Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Mar 16.
Published in final edited form as: J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010 Oct 20;18(1):12–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.07.013

Table 2.

Comparison of various ports

Category Device/
Method		 Advantages Disadvantages
Access Port Multiple fascial incisions with low profile conventional ports
  • -

    Cheaper

  • -

    Quick entry
  • -

    Difficulty manipulating instruments

  • -

    Loss of pneumoperitoneum while manipulating instruments.
Wound retractor and surgical glove
  • -

    Cheaper

  • -

    Pliable material of glove allows for greater manipulation of instruments
  • -

    Cumbersome setup

  • -

    Potential loss of pneumo-peritoneum with glove leak

  • -

    Removal and replacement for organ retrieval could be time consuming.
SILS port
  • -

    Easy placement

  • -

    Pliable material allows easier instrument manipulation

  • -

    Availability of dedicated SILS kit
  • -

    Requires port removal for organ retrieval

  • -

    Limited number and size of instruments, which can pass through.
Gelpoint/Gelport
  • -

    Large outside diameter reduces instrument crowding

  • -

    Can be used in obese patients with abdominal wall up to 10 cm

  • -

    Can be used in robotic LESS cases
  • -

    Stiff material restricts instrument movements
Airseal
  • -

    Provides a smoke free operative view
  • -

    Expensive setup

  • -

    Noise

  • -

    Loss of fulcrum