurrence or death from cervical cancer was 3.74 with a confidence interval of 1.63 to 8.58, and the hazard ratio for death from any cause was 6.00 with a confidence interval of 1.77 to 20.30. Adjusting for age, body weight, stage, lymphovascular invasion and node involvement did not remove the difference. The trial did not fail to show a benefit. It showed harm. Trials are stopped early for two reasons, one being that the new treatment is working so well that withholding it becomes unethical and the other being the reverse, and this was the reverse, which is why the result reshaped practice worldwide within about a year of publication.

An observational study published in the same issue of the same journal pointed the same way from a completely different direction. Among 2,461 American women with stage IA2 or IB1 disease treated between 2010 and 2013, of whom 1,225 had minimally invasive surgery, four year mortality was 9.1 percent against 5.3 percent, with a hazard ratio of 1.65 and a confidence interval of 1.22 to 2.22. The authors then looked at national survival trends and found that four year relative survival had been stable through the years before keyhole radical hysterectomy was adopted and declined by about 0.8 percent per year afterward. That study is an epidemiological analysis rather than a trial, and its authors were careful to write associated with rather than caused by, a hedge worth preserving. Two studies of completely different design, run in different countries on different populations, arriving at the same conclusion by different routes is about as strong as evidence gets outside of a replicated randomized trial, and no replication of this one will ever be run because it would now be unethical to randomize anyone to the keyhole arm.

Nobody has fully explained why. The leading suspicions are the uterine manipulator used to move the uterus during keyhole surgery and the effect of carbon dioxide on tumor cells released into the abdomen, and neither has been proven. What is not in doubt is the result, and open radical hysterectomy is now the standard for this disease in most of the world.

What happens on the day

General anesthetic, and a breathing tube. Keyhole surgery almost always needs full muscle relaxation, because the abdominal wall has to be lifted by gas against no resistance. The gas also pushes the diaphragm upward and is absorbed into the blood, so the anesthetist adjusts your ventilation throughout. People with limited heart or lung reserve tolerate this less well, which is a genuine reason a surgeon may prefer an open operation.

The first port goes in, and the gas goes on. This is the step with the small but real risk of injuring a blood vessel or a loop of bowel before anything can be seen. In a pooled analysis of groin hernia trials, injuries to organs occurred in 8 of 2,315 keyhole operations against 1 of 2,599 open ones, and vessel injuries in 7 against 5. Small numbers, and they belong to this technique instead of to the operation.

The other ports are placed under direct vision. From here the risk profile is closer to the open operation, because the surgeon can see where each instrument is going. The operation itself then takes longer than it would have taken open, by roughly fifteen minutes for a hernia repair, sixteen for a kidney, forty five for a rectal resection and seventy for a hysterectomy in a cancer trial.

The specimen comes out and the gas comes off. How completely the gas is removed matters more than most patients are told, because the residue is what causes shoulder pain over the next two days. Techniques that actively clear it at the end of the operation cut the severity of that pain substantially, and they cost nothing.

The port sites are closed, and the larger ones are stitched deep. Ports of ten millimeters and above need their deep layer closed to prevent a hernia forming there later. Whether that was done should be written in your operative note, and it is worth checking.

The two rectal trials

Two large randomized trials of rectal cancer surgery reported on the same day in the same journal in 2015, one American and Canadian, one Australian and New Zealand. Both asked whether the keyhole operation produced a specimen as good as the open one, judged on three things together, which were a clear margin around the outside of the specimen, a clear margin below the tumor, and a complete envelope of fatty tissue removed intact. Both failed.

In the American trial of 486 patients, a successful resection was achieved in 81.7 percent of keyhole operations against 86.9 percent of open ones, against a margin of 6 percentage points. In the Australasian trial of 475 patients, the figures were 82 percent against 89 percent, against a margin of 8 points. Neither established that keyhole surgery was no worse.

Neither trial showed that keyhole surgery was harmful. Failing to establish non-inferiority is a weaker statement than demonstrating inferiority, and the distinction matters. What both showed is that the question remained open at the point where a surgeon would have liked it closed. The Australasian investigators put it in a sentence worth quoting in full, saying that their confidence intervals included potentially clinically important differences favoring open resection, so that the combination of their primary and secondary endpoints might not support keyhole resection of rectal cancer as a routine standard of care.

