J H Olsson1, M Ellstrom, M Hahlin. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Goteborg University, Sahlgrenska Hospital, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare short term clinical results in a prospective randomised trial of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal hysterectomy. METHODS:One hundred and forty-three women scheduled for total abdominal hysterectomy, with or without salpingo-oophorectomy and with a maximum uterine width of less than ll cm, were prospectively randomised to undergo the procedure by laparoscopic hysterectomy (n = 71) or abdominal hysterectomy (n = 72). During laparoscopic hysterectomy, the uterine arteries as well as the upper portion of the cardinal ligaments were transected laparoscopically. The perioperative and post-operative courses of the groups were compared. RESULTS: The number of women with a complication did not differ significantly between laparoscopic hysterectomy (27%) and abdominal hysterectomy (33%) groups. The post-operative fall in erythrocyte volume fraction was significantly greater following abdominal hysterectomy (5.6% compared with 4.1% median value, P < 0.001). Post operative pain, assessed by the patients two days after surgery on a visual analogue scale, was significantly higher following abdominal hysterectomy (4.2 compared with 3.6 units median value, P < 0.05). Although laparoscopic hysterectomy took longer (148 min compared with 85 min median value, P < 0.001), the women undergoing this procedure had a shorter post-operative time in hospital (two compared with four days median value, P < 0.001) and a shorter convalescence (16 compared with 35 days median value, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Laparoscopic hysterectomy is a safe procedure for selected patients scheduled for abdominal hysterectomy, and offers benefits to the patients in the form of less operative bleeding, less post-operative pain, shorter time in hospital and shorter convalescence time.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare short term clinical results in a prospective randomised trial of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal hysterectomy. METHODS: One hundred and forty-three women scheduled for total abdominal hysterectomy, with or without salpingo-oophorectomy and with a maximum uterine width of less than ll cm, were prospectively randomised to undergo the procedure by laparoscopic hysterectomy (n = 71) or abdominal hysterectomy (n = 72). During laparoscopic hysterectomy, the uterine arteries as well as the upper portion of the cardinal ligaments were transected laparoscopically. The perioperative and post-operative courses of the groups were compared. RESULTS: The number of women with a complication did not differ significantly between laparoscopic hysterectomy (27%) and abdominal hysterectomy (33%) groups. The post-operative fall in erythrocyte volume fraction was significantly greater following abdominal hysterectomy (5.6% compared with 4.1% median value, P < 0.001). Post operative pain, assessed by the patients two days after surgery on a visual analogue scale, was significantly higher following abdominal hysterectomy (4.2 compared with 3.6 units median value, P < 0.05). Although laparoscopic hysterectomy took longer (148 min compared with 85 min median value, P < 0.001), the women undergoing this procedure had a shorter post-operative time in hospital (two compared with four days median value, P < 0.001) and a shorter convalescence (16 compared with 35 days median value, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic hysterectomy is a safe procedure for selected patients scheduled for abdominal hysterectomy, and offers benefits to the patients in the form of less operative bleeding, less post-operative pain, shorter time in hospital and shorter convalescence time.
Authors: Ray Garry; Jayne Fountain; Su Mason; Jeremy Hawe; Vicky Napp; Jason Abbott; Richard Clayton; Graham Phillips; Mark Whittaker; Richard Lilford; Stephen Bridgman; Julia Brown Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-01-07
Authors: Jason D Wright; Rosa R Cui; Anqi Wang; Ling Chen; Ana I Tergas; William M Burke; Cande V Ananth; June Y Hou; Alfred I Neugut; Sarah M Temkin; Y Claire Wang; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Glenn E Palomaki; Monica R McClain; Stephanie Melillo; Heather L Hampel; Stephen N Thibodeau Journal: Genet Med Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Hans A M Brölmann; Antonie Vonk Noordegraaf; David J Bruinvels; Riekie H C de Vet; Amarantha A Dirksz; Judith A F Huirne Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-01-01 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Johanna W M Aarts; Theodoor E Nieboer; Neil Johnson; Emma Tavender; Ray Garry; Ben Willem J Mol; Kirsten B Kluivers Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-08-12