Loading…

Conventional 3-port vs. single-incision laparoscopic oophorectomy for ovarian cryopreservation in paediatric surgery: a retrospective case-note review

Objective We aim to compare conventional 3-port with single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for oophorectomy in patients undergoing ovarian cryopreservation. Background Demand for cryopreservation of ovarian tissue prior to the initiation of gonadotoxic treatment has risen significantly since i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Annals of pediatric surgery 2022-04, Vol.18 (1), p.1-7, Article 24
Main Authors: Metcalfe, Kiloran, Ghattaura, Harmit, Elbourne, Ceri, Ashour, Khaled, Lane, Sheila, Lakhoo, Kokila
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-d3928c391e072dfcb024ed63197b19246e892e933cd4738f2c194e8037c547123
container_end_page 7
container_issue 1
container_start_page 1
container_title Annals of pediatric surgery
container_volume 18
creator Metcalfe, Kiloran
Ghattaura, Harmit
Elbourne, Ceri
Ashour, Khaled
Lane, Sheila
Lakhoo, Kokila
description Objective We aim to compare conventional 3-port with single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for oophorectomy in patients undergoing ovarian cryopreservation. Background Demand for cryopreservation of ovarian tissue prior to the initiation of gonadotoxic treatment has risen significantly since its introduction in England in 2013. Traditionally, laparoscopic oophorectomy is performed using a 3-port technique with an umbilical port and 2 smaller 5-mm working ports. Energy devices can be used to allow haemostatic dissection of the ovary and this is delivered through the umbilical port site. In an attempt to improve efficiency, post-operative outcomes, and enhance cosmesis; our department initiated the use of the Applied Medical GelPoint Mini Advanced Access Platform single port technique using a vertical trans-umbilical approach for ovarian cryopreservation. Methods All patients undergoing laparoscopic oophorectomy for cryopreservation between September 2013 and August 2017 were included. The patients were consented for SILS, 3-port and open oophorectomies. All patients received maximum local anaesthetic wound infiltration intra-operatively. Case notes and theatre electronic data were reviewed and data was collected on additional procedure, conversion rate, operative time, post-operative analgesia requirement, complications and length of hospital stay. Results A total of 106 patients underwent laparoscopic oophorectomy during the study period. Of these, 40 underwent conventional 3-port, 65 had SILS and 1 patient had open. No cases were converted from the intended method. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean operative time; with SILS being faster than the conventional 3-port method (SILS: 40.4 min; 3-port: 51.7 min; p  = 0.017). There was no difference in length of stay or perioperative analgesics, and complication rates in both groups were low. Informal qualitative feedback included surgeons stating that the ovary was much easier to deliver using the SILS technique. Patients were also happy with a single cosmetically appeasing scar hidden within the umbilicus. Conclusion SILS is an acceptable technique in ovarian cryopreservation allowing a quicker operative time, easier delivery of the ovary, and better cosmesis. A learning curve is recognised due to the ergonomics of single port laparoscopy; however, the technique can be established easily in departments with existing laparoscopic capabilities. This is the first paper which estab
doi_str_mv 10.1186/s43159-022-00161-8
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_f04fe27c694045a89370736a14d8e712</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_f04fe27c694045a89370736a14d8e712</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2730343084</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-d3928c391e072dfcb024ed63197b19246e892e933cd4738f2c194e8037c547123</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1u1TAQhaMKpFalL8DKEmsX_yW22aEraCtVYgNry3UmF1-ldhj7Bt0X4XnrNghY4Y2t8TnfaOZ03VvOrjk3w_uiJO8tZUJQxvjAqTnrLgSzjPbSqlf_vM-7q1IOrJ1eDJbri-7XLqcVUo05-ZlIumSsZC3XpMS0n4HGFGJpn2T2i8dcQl5iIDkv3zNCqPnxRKaMJK8eo08k4CkvCAVw9c9MEhNZPIzRV2y-csQ94OkD8QShNtzSGHEFEnwBmnKFVl8j_HzTvZ78XODq933Zffv86evult5_ubnbfbynQSld6SitMEFaDkyLcQoPTCgYB8mtfuBWqAGMFWClDKPS0kwicKvAMKlDrzQX8rK727hj9ge3YHz0eHLZR_dSyLh3HmsMM7iJqQmEDoNVTPXeWKmZloPnajSwsd5trAXzjyOU6g75iG2txQktmVSSGdVUYlOFNn5BmP505cw9x-m2OF2L073E6Uwzyc1Umji1Ff5F_8f1BKKnpGQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2730343084</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Conventional 3-port vs. single-incision laparoscopic oophorectomy for ovarian cryopreservation in paediatric surgery: a retrospective case-note review</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>Springer Nature - SpringerLink Journals - Fully Open Access </source><creator>Metcalfe, Kiloran ; Ghattaura, Harmit ; Elbourne, Ceri ; Ashour, Khaled ; Lane, Sheila ; Lakhoo, Kokila</creator><creatorcontrib>Metcalfe, Kiloran ; Ghattaura, Harmit ; Elbourne, Ceri ; Ashour, Khaled ; Lane, Sheila ; Lakhoo, Kokila</creatorcontrib><description>Objective We aim to compare conventional 3-port with