Gabriel Francisco Aleixo1, Marcelo C M Fonseca2, Maria A T Bortolini2, Luiz Gustavo O Brito3, Rodrigo A Castro2. 1. Universidade do Oeste Paulista, UNOESTE, Presidente Prudente, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: Gabriel.francisco.aleixo@gmail.com. 2. Sector of Urogynecology, Department of Gynecology, Federal University of São Paulo, UNIFESP, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The benefits and disadvantages of cervical extraction during hysterectomy are unclear in the literature. We intended to compare total (TH) with subtotal or supracervical (SH) hysterectomy regarding intraoperative and postoperative outcomes (quality of life, sexual function, pain and cyclical bleeding). METHODS: A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials was conducted on MEDLINE, LILACS, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov databases, and conference abstracts (AAGL, AUGS, ICS) from 1970 to November 2017. Two reviewers independently searched, selected and then combined the articles. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane's Collaboration tool. FINDINGS: Eleven studies were included involving 1523 patients. The analyses showed that the events operative time (mean difference: 12.88 minutes, 95%CI [7.45, 18.30] p < 0.000001), hospital stay (MD .44 days, 95%CI [0.11, 0.77] p = 0.0008), and intraoperative blood loss (MD 81.06 ml, 95%CI [9.16, 152.97] p = 0.03) favored SH over TH, although the rate of blood transfusion did not differ between the groups. Conversely, TH group had less cyclical vaginal bleeding over SH (1.2% versus 14.1%; RR .14 95%CI [0.05, 0.43] p = 0.0006) during one-year follow up. Persistent pain and sexual satisfaction rates, and quality of life scores were similar in both total and subtotal hysterectomy groups up to 12 months follow up. IMPLICATIONS: Overall perioperative outcomes favored the preservation of the cervix during hysterectomy but women that had SH are more susceptible to present cyclical vaginal bleeding mimicking menstruation. Those factors should be taken into account along with patient's needs and expectations prior to selecting the procedure.
PURPOSE: The benefits and disadvantages of cervical extraction during hysterectomy are unclear in the literature. We intended to compare total (TH) with subtotal or supracervical (SH) hysterectomy regarding intraoperative and postoperative outcomes (quality of life, sexual function, pain and cyclical bleeding). METHODS: A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials was conducted on MEDLINE, LILACS, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov databases, and conference abstracts (AAGL, AUGS, ICS) from 1970 to November 2017. Two reviewers independently searched, selected and then combined the articles. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane's Collaboration tool. FINDINGS: Eleven studies were included involving 1523 patients. The analyses showed that the events operative time (mean difference: 12.88 minutes, 95%CI [7.45, 18.30] p < 0.000001), hospital stay (MD .44 days, 95%CI [0.11, 0.77] p = 0.0008), and intraoperative blood loss (MD 81.06 ml, 95%CI [9.16, 152.97] p = 0.03) favored SH over TH, although the rate of blood transfusion did not differ between the groups. Conversely, TH group had less cyclical vaginal bleeding over SH (1.2% versus 14.1%; RR .14 95%CI [0.05, 0.43] p = 0.0006) during one-year follow up. Persistent pain and sexual satisfaction rates, and quality of life scores were similar in both total and subtotal hysterectomy groups up to 12 months follow up. IMPLICATIONS: Overall perioperative outcomes favored the preservation of the cervix during hysterectomy but women that had SH are more susceptible to present cyclical vaginal bleeding mimicking menstruation. Those factors should be taken into account along with patient's needs and expectations prior to selecting the procedure.
Authors: C Spüntrup; M Banerjee; M Bordelius; M Hellmich; J Bojahr; B Bojahr; C Albus; G Noé Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 2.344