Literature DB >> 26264829

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.

Johanna W M Aarts1, Theodoor E Nieboer, Neil Johnson, Emma Tavender, Ray Garry, Ben Willem J Mol, Kirsten B Kluivers.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The four approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH).
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched the following databases (from inception to 14 August 2014) using the Ovid platform: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO. We also searched relevant citation lists. We used both indexed and free-text terms. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction, quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvi-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction). MAIN
RESULTS: We included 47 studies with 5102 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate quality. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (nine RCTs, 762 women)Return to normal activities was shorter in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -9.5 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.6 to -6.4, three RCTs, 176 women, I(2) = 75%, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (25 RCTs, 2983 women)Return to normal activities was shorter in the LH group (MD -13.6 days, 95% CI -15.4 to -11.8; six RCTs, 520 women, I(2) = 71%, low quality evidence), but there were more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.8, 13 RCTs, 2140 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (16 RCTs, 1440 women)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for any primary outcomes. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (two RCTs, 152 women)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for any primary outcomes. Neither of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life.Overall, the number of adverse events was low in the included studies. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to LH and AH, as it is associated with faster return to normal activities. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because of more rapid recovery and fewer febrile episodes postoperatively. Where VH is not possible, LH has some advantages over AH (including more rapid recovery and fewer febrile episodes and wound or abdominal wall infections), but these are offset by a longer operating time. No advantages of LH over VH could be found; LH had a longer operation time, and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) had more urinary tract injuries. Of the three subcategories of LH, there are more RCT data for laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and LH than for TLH. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy and RH should either be abandoned or further evaluated since there is a lack of evidence of any benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. These benefits and hazards seem to be dependent on surgical expertise and this may influence the decision. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH may avoid the need for AH, but LH is associated with more urinary tract injuries. There is no evidence that RH is of benefit in this population. Preferably, the surgical approach to hysterectomy should be decided by the woman in discussion with her surgeon.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26264829      PMCID: PMC6984437          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  120 in total

1.  Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy: a study of 100 cases on light-endorsed transvaginal section.

Authors:  Eing-Mei Tsai; Hung-Sheng Chen; Cheng-Yu Long; Cheng-Hui Yang; Shih-Cheng Hsu; Chin-Hu Wu; Jau-Nan Lee
Journal:  Gynecol Obstet Invest       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.031

Review 2.  Health economics of hysterectomy.

Authors:  Ray Garry
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2005-03-02       Impact factor: 5.237

Review 3.  Cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy for benign gynecological conditions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Kristiina Pynnä; Piia Vuorela; Leena Lodenius; Jorma Paavonen; Risto P Roine; Pirjo Räsänen
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 3.636

4.  The CROWN Initiative: Journal editors invite researchers to develop core outcomes in women's health.

Authors:  K Khan
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 1.246

5.  Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: results of a randomized trial.

Authors:  Fabio Ghezzi; Antonella Cromi; Gabriele Siesto; Stefano Uccella; Luigi Boni; Maurizio Serati; Pierfrancesco Bolis
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2011-06-02       Impact factor: 4.137

6.  A simple procedure to prevent chronic vaginal colpotomy wound bleeding after laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy.

Authors:  Kok-Min Seow; Yu-Hung Lin; Jiann-Loung Hwang; Lee-Wen Huang; Ching-Pin Pan
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 3.561

7.  Recovery from vaginal hysterectomy compared with laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study.

Authors:  D Soriano; A Goldstein; F Lecuru; E Daraï
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.636

8.  Comparison of two procedures for laparovaginal hysterectomy: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Z Holub; A Jabor; L Kliment; J Vorácek; J Lukác
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 2.435

9.  A randomised prospective trial comparing laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy.

Authors:  J H Olsson; M Ellstrom; M Hahlin
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1996-04

10.  A comparison of vaginal, laparoscopic-assisted vaginal, and minilaparotomy hysterectomies for enlarged myomatous uteri.

Authors:  Francesco Sesti; Francesca Calonzi; Velia Ruggeri; Adalgisa Pietropolli; Emilio Piccione
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2008-09-03       Impact factor: 3.561

View more
  145 in total

1.  Postoperative Bladder Filling After Outpatient Laparoscopic Hysterectomy and Time to Discharge: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Lisa Chao; Suketu Mansuria
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 2.  New Developments in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Oncology Surgery.

Authors:  Katherine Ikard Stewart; Amanda N Fader
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 2.190

3.  Predictors of length of stay after urogynecological surgery at a tertiary referral center.

Authors:  Louise-Helene Gagnon; Selphee Tang; Erin Brennand
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Two-dimensional (2D) versus three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy for vaginal cuff closure by surgeons-in-training: a randomized controlled trial.

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

5.  Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Kate V Meriwether; Ethan M Balk; Danielle D Antosh; Cedric K Olivera; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Miles Murphy; Cara L Grimes; Ambereen Sleemi; Ruchira Singh; Alexis A Dieter; Catrina C Crisp; David D Rahn
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Rates and Routes of Hysterectomy for Benign Indications in Austria 2002 - 2014.

Authors:  Katharina Maria Edler; Karl Tamussino; Gerhard Fülöp; Evi Reinstadler; Walter Neunteufel; Philipp Reif; Rene Laky; Thomas Aigmüller
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 2.915

7.  Validation of an educational simulation model for vaginal hysterectomy training: a pilot study.

Authors:  Douglas Miyazaki; Catherine A Matthews; Mujan Varasteh Kia; Amr Sherif El Haraki; Noah Miyazaki; Chi Chiung Grace Chen
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 2.894

8.  Adnexectomy at the time of vaginal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Emily A Slopnick; David D Sheyn; Graham C Chapman; Sangeeta T Mahajan; Sharif El-Nashar; Adonis K Hijaz
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  Rate of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery Among Privately Insured Women in the United States, 2010-2013.

Authors:  Anne G Sammarco; Carolyn W Swenson; Neil S Kamdar; Emily K Kobernik; John O L DeLancey; Brahmajee Nallamothu; Daniel M Morgan
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Surgical outcomes of total laparoscopic hysterectomy with 2-dimensional versus 3-dimensional laparoscopic surgical systems.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Yazawa; Kaoru Takiguchi; Karin Imaizumi; Marina Wada; Fumihiro Ito
Journal:  Fukushima J Med Sci       Date:  2018-03-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.