Follow-up from both was reassuring without settling anything. Two year survival free of disease was 79.5 percent against 83.2 percent in the American trial and 80 percent against 82 percent in the Australasian one, and local recurrence at two years was 4.6 percent against 4.5 percent and 5.4 percent against 3.1 percent. Both sets of survival results were secondary endpoints of trials whose primary endpoint had failed, and the American authors said plainly that these analyses were not powered. Anyone quoting them as proof that keyhole rectal surgery is safe is quoting an underpowered secondary analysis of a negative trial, which is not the same thing at all. The practical position most teams have settled on is that keyhole rectal surgery is reasonable in experienced hands for selected tumors, that the specimen quality should be reported and audited, and that a surgeon proposing it should be able to say what their own rate of complete specimens is instead of citing a trial that did not clear its bar.

Non-inferior or not

Trials that ask whether a new approach is no worse than an old one use a pre-agreed margin, and the verdict depends on whether the confidence interval stays inside it. Established and not established are the only two answers, and press coverage routinely reports the second as though it were the first.

Another wide one. Swipe or drag it sideways on a narrow screen, because it scrolls instead of shrinking.

What each trial actually concluded about keyhole surgery
Trial and disease	Margin	Verdict
Cervical cancer, 631 women	7.2 points on survival free of disease	Not established, and worse. Stopped early with a hazard ratio for death of 6.00.
Rectal cancer, American, 486	6 points on specimen quality	Not established. 81.7 percent against 86.9 percent.
Rectal cancer, Australasian, 475	8 points on specimen quality	Not established. 82 percent against 89 percent.
Womb cancer, 2,616 women	No more than a 40 percent rise in recurrence risk	Not established by a hair, and five year survival was 89.8 percent in both arms.
Womb cancer, 760 women	7 points, tested for equivalence	Established. Survival free of disease 81.6 percent against 81.3 percent.
Prostate cancer, 326 men	10 points on positive margins	Not established, and a test for a difference also found none. The trial was too small to resolve it.

Same technique, three verdicts

Two womb cancer trials that look contradictory

The larger of the two randomized 2,616 women two to one and set itself the bar that keyhole surgery must not raise the risk of recurrence by more than 40 percent. The hazard ratio came out at 1.14, with an upper bound of 1.46 against a permitted 1.40, so the trial technically failed, yet three year recurrence was 11.4 percent against 10.2 percent and five year overall survival was 89.8 percent in both arms, described by the authors as almost identical. The trial missed its statistical bar because recurrence turned out to be far rarer than the designers assumed, which is a failure of forecasting instead of a signal of harm. Statistical bars are set years before the data arrive, on assumptions about how often the thing being measured will happen, and when those assumptions turn out to be pessimistic the trial can end up unable to make a claim it has in fact demonstrated. That is what happened here.

The trial that cleared its bar

A second trial in the same disease randomized 760 women and tested for equivalence within seven percentage points. Survival free of disease at four and a half years was 81.3 percent after open surgery and 81.6 percent after keyhole surgery, a difference of 0.3 points with a confidence interval running from minus 5.5 to plus 6.1, comfortably inside the margin. Recurrence was 7.9 percent against 8.1 percent and deaths were 6.8 percent against 7.4 percent. Equivalence was established, and the technical p value of .007 in that trial means the two operations were statistically indistinguishable instead of one of them winning. Equivalence tests invert the usual logic, so a small p value means the evidence rules out a meaningful difference in either direction, and reading it the ordinary way produces exactly the wrong conclusion. Several secondary reports of this trial have done precisely that.

Why the organ decides

Put the three cancers side by side and the pattern is not about the technique. In the cervix, the trial missed its bar and survival diverged badly. In the womb lining, one trial missed its bar and survival was identical while another cleared its bar and survival was identical. Same instruments, same gas, same surgeons in some cases, and three different answers. That is why the only useful question is whether keyhole surgery has been tested in your specific disease, and what the answer was, rather than whether keyhole surgery is good.

Questions to take with you

Ten questions, in the order they become useful. The first four belong in the consultation where the approach is decided.

