# Ovarian Reserve After Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Single-Site Ovarian Cystectomy for Mature Cystic Teratoma: A Prospective Comparative Study

## TL;DR

This study compares robotic and laparoscopic single-site ovarian cystectomy for mature cystic teratoma and finds no significant difference in their impact on ovarian reserve.

## Contribution

The study provides a prospective comparison of two surgical methods for ovarian cystectomy and their effects on ovarian reserve.

## Key findings

- There were no significant differences in the rate of decline in AMH levels between robotic and laparoscopic methods.
- BMI was independently associated with increased operative time, but surgical method was not.
- Hemostasis method varied significantly between groups but did not independently affect AMH levels.

## Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the impact of robotic (RO) versus laparoscopic single-site ovarian cystectomy (LO) on ovarian reserve, as measured by changes in anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels. Methods: A total of 43 women undergoing LO and 40 women undergoing RO for mature cystic teratoma were included. The baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes were scrutinized. AMH levels were evaluated preoperatively and at 3 months after surgery. Results: BMI (body mass index) was higher in the LO group (23.1 ± 3.6 cm vs. 21.7 ± 2.1 kg/m2, p = 0.03) than in the RO group. Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics. The LO group showed a shorter operative time (70.0 ± 24.0 vs. 86.5 ± 26.7 min, p = 0.002) than the RO group., However, multiple linear regression analysis revealed that BMI was independently associated with increased operative time (p = 0.001), while the surgical method was not a significant predictor (p = 0.725). There were no significant differences in the rate of decline in AMH level between the LO and RO groups (13.3 ± 21.2 vs. 4.64 ± 34.1%, p = 0.167). There were intergroup differences in the hemostasis method: in the LO group, bipolar coagulation was performed for 27 (62.8%) patients, and sutures were performed for 16 (37.2%) patients; in the RO group, bipolar coagulation was performed for 5 (12.5%) patients, and sutures were performed for 33 (82.5%) patients, while in the case of 2 (5.0%) patients, hemostasis was not performed (p < 0.001). However, note that in our logistic regression analysis, the hemostasis method was excluded as an independent factor affecting AMH. Conclusions: There appear to be no significant advantages of RO over LO in terms of ovarian reserve preservation.