Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2019, Vol. 46 Issue (5): 779-783    DOI: 10.12891/ceog4818.2019
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Comparison of impact on ovarian reserve between laparoscopic and laparotomy ovarian cystectomy
N. Eamudomkarn1, L. Salang1, *(), K. Seejorn1, P. Kleebkaow1
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
Download:  PDF(315KB)  ( 202 ) Full text   ( 7 )
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Objective: To compare the effects of laparoscopy and laparotomy in unilateral ovarian cystectomy on ovarian reserve by measuring serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels. Design: Prospective cohort single-blind study. Setting: Tertiary care university hospital. Materials and Methods: Fifty-two patients with unilateral benign ovarian cysts were prospectively recruited from March to December 2016. Twenty-six patients underwent laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy and the other 26 underwent laparotomic ovarian cystectomy. Serum samples were obtained from all the study population preoperatively and two months postoperatively for AMH measurement. The number of follicles attached to the removed cyst wall were counted and recorded by a gynecological pathologist. Results: A statistically significant decrease in ovarian reserve at two months postoperatively was found in the laparotomy group when compared to the laparoscopy group. There was no difference in the number of follicles retained in the removed ovarian cyst walls between groups. No major operative complications occurred in either group. Conclusion: Patients undergoing ovarian cystectomy using a laparoscopic approach had better postoperative ovarian preservation when compared to conventional laparotomy.

Key words:  Ovarian cysts      Ovarian cystectomy      Ovarian reserve     
Published:  10 October 2019     
*Corresponding Author(s):  L. SALANG     E-mail:

Cite this article: 

N. Eamudomkarn, L. Salang, K. Seejorn, P. Kleebkaow. Comparison of impact on ovarian reserve between laparoscopic and laparotomy ovarian cystectomy. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(5): 779-783.

URL:     OR

[1] H. Saleh, F. Moiety, A.F. Agameya, Y. Elkassar, R.M. El Sharakwy, D. Zeidan, H. Elmeligy. Comparison between antral follicle count and anti-Müllerian hormonal level in the prediction of ovarian response and pregnancy outcome in intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients: implications in personalizing ovarian stimulation[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(2): 166-173.
[2] Hue HJ, Kim SK, Choi JY, Suh DH, Kim KD, No JH, Lee JR, Jee BC, Kim YB, Jeon HW. Previous ovarian surgery increases the risk of tubal factor infertility[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(1): 84-88.
[3] J. Jeong, J. Yang, Y. J. Song, Y. J. Na, H. G. Kim. A case report of acute ovarian cyst torsion by female adnexal tumor of probable Wölffian origin[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(5): 824-827.
[4] L.-S. Wang, X.-L. Zhao, X.-A. Cai, G.-F. Fu. Age specific reference intervals of serum anti-Müllerian hormone concentration of 1,253 women with healthy females in infertility center[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(4): 526-530.
[5] A.H. Kaya, E. Tekgunduz, S. Akpınar, G. Bozdağ, T.N. Yiğenoğlu, A. Merdin, S. Namdaroglu, O. Kayıkcı, F. Altuntaş. Assessment of ovarian reserve with anti-Mullerian hormone in women following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(1): 127-130.
[6] J. Micic, L. Surlan, J. Dotlic, N. Milic, S. Vidakovic, N. Radunovic. Ovarian response predictive model in different controlled ovarian stimulation protocols for IVF/ICSI treatment[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(6): 923-928.
[7] H.U. Yuvacı, S. Uysal, H. Haltaş, B. Sırav, C.I. Duvan, N. Turhan, N. Seyhan. The effect of non-ionizing radiation on the ovarian reserves of female rats[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(4): 605-610.
[8] A. Eser, D. Hizli, M. Namuslu, H. Haltas, N. Kosus, A. Kosus, H. Kafali. Protective effect of curcumin on ovarian reserve in a rat ischemia model: an experimental study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(3): 453-457.
[1] Eli M. Roth, Michael H. Davidson. PCSK9 Inhibitors: Mechanism of Action, Efficacy, and Safety[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2018, 19(S1): 31 -46 .
[2] Sandeep K. Krishnan, Norman E. Lepor. Acute and Chronic Cardiovascular Effects of Hyperkalemia: New Insights Into Prevention and Clinical Management[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2016, 17(S1): 9 -21 .
[3] Ibrahim Sidiqi, Patrick Alexander. Current Advances in Endovascular Therapy for Infrapopliteal Artery Disease[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2015, 16(1): 36 -50 .
[4] Peter Shalit. Management of Dyslipidemia in Patients With Human Immunodeficiency Virus[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2014, 15(S1): 38 -46 .
[5] Sophie Mavrogeni, Fabrizio Cantini, Gerald M. Pohost. Systemic Vasculitis: An Underestimated Cause of Heart Failure—Assessment by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2013, 14(1): 49 -55 .
[6] George L. Smith. Appropriate Use Criteria: The Gold Standard, or a Mechanism for the Derogation of Clinical Judgment?[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2011, 12(2): 105 .
[7] Prabhjot Singh Nijjar, Anoop Parameswaran, Aman M. Amanullah. Evaluation of Anomalous Aortic Origins of the Coronaries by 64-Slice Cardiac Computed Tomography[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2007, 8(3): 175 -181 .
[8] . SELF-ASSESSMENT POST-TEST[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2006, 7(S2): 51 -52 .
[9] Alice K. Jacobs. Gender Differences in Coronary Revascularization: Does Age Make a Difference?[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2004, 5(1): 68 -70 .
[10] Jeffrey W. Moses, Stephane Carlier, Issam Moussa. Lesion Preparation Prior to Stenting[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2004, 5(S2): 16 -21 .