Has the keyhole approach been compared with open surgery in a randomized trial for my exact condition, and what did that trial conclude?
What proportion of your keyhole operations of this type end up converted to open surgery?
Does anything in my history, such as previous abdominal surgery or my heart and lung function, argue against the gas?
Would the operation inside me be identical either way, or does the keyhole route change what gets removed or repaired?
How much longer does the keyhole version take, and does that matter for someone with my anesthetic risk?
Will the deep layer of the larger port sites be stitched closed, and will that be recorded in the note?
What do you do at the end of the operation to clear the gas and reduce shoulder pain?
If you convert to open surgery, does that change my expected recovery compared with a planned open operation?
Which incision will the specimen come out through, and how long will it be?
If a robotic system is being offered, what does it add for me over standard keyhole surgery in this operation?

The gas and the shoulder

Why your shoulder hurts after an abdominal operation

Carbon dioxide left under the diaphragm irritates the nerve that supplies it, and that nerve arises from the same segments of the spinal cord that serve the shoulder tip, so the brain reads the signal as shoulder pain. It has nothing to do with your shoulder and there is no injury there. A Cochrane review covering 32 studies and 3,284 women states that this happens in up to 80 percent of women after gynecological keyhole surgery, with the potential for delayed discharge and readmission, and that number surprises most people because almost nobody is warned about it beforehand.

How much pressure is needed

Standard working pressure is twelve to sixteen millimeters of mercury, and gallbladder removal can be completed at lower pressure in roughly nine cases out of ten. Pooling 21 trials and 1,092 patients, there were no deaths in either group, conversion to open surgery was 0.8 percent at low pressure against 0.7 percent at standard pressure, hospital stay was no different and the operation ran about a minute and a half longer at low pressure. The reviewers concluded that no evidence currently supports routine low pressure surgery in people at low anesthetic risk and that its safety has yet to be established, which is a more cautious position than the popularity of the technique would suggest. Only one of those 21 trials was at low risk of bias. A more recent synthesis of 44 randomized trials found no significant differences in hospital stay, conversion or complications while reporting statistically significant differences in pain and painkiller use, and it published no effect sizes at all, so its conclusions cannot be checked against its own numbers.

Warming the gas, which does not help

Heating and humidifying the carbon dioxide sounds obviously sensible and it has been tested in 22 studies covering 1,428 patients. Core body temperature was higher by 0.31 degrees, an effect the reviewers themselves called unlikely to be clinically significant, and when the analysis was restricted to the eight studies at low risk of bias even that difference stopped being statistically significant. Postoperative pain scores showed no difference in any subgroup. Time in the recovery room appeared shorter until one study of unclear quality was removed, at which point the effect collapsed to about a minute. Their conclusion was that there is no clear evidence for heated gas insufflation with or without humidification. This one is worth knowing about because heated insufflation systems are marketed hard, appear on hospital equipment lists as a mark of modernity, and have been tested more thoroughly than almost any other refinement of keyhole surgery, with the tests coming back empty every time.

What helps the shoulder

Cochrane reviewers tested eight approaches. Some work, one is useless, and one made things worse, which is a rare enough spread of results to be worth a table.

Wide again. Drag the table sideways on a narrow screen, because it scrolls instead of shrinking.

Interventions tested against shoulder tip pain after keyhole surgery
What was tried	Effect	Evidence behind it
Actively clearing the gas at the end	Lower pain severity at 24 hours and less painkiller used	Five trials, 670 participants, no heterogeneity, low quality evidence
Leaving fluid in the abdomen	Odds of pain fell to 0.38 and severity fell by 2.27 points on a ten point scale	Two trials, 220 participants, moderate quality evidence
Leaving a drain in	Odds of pain at 24 hours fell to 0.30	Three trials, 417 participants, but the trials disagreed sharply with each other
Local anesthetic under the diaphragm	No benefit on either the chance of pain or its severity	Four trials, 336 participants, moderate quality evidence
Warming and humidifying the gas	No difference in the chance of pain or in its severity at 24 hours	Two trials, 194 participants, and a separate review of 22 studies agrees
Doing it without gas at all	Worse pain, by 3.8 points on a thirty point scale	One trial, 54 participants, low quality evidence

Conversion to open

How often it happens

Conversion means the surgeon abandons the keyhole approach mid-operation and makes an incision. It is not a complication and it is not a failure, and it should be discussed beforehand instead of afterward. Rates from randomized trials give the honest range. Gallbladder removal converts in under one percent of cases. Rectal cancer surgery converted in 11.3 percent in the American trial and 9 percent in the Australasian one, and in 10.1 percent overall in a trial comparing robotic with conventional keyhole surgery. Womb cancer staging is the outlier at 25.8 percent, and the reasons recorded there are the most informative in the literature, since poor visibility accounted for 14.6 percent, finding unexpected spread of cancer for 4.1 percent and bleeding for 2.9 percent.

