Literature DB >> 35020034

Outcomes of vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy with concomitant pelvic reconstructive surgery.

Douglas Luchristt1, Kimberly Kenton2, C Emi Bretschneider2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Although vaginal hysterectomy(VH) is traditionally considered the safest route of hysterectomy, newer data suggest that laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) might have lower risks of perioperative complications in contemporary practice. Using a large surgical database, we aimed to assess the hypothesis that there are no significant differences in rates of major and minor complications between LH and VH when performed with pelvic reconstructive surgery, controlling for the number and type of pelvic reconstructive procedures.
METHODS: A total of 27,941 eligible LH and VH from the 2010-2018 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were identified. Concomitant pelvic reconstructive surgery was defined as either an apical suspension, enterocele repair, or colporrhaphy. Laparoscopy-assisted VH, gynecological malignancy, and concomitant nongynecological procedures were excluded. Complications within 30 days of surgery were grouped into major (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) or minor (grade 1-2) classifications. Bivariate analysis and inverse propensity-weighted logistic regression compared the outcomes of the VH and LH groups. Cochran-Armitage tests and multivariate regression assessed changes over time.
RESULTS: The majority of hysterectomies (72%) were vaginal, although its utilization declined from 89% in 2010 to 64% in 2018 (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis controlling for patient factors and the type and number of concomitant pelvic reconstructive procedures, LH was associated with a lower odds of major (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.711, 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.639-0.791) and minor (aOR 0.659, 95% CI: 0.612-0.710) complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Relative safety profiles should be considered among other patient factors when counseling women undergoing surgical prolapse repair. Our findings suggest that laparoscopic approaches can be safely utilized among older and sicker patients traditionally counseled toward a vaginal approach.
© 2022. The International Urogynecological Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Minimally invasive hysterectomy; Route of hysterectomy; Surgical outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35020034     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-05069-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   1.932


  11 in total

1.  Assessing current trends in resident hysterectomy training.

Authors:  Danielle Burkett; Joanna Horwitz; Vanessa Kennedy; Darby Murphy; Scott Graziano; Kimberly Kenton
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.091

2.  Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Geller; Nazema Y Siddiqui; Jennifer M Wu; Anthony G Visco
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Resident and Program Director Confidence in Resident Surgical Preparedness in Obstetrics and Gynecologic Training Programs.

Authors:  Erika Banks; Gregory M Gressel; Karen George; Mark B Woodland
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 4.  Abdominal approaches to pelvic prolapse repairs.

Authors:  Matthew E Pollard; Karyn S Eilber; Jennifer T Anger
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.309

5.  National Analysis of Perioperative Morbidity of Vaginal Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy at the Time of Uterosacral Ligament Suspension.

Authors:  Graham C Chapman; Emily A Slopnick; Kasey Roberts; David Sheyn; Susan Wherley; Sangeeta T Mahajan; Robert R Pollard
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 4.137

Review 6.  Surgical outcomes for low-volume vs high-volume surgeons in gynecology surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alex Mowat; Christopher Maher; Emma Ballard
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Multivariate Behav Res       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 5.923

8.  Ob/Gyn resident self-perceived preparedness for minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  Jordan S Klebanoff; Cherie Q Marfori; Maria V Vargas; Richard L Amdur; Catherine Z Wu; Gaby N Moawad
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2020-06-05       Impact factor: 2.463

9.  Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  The impact of surgeon volume on perioperative outcomes in hysterectomy.

Authors:  Florentien E M Vree; Sarah L Cohen; Niraj Chavan; Jon I Einarsson
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2014 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.