Literature DB >> 14711749

The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy.

Ray Garry1, Jayne Fountain, Su Mason, Jeremy Hawe, Vicky Napp, Jason Abbott, Richard Clayton, Graham Phillips, Mark Whittaker, Richard Lilford, Stephen Bridgman, Julia Brown.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy in the abdominal trial, and laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy in the vaginal trial.
DESIGN: Two parallel, multicentre, randomised trials.
SETTING: 28 UK centres and two South African centres. PARTICIPANTS: 1380 women were recruited; 1346 had surgery; 937 were followed up at one year. Primary outcome Rate of major complications.
RESULTS: In the abdominal trial laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a higher rate of major complications than abdominal hysterectomy (11.1% v 6.2%, P = 0.02; difference 4.9%, 95% confidence interval 0.9% to 9.1%) and the number needed to treat to harm was 20. Laparoscopic hysterectomy also took longer to perform (84 minutes v 50 minutes) but was less painful (visual analogue scale 3.51 v 3.88, P = 0.01) and resulted in a shorter stay in hospital after the operation (3 days v 4 days). Six weeks after the operation, laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with less pain and better quality of life than abdominal hysterectomy (SF-12, body image scale, and sexual activity questionnaires). In the vaginal trial we found no evidence of a difference in major complication rates between laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy (9.8% v 9.5%, P = 0.92; difference 0.3%, -5.2% to 5.8%), and the number needed to treat to harm was 333. We found no evidence of other differences between laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy except that laparoscopic hysterectomy took longer to perform (72 minutes v 39 minutes) and was associated with a higher rate of detecting unexpected pathology (16.4% v 4.8%, P = < 0.01). However, this trial was underpowered.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a significantly higher rate of major complications than abdominal hysterectomy. It also took longer to perform but was associated with less pain, quicker recovery, and better short term quality of life. The trial comparing vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy was underpowered and is inconclusive on the rate of major complications; however, vaginal hysterectomy took less time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14711749      PMCID: PMC314503          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.37984.623889.F6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  20 in total

1.  A critical analysis of laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomies compared with vaginal hysterectomies unassisted by laparoscopy and transabdominal hysterectomies.

Authors:  M J Casey; J Garcia-Padial; C Johnson; N G Osborne; J Sotolongo; P Watson
Journal:  J Gynecol Surg       Date:  1994

2.  A body image scale for use with cancer patients.

Authors:  P Hopwood; I Fletcher; A Lee; S Al Ghazal
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  Prospective randomized clinical trial of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy.

Authors:  T Falcone; M F Paraiso; E Mascha
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Comparison of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with conventional abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

Authors:  J H Phipps; M John; S Nayak
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1993-07

5.  A randomised comparison and economic evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy.

Authors:  M A Lumsden; S Twaddle; R Hawthorn; I Traynor; D Gilmore; J Davis; M Deeny; I T Cameron; J J Walker
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 6.531

6.  Three methods for hysterectomy: a randomised, prospective study of short term outcome.

Authors:  C Ottosen; G Lingman; L Ottosen
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 6.531

7.  The VALUE national hysterectomy study: description of the patients and their surgery.

Authors:  M J A Maresh; M A Metcalfe; Klim McPherson; C Overton; V Hall; J Hargreaves; S Bridgman; J Dobbins; A Casbard
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 6.531

8.  Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy: an assessment of the learning curve in a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  A Perino; G Cucinella; R Venezia; A Castelli; E Cittadini
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 6.918

9.  A multicenter randomized comparison of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy in abdominal hysterectomy candidates.

Authors:  R L Summitt; T G Stovall; J F Steege; G H Lipscomb
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Is laparoscopic hysterectomy a waste of time?

Authors:  R E Richardson; N Bournas; A L Magos
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1995-01-07       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  83 in total

1.  Hysterectomy-a comparison of approaches.

Authors:  Andreas Müller; Falk C Thiel; Stefan P Renner; Mathias Winkler; Lothar Häberle; Matthias W Beckmann
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-05-21       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Results of eVALuate study of hysterectomy techniques: laparoscopic hysterectomy may yet have a bright future.

Authors:  M J Canis; A Wattiez; G Mage; M A Bruhat
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-03-13

3.  Results of eVALuate study of hysterectomy techniques: high rate of complications needs explanation.

Authors:  J Donnez; J Squifflet; P Jadoul; M Smets
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-03-13

4.  Results of eVALuate study of hysterectomy techniques: conversion to open surgery should not be regarded as major complication.

Authors:  Simon W Atkinson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-03-13

5.  Results of eVALuate study of hysterectomy techniques: degree of pain cannot be commented on.

Authors:  Stephen M F Saunders
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-03-13

6.  Technicity as a quality indicator of excellence in gynaecology.

Authors:  Maha Al-Khaduri; Yahya Al-Farsi
Journal:  Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J       Date:  2012-02-07

7.  Choosing the Route of Hysterectomy.

Authors:  Sandhyasri Panda; Ashok Kumar Behera; M Jayalakshmi; T Narasinga Rao; G Indira
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2014-05-24

Review 8.  Managing novel orally administered anticoagulants in patients undergoing urogynaecological surgery.

Authors:  Claire M McCarthy; Orfhlaith E O'Sullivan; Barry A O'Reilly
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  Indications and Route of Hysterectomy for Benign Diseases. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3 Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/070, April 2015)

Authors:  K J Neis; W Zubke; T Römer; K Schwerdtfeger; T Schollmeyer; S Rimbach; B Holthaus; E Solomayer; B Bojahr; F Neis; C Reisenauer; B Gabriel; H Dieterich; I B Runnenbaum; W Kleine; A Strauss; M Menton; I Mylonas; M David; L-C Horn; D Schmidt; P Gaß; A T Teichmann; P Brandner; W Stummvoll; A Kuhn; M Müller; M Fehr; K Tamussino
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.915

10.  Routes of hysterectomy in women with benign uterine disease in the Vancouver Coastal Health and Providence Health Care regions: a retrospective cohort analysis.

Authors:  Innie Chen; Sarka Lisonkova; Catherine Allaire; Christina Williams; Paul Yong; K S Joseph
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2014-10-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.