Whether a converted operation goes badly

Whether a converted operation goes badly is the question patients actually want answered, and it has been studied directly. A single center matched analysis compared 100 converted colorectal operations against 305 planned open ones and 339 completed keyhole ones, and found overall complications in 33 percent of the planned open group, 29 percent of the converted group and 18 percent of the completed keyhole group. Deaths, sepsis, leaks at the join and unplanned returns to the operating room showed no differences between the three groups. The excess in the converted group compared with the completed keyhole group came mainly from wound infection. So converting leaves you worse off than if the keyhole operation had finished as planned, and no worse off than if you had been booked for an open operation from the start. That study came from a single high-volume center and was retrospective, so it describes what one experienced team achieved instead of what happens everywhere, and the authors drew the conclusion that surgeons should not be put off attempting difficult keyhole operations by the fear of what conversion would cost the patient.

What that means for your consent

Ask for the number instead of a reassurance. A surgeon who quotes their own conversion rate for your operation is telling you they audit their results, and one who says it hardly ever happens is telling you something different. The figure varies enormously by operation, and a rate that would be alarming for a gallbladder is entirely ordinary for a cancer staging operation in the pelvis.

The first six weeks at home

Days one and two, the shoulder. This is when the referred pain peaks and it is the symptom people are least prepared for. Walking helps, lying flat often makes it worse, and ordinary painkillers work. It passes within about two days and it is not a sign that anything has gone wrong.

The first week, the port sites. Small wounds, usually closed with dissolving stitches or glue. Redness spreading outward, increasing pain after day three, or any discharge needs to be reported instead of watched, because wound infection is less common after keyhole surgery and it is not impossible.

Weeks one to two, the deep ache. The port sites hurt less than the internal work, and the discomfort is usually described as a dragging or pulling instead of a sharp pain. After appendix surgery the average person is back to normal activity about five days sooner than after an open operation, which puts most people somewhere in this window.

Weeks two to six, back to work. After groin hernia repair the pooled evidence puts return to usual activity about a week earlier than after open repair. After a hysterectomy for benign disease it is closer to two weeks earlier. In a rectal cancer trial that asked, 84 percent of the keyhole group and 70 percent of the open group had returned to work at twelve months, though only half the survivors answered the questionnaire and the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Six months and beyond, convergence. By this point the measurable differences between keyhole and open surgery have largely disappeared in the studies that looked for them, with body image the exception. That is not a criticism of keyhole surgery. It is what the whole argument is about, and it is why the choice should turn on what the evidence says about your disease rather than on how you will feel in April.

Claims that do not hold

Five things get said about keyhole surgery that the randomized evidence does not support. Each is stated here with what was actually found.

Claims that it prevents hernias in the scar. The largest randomized comparison to report on this, covering 1,044 rectal cancer patients followed for five years, found no difference in bowel obstruction, hernia at the wound or hernia beside a stoma, and published no figures at all beyond that statement. Meanwhile port sites develop their own hernias. A review of 68 bariatric publications found a pooled incidence of 3.22 percent, rising to 24.5 percent in the studies that went looking with imaging rather than waiting for symptoms.
That it prevents adhesions and later bowel obstruction. A study of 69,303 colorectal resections found open surgery carried a hazard ratio of 1.14 for developing bowel obstruction, which is a real difference. The hazard ratio for actually needing an operation for that obstruction was 1.12 with a confidence interval of 0.94 to 1.32, which crosses one and is not statistically significant. A Scottish study of 24,046 gynecological operations concluded that with the exception of keyhole sterilizations, open and keyhole surgery carry comparable risks of readmission for adhesions.
A robot beats standard keyhole surgery. A trial of 471 rectal cancer patients across 29 sites in 10 countries compared the two directly. Conversion to open surgery, the primary outcome, was 8.1 percent with the robot and 12.2 percent without it, which did not reach statistical significance. Involved margins were 5.1 percent against 6.3 percent. Of eight other prespecified outcomes including bladder and sexual function, none differed.
Fewer holes are better. Pooling 37 studies covering 2,129 single-incision and 2,392 conventional gallbladder operations, the single-incision approach won on cosmetic appearance and on pain at six hours by just over half a point on a ten point scale, and it lost fifteen percent more operating time. Complications, blood loss, conversion, hospital stay and return to work showed no differences. The reviewers of hysterectomy trials were blunter, recommending that single-port and robotic hysterectomy either be abandoned or properly evaluated. Cosmetic appearance is a legitimate thing to want and it is not nothing, so the honest way to present the single-incision approach is as a trade of a slightly longer operation for a better looking abdomen, with everything a patient would call an outcome left unchanged. Presenting it as a technical advance overstates what four thousand five hundred randomized patients were able to show.
Warmed gas makes recovery easier. Twenty two studies and 1,428 patients found no effect on pain, on hospital stay, on lens fogging, on operation length or on serious complications. In one subgroup the heated non-humidified gas was associated with more morphine used on the first two days, which is the opposite of the intended effect.