single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for oophorectomy in patients undergoing ovarian cryopreservation. Background Demand for cryopreservation of ovarian tissue prior to the initiation of gonadotoxic treatment has risen significantly since its introduction in England in 2013. Traditionally, laparoscopic oophorectomy is performed using a 3-port technique with an umbilical port and 2 smaller 5-mm working ports. Energy devices can be used to allow haemostatic dissection of the ovary and this is delivered through the umbilical port site. In an attempt to improve efficiency, post-operative outcomes, and enhance cosmesis; our department initiated the use of the Applied Medical GelPoint Mini Advanced Access Platform single port technique using a vertical trans-umbilical approach for ovarian cryopreservation. Methods All patients undergoing laparoscopic oophorectomy for cryopreservation between September 2013 and August 2017 were included. The patients were consented for SILS, 3-port and open oophorectomies. All patients received maximum local anaesthetic wound infiltration intra-operatively. Case notes and theatre electronic data were reviewed and data was collected on additional procedure, conversion rate, operative time, post-operative analgesia requirement, complications and length of hospital stay. Results A total of 106 patients underwent laparoscopic oophorectomy during the study period. Of these, 40 underwent conventional 3-port, 65 had SILS and 1 patient had open. No cases were converted from the intended method. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean operative time; with SILS being faster than the conventional 3-port method (SILS: 40.4 min; 3-port: 51.7 min; p  = 0.017). There was no difference in length of stay or perioperative analgesics, and complication rates in both groups were low. Informal qualitative feedback included surgeons stating that the ovary was much easier to deliver using the SILS technique. Patients were also happy with a single cosmetically appeasing scar hidden within the umbilicus. Conclusion SILS is an acceptable technique in ovarian cryopreservation allowing a quicker operative time, easier delivery of the ovary, and better cosmesis. A learning curve is recognised due to the ergonomics of single port laparoscopy; however, the technique can be established easily in departments with existing laparoscopic capabilities. This is the first paper which establishes this within a Paediatric Surgical setting, and adult literature suggests that further prospective trials may prove some benefit in ovarian tissue volume or time to initiation of treatment due to enhanced recovery.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2090-5394</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1687-4137</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2090-5394</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s43159-022-00161-8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Analgesics ; Bone marrow ; Chemotherapy ; Children &amp; youth ; Cryopreservation ; Drug dosages ; Fertility ; Laparoscopy ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Oncology ; Oophorectomy ; Original Research ; Ostomy ; Ovaries ; Ovary ; Patients ; Pediatrics ; Single-incision laparoscopy ; Stem cell transplantation ; Surgery</subject><ispartof>Annals of pediatric surgery, 2022-04, Vol.18 (1), p.1-7, Article 24</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2022</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-d3928c391e072dfcb024ed63197b19246e892e933cd4738f2c194e8037c547123</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0539-5059</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2730343084/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2730343084?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,25753,27924,27925,37012,44590,75126</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Metcalfe, Kiloran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghattaura, Harmit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elbourne, Ceri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ashour, Khaled</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lane, Sheila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lakhoo, Kokila</creatorcontrib><title>Conventional 3-port vs. single-incision laparoscopic oophorectomy for ovarian cryopreservation in paediatric surgery: a retrospective case-note review</title><title>Annals of pediatric surgery</title><addtitle>Ann Pediatr Surg</addtitle><description>Objective We aim to compare conventional 3-port with single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for oophorectomy in patients undergoing ovarian cryopreservation. Background Demand for cryopreservation of ovarian tissue prior to the initiation of gonadotoxic treatment has risen significantly since its introduction in England in 2013. Traditionally, laparoscopic oophorectomy is performed using a 3-port technique with an umbilical port and 2 smaller 5-mm working ports. Energy devices can be used to allow haemostatic dissection of the ovary and this is delivered through the umbilical port site. In an attempt to improve efficiency, post-operative outcomes, and enhance cosmesis; our department initiated the use of the Applied