OBJECTIVE: To compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy among patients who are not eligible for vaginal hysterectomy. METHODS: Study subjects were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy or standard abdominal hysterectomy. Intraoperative and postoperative management was similar for each group. Surgical characteristics, complications, length of hospital stay, charges, and convalescence were analyzed. RESULTS:Sixty-five women at three institutions underwentlaparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (n = 34) or abdominal hysterectomy (n = 31). Three patients in the laparoscopic group required conversion to abdominal hysterectomy. Mean operating time was significantly longer for laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (179.8 versus 146.0 minutes). There were no differences in blood loss or incidence of intraoperative complications. There was a higher incidence of wound complications in the abdominal hysterectomy group, but no significant difference in the frequency of postoperative complications. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy required a significantly shorter mean hospital stay (2.1 days) and convalescence (28.0 days) than abdominal hysterectomy (4.1 days and 38.0 days, respectively). There were no significant differences in mean hospital charges between the study groups (laparoscopic $8161, abdominal $6974). CONCLUSION: Except for operating time, there are no differences between laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy regarding intraoperative characteristics among abdominal hysterectomy candidates. Postoperatively, laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy requires a shorter hospital stay and convalescence. Hospital charges are similar between the procedures. A larger number of cases will help determine the indications for laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy among patients who are not eligible for vaginal hysterectomy. METHODS: Study subjects were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy or standard abdominal hysterectomy. Intraoperative and postoperative management was similar for each group. Surgical characteristics, complications, length of hospital stay, charges, and convalescence were analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-five women at three institutions underwent laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (n = 34) or abdominal hysterectomy (n = 31). Three patients in the laparoscopic group required conversion to abdominal hysterectomy. Mean operating time was significantly longer for laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (179.8 versus 146.0 minutes). There were no differences in blood loss or incidence of intraoperative complications. There was a higher incidence of wound complications in the abdominal hysterectomy group, but no significant difference in the frequency of postoperative complications. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy required a significantly shorter mean hospital stay (2.1 days) and convalescence (28.0 days) than abdominal hysterectomy (4.1 days and 38.0 days, respectively). There were no significant differences in mean hospital charges between the study groups (laparoscopic $8161, abdominal $6974). CONCLUSION: Except for operating time, there are no differences between laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy regarding intraoperative characteristics among abdominal hysterectomy candidates. Postoperatively, laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy requires a shorter hospital stay and convalescence. Hospital charges are similar between the procedures. A larger number of cases will help determine the indications for laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy.
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: 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