What to send us

Whether the keyhole route is sensible in your case is mostly answerable from documents. Send these and you will get a specific answer instead of a general one.

The diagnosis in full, with the biopsy report. The exact condition determines whether randomized evidence exists for the keyhole approach, and for two conditions the evidence points firmly the other way. A one line diagnosis is not enough to place you.
Operative notes from any previous abdominal or pelvic surgery. Previous surgery is the commonest reason a keyhole operation converts to open, because of the adhesions it leaves behind. The note tells a surgeon what to expect beforehand instead of mid-operation.
Every scan report with the image files. Send the images themselves. The size and position of what needs removing determines whether it can come out through a small incision, and a radiologist here will want to look instead of read.
Your height, weight and any heart or lung diagnosis. The gas raises the pressure in your abdomen for the length of the operation, and people with limited cardiac or respiratory reserve tolerate that less well. This is the least discussed and most legitimate reason to prefer an open operation.
The medication list, with blood thinners named. Anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs need a plan made in advance, and the plan differs by drug instead of by category.

Who should think twice

Two cancers with direct evidence against

Early cervical cancer is the clearest case, where a randomized trial found survival free of disease of 86.0 percent against 96.5 percent and was stopped, and where the observational data from a different country and a different decade point the same way. Rectal cancer is the second, where two large trials both failed to establish that the keyhole specimen was as good as the open one, and where the follow-up analyses that looked reassuring were secondary endpoints of negative trials and explicitly not powered. Neither of these means keyhole surgery is never appropriate in these diseases. Both mean the conversation should be specific and the surgeon should be able to say why. There is a meaningful difference between the two situations, since in cervical cancer the randomized evidence points at active harm while in rectal cancer it points only at uncertainty about the quality of the specimen, and a surgeon who treats those two as equivalent has not read either trial carefully.

Two operations where a different approach wins

For a first-time groin hernia, a trial of 2,164 men found recurrence at two years of 10.1 percent after keyhole repair and 4.0 percent after open repair, and its authors wrote that the open technique is superior for primary hernias. For a recurrent hernia the direction reversed, at 10.0 percent against 14.1 percent. For hysterectomy for benign disease, a review of 47 studies and 5,102 women concluded that the vaginal route appears superior to both keyhole and open surgery, and that no advantage of keyhole surgery over the vaginal route could be found. In both cases the honest answer is that the best operation is neither of the two being compared on this page. Pages like this one are structured around a two-way choice because that is how the trials were designed, and real surgical decisions frequently have a third option that outperforms both, which is a good reason to ask what else is possible before agreeing to either.

People instead of diagnoses

Extensive previous abdominal surgery, poor heart or lung reserve, and any situation where speed matters more than wound size are all reasonable grounds for an open operation. So is a surgeon's own judgment that they do the open version better, which is an unfashionable thing to say and a good reason to trust someone. Adults having their appendix removed should also know that the deep abscess rate rose with the keyhole approach in the pooled trials, with odds of 1.65, even while wound infections fell by more than half.

What to ask before you agree

Is the evidence for my condition, or for keyhole surgery in general

This single distinction separates a useful answer from a marketing one. Keyhole surgery is proven for gallbladder removal, established for appendix surgery, equivalent for early womb cancer, unsettled for rectal cancer and contraindicated for early cervical cancer. A surgeon who answers with general statements about smaller scars has not answered.