Medical GelPoint Mini Advanced Access Platform single port technique using a vertical trans-umbilical approach for ovarian cryopreservation. Methods All patients undergoing laparoscopic oophorectomy for cryopreservation between September 2013 and August 2017 were included. The patients were consented for SILS, 3-port and open oophorectomies. All patients received maximum local anaesthetic wound infiltration intra-operatively. Case notes and theatre electronic data were reviewed and data was collected on additional procedure, conversion rate, operative time, post-operative analgesia requirement, complications and length of hospital stay. Results A total of 106 patients underwent laparoscopic oophorectomy during the study period. Of these, 40 underwent conventional 3-port, 65 had SILS and 1 patient had open. No cases were converted from the intended method. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean operative time; with SILS being faster than the conventional 3-port method (SILS: 40.4 min; 3-port: 51.7 min; p  = 0.017). There was no difference in length of stay or perioperative analgesics, and complication rates in both groups were low. Informal qualitative feedback included surgeons stating that the ovary was much easier to deliver using the SILS technique. Patients were also happy with a single cosmetically appeasing scar hidden within the umbilicus. Conclusion SILS is an acceptable technique in ovarian cryopreservation allowing a quicker operative time, easier delivery of the ovary, and better cosmesis. A learning curve is recognised due to the ergonomics of single port laparoscopy; however, the technique can be established easily in departments with existing laparoscopic capabilities. This is the first paper which establishes this within a Paediatric Surgical setting, and adult literature suggests that further prospective trials may prove some benefit in ovarian tissue volume or time to initiation of treatment due to enhanced recovery.</description><subject>Analgesics</subject><subject>Bone marrow</subject><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>Children &amp; youth</subject><subject>Cryopreservation</subject><subject>Drug dosages</subject><subject>Fertility</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Oophorectomy</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Ostomy</subject><subject>Ovaries</subject><subject>Ovary</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Single-incision laparoscopy</subject><subject>Stem cell transplantation</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><issn>2090-5394</issn><issn>1687-4137</issn><issn>2090-5394</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1u1TAQhaMKpFalL8DKEmsX_yW22aEraCtVYgNry3UmF1-ldhj7Bt0X4XnrNghY4Y2t8TnfaOZ03VvOrjk3w_uiJO8tZUJQxvjAqTnrLgSzjPbSqlf_vM-7q1IOrJ1eDJbri-7XLqcVUo05-ZlIumSsZC3XpMS0n4HGFGJpn2T2i8dcQl5iIDkv3zNCqPnxRKaMJK8eo08k4CkvCAVw9c9MEhNZPIzRV2y-csQ94OkD8QShNtzSGHEFEnwBmnKFVl8j_HzTvZ78XODq933Zffv86evult5_ubnbfbynQSld6SitMEFaDkyLcQoPTCgYB8mtfuBWqAGMFWClDKPS0kwicKvAMKlDrzQX8rK727hj9ge3YHz0eHLZR_dSyLh3HmsMM7iJqQmEDoNVTPXeWKmZloPnajSwsd5trAXzjyOU6g75iG2txQktmVSSGdVUYlOFNn5BmP505cw9x-m2OF2L073E6Uwzyc1Umji1Ff5F_8f1BKKnpGQ</recordid><startdate>20220412</startdate><enddate>20220412</enddate><creator>Metcalfe, Kiloran</creator><creator>Ghattaura, Harmit</creator><creator>Elbourne, Ceri</creator><creator>Ashour, Khaled</creator><creator>Lane, Sheila</creator><creator>Lakhoo, Kokila</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>SpringerOpen</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0539-5059</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220412</creationdate><title>Conventional 3-port vs. single-incision laparoscopic oophorectomy for ovarian cryopreservation in paediatric surgery: a retrospective case-note review</title><author>Metcalfe, Kiloran ; Ghattaura, Harmit ; Elbourne, Ceri ; Ashour, Khaled ; Lane, Sheila ; Lakhoo, Kokila</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-d3928c391e072dfcb024ed63197b19246e892e933cd4738f2c194e8037c547123</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Analgesics</topic><topic>Bone marrow</topic><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>Children &amp; youth</topic><topic>Cryopreservation</topic><topic>Drug dosages</topic><topic>Fertility</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Oophorectomy</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Ostomy</topic><topic>Ovaries</topic><topic>Ovary</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Single-incision laparoscopy</topic><topic>Stem cell transplantation</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Metcalfe, Kiloran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghattaura, Harmit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elbourne, Ceri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ashour, Khaled</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lane, Sheila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lakhoo, Kokila</creatorcontrib><collection>SpringerOpen</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest - Health &amp; Medical Complete保健、医学与药学数据库</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Annals of pediatric surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Metcalfe, Kiloran</au><au>Ghattaura, Harmit</au><au>Elbourne, Ceri</au><au>Ashour, Khaled</au><au>Lane, Sheila</au><au>Lakhoo, Kokila</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Conventional 3-port vs. single-incision laparoscopic oophorectomy for ovarian cryopreservation in paediatric surgery: a retrospective case-note review</atitle><jtitle>Annals of pediatric surgery</jtitle><stitle>Ann Pediatr Surg</stitle><date>2022-04-12</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>7</epage><pages>1-7</pages><artnum>24</artnum><issn>2090-5394</issn><issn>1687-4137</issn><eissn>2090-5394</eissn><abstract>Objective We aim to compare conventional 3-port with single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for oophorectomy in patients undergoing ovarian cryopreservation. Background Demand for cryopreservation of ovarian tissue prior to the initiation of gonadotoxic treatment has risen significantly since its introduction in England in 2013. Traditionally, laparoscopic oophorectomy is performed using a 3-port technique with an umbilical port and 2 smaller 5-mm working ports. Energy devices can be used to allow haemostatic dissection of the ovary and this is delivered through the umbilical port site. In an attempt to improve efficiency, post-operative outcomes, and enhance cosmesis; our department initiated the use of the Applied Medical GelPoint Mini Advanced Access Platform single port technique using a vertical trans-umbilical approach for ovarian cryopreservation. Methods All patients undergoing laparoscopic oophorectomy for cryopreservation between September 2013 and August 2017 were included. The patients were consented for SILS, 3-port and open oophorectomies. All patients received maximum local anaesthetic wound infiltration intra-operatively. Case notes and theatre electronic data were reviewed and data was collected on additional procedure, conversion rate, operative time, post-operative analgesia requirement, complications and length of hospital stay. Results A total of 106 patients underwent laparoscopic oophorectomy during the study period. Of these, 40 underwent conventional 3-port, 65 had SILS and 1 patient had open. No cases were converted from the intended method. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean operative time; with SILS being faster than the conventional 3-port method (SILS: 40.4 min; 3-port: 51.7 min; p  = 0.017). There was no difference in length of stay or perioperative analgesics, and complication rates in both groups were low. Informal qualitative feedback included surgeons stating that the ovary was much easier to deliver using the SILS technique. Patients were also happy with a single cosmetically appeasing scar hidden within the umbilicus. Conclusion SILS is an acceptable technique in ovarian cryopreservation allowing a quicker operative time, easier delivery of the ovary, and better cosmesis. A learning curve is recognised due to the ergonomics of single port laparoscopy; however, the technique can be established easily in departments with existing laparoscopic capabilities. This is the first paper which establishes this within a Paediatric Surgical setting, and adult literature suggests that further prospective trials may prove some benefit in ovarian tissue volume or time to initiation of treatment due to enhanced recovery.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><doi>10.1186/s43159-022-00161-8</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0539-5059</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2090-5394
ispartof Annals of pediatric surgery, 2022-04, Vol.18 (1), p.1-7, Article 24
issn 2090-5394
1687-4137
2090-5394
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_f04fe27c694045a89370736a14d8e712
source Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); Springer Nature - SpringerLink Journals - Fully Open Access
subjects Analgesics
Bone marrow
Chemotherapy
Children & youth
Cryopreservation
Drug dosages
Fertility
Laparoscopy
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Oncology
Oophorectomy
Original Research
Ostomy
Ovaries
Ovary
Patients
Pediatrics
Single-incision laparoscopy
Stem cell transplantation
Surgery
title Conventional 3-port vs. single-incision laparoscopic oophorectomy for ovarian cryopreservation in paediatric surgery: a retrospective case-note review
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T03%3A49%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Conventional%203-port%20vs.%20single-incision%20laparoscopic%20oophorectomy%20for%20ovarian%20cryopreservation%20in%20paediatric%20surgery:%20a%20retrospective%20case-note%20review&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20pediatric%20surgery&rft.au=Metcalfe,%20Kiloran&rft.date=2022-04-12&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=7&rft.pages=1-7&rft.artnum=24&rft.issn=2090-5394&rft.eissn=2090-5394&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s43159-022-00161-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2730343084%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-d3928c391e072dfcb024ed63197b19246e892e933cd4738f2c194e8037c547123%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2730343084&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true