Matthew T Siedhoff1, Stephanie B Wheeler2, Sarah E Rutstein2, Elizabeth J Geller3, Kemi M Doll3, Jennifer M Wu3, Daniel L Clarke-Pearson3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. Electronic address: matthew_siedhoff@med.unc.edu. 2. Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to model outcomes in laparoscopic hysterectomy with morcellation compared with abdominal hysterectomy for the presumed fibroid uterus and to examine short- and long-term complications and death. STUDY DESIGN: A decision tree was constructed to compare outcomes for a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 premenopausal women who underwent hysterectomy for presumed fibroid tumors over a 5-year time horizon. Parameter and quality-of-life utility estimates were determined from published literature for postoperative complications, leiomyosarcoma incidence, death related to leiomyosarcoma, and procedure-related death. RESULTS: The decision-tree analysis predicted fewer overall deaths with laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal hysterectomy (98 vs 103 per 100,000). Although there were more deaths from leiomyosarcoma after laparoscopic hysterectomy (86 vs 71 per 100,000), there were more hysterectomy-related deaths with abdominal hysterectomy (32 vs 12 per 100,000). The laparoscopic group had lower rates of transfusion (2400 vs 4700 per 100,000), wound infection (1500 vs 6300 per 100,000), venous thromboembolism (690 vs 840 per 100,000) and incisional hernia (710 vs 8800 per 100,000), but a higher rate of vaginal cuff dehiscence (640 vs 290 per 100,000). Laparoscopic hysterectomy resulted in more quality-adjusted life years (499,171 vs 490,711 over 5 years). CONCLUSION: The risk of leiomyosarcoma morcellation is balanced by procedure-related complications that are associated with laparotomy, including death. This analysis provides patients and surgeons with estimates of risk and benefit on which patient-centered decisions can be made.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to model outcomes in laparoscopic hysterectomy with morcellation compared with abdominal hysterectomy for the presumed fibroid uterus and to examine short- and long-term complications and death. STUDY DESIGN: A decision tree was constructed to compare outcomes for a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 premenopausal women who underwent hysterectomy for presumed fibroid tumors over a 5-year time horizon. Parameter and quality-of-life utility estimates were determined from published literature for postoperative complications, leiomyosarcoma incidence, death related to leiomyosarcoma, and procedure-related death. RESULTS: The decision-tree analysis predicted fewer overall deaths with laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal hysterectomy (98 vs 103 per 100,000). Although there were more deaths from leiomyosarcoma after laparoscopic hysterectomy (86 vs 71 per 100,000), there were more hysterectomy-related deaths with abdominal hysterectomy (32 vs 12 per 100,000). The laparoscopic group had lower rates of transfusion (2400 vs 4700 per 100,000), wound infection (1500 vs 6300 per 100,000), venous thromboembolism (690 vs 840 per 100,000) and incisional hernia (710 vs 8800 per 100,000), but a higher rate of vaginal cuff dehiscence (640 vs 290 per 100,000). Laparoscopic hysterectomy resulted in more quality-adjusted life years (499,171 vs 490,711 over 5 years). CONCLUSION: The risk of leiomyosarcoma morcellation is balanced by procedure-related complications that are associated with laparotomy, including death. This analysis provides patients and surgeons with estimates of risk and benefit on which patient-centered decisions can be made.
Authors: Kai A Bickenbach; Paul J Karanicolas; John B Ammori; Shiva Jayaraman; Jordan M Winter; Ryan C Fields; Anand Govindarajan; Itzhak Nir; Flavio G Rocha; Murray F Brennan Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2013-04-06 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Suzanne George; Constance Barysauskas; César Serrano; Titilope Oduyebo; Jose A Rauh-Hain; Marcela G Del Carmen; George D Demetri; Michael G Muto Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jason D Wright; Thomas J Herzog; Jennifer Tsui; Cande V Ananth; Sharyn N Lewin; Yu-Shiang Lu; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Amy K O'Sullivan; David Thompson; Paula Chu; David W Lee; Elizabeth A Stewart; Milton C Weinstein Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Mobolaji O Ajao; Christian R Larsen; Elmira Manoucheri; Emily R Goggins; Maja T Rask; Mary K B Cox; Avery Mushinski; Xiangmei Gu; Sarah L Cohen; Martin Rudnicki; Jon I Einarsson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Sarah E Rutstein; Matthew T Siedhoff; Elizabeth J Geller; Kemi M Doll; Jennifer M Wu; Daniel L Clarke-Pearson; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Ann Peters; Amanda M Sadecky; Daniel G Winger; Richard S Guido; Ted T M Lee; Suketu M Mansuria; Nicole M Donnellan Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Emily C Von Bargen; Cara L Grimes; Kavita Mishra; Rui Wang; Miriam J Haviland; Michele R Hacker; Joseph A Carnevale; Alyssa J Estes; Eman A Elkadry Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Francesco Multinu; Jvan Casarin; Kristine T Hanson; Stefano Angioni; Andrea Mariani; Elizabeth B Habermann; Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Ana M Rodriguez; Mehmet R Asoglu; Muhammet Erdal Sak; Alai Tan; Mostafa A Borahay; Gokhan S Kilic Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Date: 2015-11-28 Impact factor: 2.831