What are you actually offering me in exchange

Fewer wound infections, less blood lost, a shorter stay and an earlier return to work are the honest currency. Better cancer survival is not on the list in any operation, and better long term quality of life has been measured and largely was not found. A consultation that promises the second set instead of the first has overstated the case.

Who is doing it, and how often

The investigators of a randomized prostate surgery trial ended their paper with advice that applies to this entire page, encouraging patients to choose an experienced surgeon they trust and with whom they have rapport, rather than a specific surgical approach. That sentence comes from a trial that found no functional difference between the two techniques at twelve weeks, which is precisely why it carries weight.

Reading your operation plan

Consent forms and operation notes use a small set of terms that carry more information than they look like they do. Here is what to look for.

This table is wide too. Swipe it sideways on a narrow screen, because it scrolls instead of shrinking.

Terms you will see, and what they tell you
On the paperwork	What it means	Why it matters to you
Laparoscopic assisted	Part of the operation was done through a conventional incision.	The wound advantages are proportionally smaller. Both rectal cancer trials used this approach.
Converted to open	The keyhole approach was abandoned during the operation.	Expect the recovery of an open operation. Outcomes match a planned open operation rather than a completed keyhole one.
Extraction site	The incision the specimen was removed through.	Often the largest wound and the one most likely to develop a hernia later. Ask how long it was.
Port sites closed at fascia	The deep layer of the larger holes was stitched.	This is the step that reduces later port site hernias, and its absence from the note is worth querying.
Insufflation pressure	The working pressure used, usually 12 to 16 millimeters of mercury.	Lower pressures are possible in most gallbladder operations, though the evidence for routinely using them is weak.
Robotic assisted	A console-controlled system was used for the keyhole operation.	In the one large trial that compared it with conventional keyhole surgery, no outcome differed significantly.

Coming to Istanbul

Length of stay depends on the organ rather than on the approach, though keyhole surgery shortens it by a day for an appendix, about three days for a gallbladder and about three days for a kidney. In practice most people traveling for elective keyhole abdominal surgery stay between five and nine days in Istanbul, which allows two days beforehand for assessment and anesthetic review and enough time afterward to be sure no wound or abscess problem is developing before a flight. If the operation converts to open surgery, plan on the longer stay that an open operation would have needed, and expect that decision to be made on the day instead of in advance. Building a few spare days into the trip is worth more than any other piece of planning advice on this page, because the difference between a completed keyhole operation and a converted one is several days of recovery and nobody can tell you in advance which one you will have.

Follow up after you return home is arranged before you leave, with a named contact here, your operative note describing exactly which ports were used and how they were closed, the pathology report if tissue was removed, and a plan for who reviews you locally. Take the operative note seriously as a document, because if a hernia appears at a port site in two years it is the only record of where the ports were and whether their deep layer was stitched.

The investigators of a randomized trial comparing robotic keyhole prostate surgery with open surgery, having found no difference in urinary or sexual function at twelve weeks, closed their paper by encouraging patients to choose an experienced surgeon they trust and with whom they have rapport, rather than a specific surgical approach. Nothing on this page improves on that.

Laparoscopic surgery FAQ

Is keyhole surgery always better than open surgery?

No. It reliably reduces wound infection, blood loss, hospital stay and time off work. It has not improved cancer survival in any operation, and in early cervical cancer a randomized trial found survival free of disease of 86.0 percent against 96.5 percent with open surgery and was stopped early.

Why does my shoulder hurt after abdominal surgery?

Carbon dioxide trapped under the diaphragm irritates a nerve that shares spinal segments with the shoulder. It affects up to 80 percent of women after gynecological keyhole surgery and usually settles within two days. Actively clearing the gas at the end of the operation reduces it measurably.

How often does keyhole surgery have to be converted to open?

Under 1 percent for gallbladder removal, 9 to 11 percent in the rectal cancer trials, and 25.8 percent in a large womb cancer staging trial where poor visibility was the commonest reason. Ask your own surgeon for their figure for your operation.

If my operation is converted, is that dangerous?

In a matched analysis, complications occurred in 29 percent of converted operations, 33 percent of planned open operations and 18 percent of completed keyhole operations, with no differences in deaths, sepsis or leaks. Converting leaves you roughly where a planned open operation would have.

Does keyhole surgery prevent hernias and adhesions?

Less than commonly claimed. A trial of 1,044 patients followed five years found no difference in hernia rates, port sites develop hernias of their own, and while one large study found less bowel obstruction after keyhole colorectal surgery, the difference in needing an operation for it was not statistically significant.

Is robotic surgery better than standard keyhole surgery?

Not on the evidence available. In a trial of 471 rectal cancer patients, conversion to open surgery was 8.1 percent with the robot and 12.2 percent without, a difference that was not statistically significant, and none of eight other prespecified outcomes differed.

Will I be back to normal faster?

In the first six weeks, yes, by roughly five days after appendix surgery, a week after hernia repair and two weeks after hysterectomy. By six months the measured differences have largely disappeared, with body image the exception.

How long should I stay in Turkey?

Five to nine days for most elective keyhole abdominal operations, allowing two days beforehand for assessment. Plan for a longer stay if the operation is converted to open surgery, since that decision is made during the operation.

References

Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, Buda A, Yan X, Yao S, Chetty N, Isla D, Tamura M, Zhu T, Robledo KP, Gebski V, Asher R, Behan V, Nicklin JL, Coleman RL, Obermair A. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2018;379(20):1895-1904.
Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, Keating NL, Del Carmen MG, Yang J, Seagle BL, Alexander A, Barber EL, Rice LW, Wright JD, Kocherginsky M, Shahabi S, Rauh-Hain JA. Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2018;379(20):1905-1914.
Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, Boller AM, George V, Abbas M, Peters WR, Maun D, Chang G, Herline A, Fichera A, Mutch M. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes, the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1346-1355.
Fleshman J, Branda ME, Sargent DJ, Boller AM, George VV, Abbas MA, Peters WR, Maun DC, Chang GJ, Herline A, Fichera A, Mutch MG. Disease-free survival and local recurrence for laparoscopic resection compared with open resection of stage II to III rectal cancer, follow-up results of the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized controlled trial. Annals of Surgery. 2019;269(4):589-595.
Stevenson ARL, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, Gebski VJ, Davies L, Wilson K, Hague W, Simes J. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer, the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1356-1363.
Stevenson ARL, Solomon MJ, Brown CSB, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, Gebski VJ, Wilson K, Hague W, Simes J. Disease-free survival and local recurrence after laparoscopic-assisted resection or open resection for rectal cancer, the Australasian laparoscopic cancer of the rectum randomized clinical trial. Annals of Surgery. 2019;269(4):596-602.
Law CK, Brewer K, Brown C, Wilson K, Bailey L, Hague W, Simes JR, Stevenson A, Solomon M, Morton RL. Return to work following laparoscopic-assisted resection or open resection for rectal cancer, findings from ALaCaRT. Cancer Medicine. 2020;10(2):552-562.
Keus F, de Jong JAF, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJHM. Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2006;2006(4):CD006231.
Rystedt J, Lindell G, Montgomery A. Bile duct injuries associated with 55,134 cholecystectomies, treatment and outcome from a national perspective. World Journal of Surgery. 2016;40(1):73-80.
Jaschinski T, Mosch CG, Eikermann M, Neugebauer EAM, Sauerland S. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018;11(11):CD001546.
Neumayer L, Giobbie-Hurder A, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R, Dunlop D, Gibbs J, Reda D, Henderson W. Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2004;350(18):1819-1827.
McCormack K, Scott NW, Go PM, Ross S, Grant AM. Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2003;2003(1):CD001785.
Aarts JWM, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Tavender E, Garry R, Mol BWJ, Kluivers KB. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015;2015(8):CD003677.
Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, Spiegel G, Barakat R, Pearl ML, Sharma SK. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer, Gynecologic Oncology Group study LAP2. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2009;27(32):5331-5336.
Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, Barakat R, Pearl ML, Sharma SK. Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer, Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2012;30(7):695-700.
Kornblith AB, Huang HQ, Walker JL, Spirtos NM, Rotmensch J, Cella D. Quality of life of patients with endometrial cancer undergoing laparoscopic International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging compared with laparotomy, a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2009;27(32):5337-5342.
Janda M, Gebski V, Davies LC, Forder P, Brand A, Hogg R, Jobling TW, Land R, Manolitsas T, Nascimento M, Neesham D, Nicklin JL. Effect of total laparoscopic hysterectomy vs total abdominal hysterectomy on disease-free survival among women with stage I endometrial cancer, a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;317(12):1224-1233.
Kaloo P, Armstrong S, Kaloo C, Jordan V. Interventions to reduce shoulder pain following gynaecological laparoscopic procedures. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2019;1(1):CD011101.
Birch DW, Dang JT, Switzer NJ, Manouchehri N, Shi X, Hadi G, Karmali S. Heated insufflation with or without humidification for laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016;10(10):CD007821.
Gurusamy KS, Vaughan J, Davidson BR. Low pressure versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014;2014(3):CD006930.
Ortenzi M, Montori G, Sartori A, Balla A, Botteri E, Piatto G, Gallo G, Vigna S, Guerrieri M, Williams S, Podda M, Agresta F. Low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surgical Endoscopy. 2022;36(10):7092-7113.
Petersson J, Koedam TW, Bonjer HJ, Andersson J, Angenete E, Bock D, Cuesta MA, Deijen CL, Fürst A, Lacy AM, Rosenberg J, Haglind E. Bowel obstruction and ventral hernia after laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer in a randomized trial (COLOR II). Annals of Surgery. 2019;269(1):53-57.
Karampinis I, Lion E, Grilli M, Hetjens S, Weiss C, Vassilev G, Seyfried S, Otto M. Trocar site hernias in bariatric surgery, an underestimated issue, a qualitative systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Surgery. 2019;29(3):1049-1057.
Aquina CT, Probst CP, Becerra AZ, Iannuzzi JC, Hensley BJ, Noyes K, Monson JRT, Fleming FJ. Missed opportunity, laparoscopic colorectal resection is associated with lower incidence of small bowel obstruction compared to an open approach. Annals of Surgery. 2016;264(1):127-134.
Lower AM, Hawthorn RJS, Clark D, Boyd JH, Finlayson AR, Knight AD, Crowe AM. Adhesion-related readmissions following gynaecological laparoscopy or laparotomy in Scotland, an epidemiological study of 24,046 patients. Human Reproduction. 2004;19(8):1877-1885.
Stafford C, Francone T, Roberts PL, Marcello PW, Ricciardi R. What influences conversion to open surgery during laparoscopic colorectal resection. Surgical Endoscopy. 2021;35(4):1584-1590.
Vlug MS, Wind J, Hollmann MW, Ubbink DT, Cense HA, Engel AF, Gerhards MF, van Wagensveld BA, van der Zaag ES, van Geloven AAW, Sprangers MAG, Cuesta MA, Bemelman WA. Laparoscopy in combination with fast track multimodal management is the best perioperative strategy in patients undergoing colonic surgery, a randomized clinical trial (LAFA-study). Annals of Surgery. 2011;254(6):868-875.
Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, Quirke P, West N, Rautio T, Thomassen N, Tilney H, Gudgeon M, Bianchi PP, Edlin R, Hulme C, Brown J. Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer, the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1569-1580.
Rudiman R, Hanafi RV, Wijaya A. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials. F1000Research. 2022;11:754.
Tan S, Wu G, Zhuang Q, Xi Q, Meng Q, Jiang Y, Han Y, Yu C, Yu Z, Li N. Laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer, a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Surgery. 2016;33 Pt A:124-132.
Grant AM, Cotton SC, Boachie C, Ramsay CR, Krukowski ZH, Heading RC, Campbell MK. Minimal access surgery compared with medical management for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, five year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial (REFLUX). BMJ. 2013;346:f1908.
Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L, Dunglison N, Carter R, Williams S, Payton DJ, Perry-Keene J, Lavin MF, Gardiner RA. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy, early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. The Lancet. 2016;388(10049):1057-1066.
Wang L, Li KP, Yin S, Yang L, Zhu PY. Oncologic and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for the treatment of renal tumor larger than 7 cm, a systematic review and pooled analysis of comparative outcomes. World Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2023;21(1):35.

Editor's note

Written by the Biruni Hospital medical editorial team. Reviewed by Prof. Dr. Hatice Deniz BÖLER, General Surgery.

Medically reviewed by

Prof. Dr. Hatice Deniz BÖLER

General Surgery

Related Treatments

View All