-
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology Feb 2017Hysterectomies performed laparoscopically have greatly increased within the last few decades and even exceed the number of vaginal hysterectomies (VHs). This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Hysterectomies performed laparoscopically have greatly increased within the last few decades and even exceed the number of vaginal hysterectomies (VHs). This systematic review, conducted according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines, compares surgical outcomes of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and VH to evaluate which approach offers the most benefits. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for all relevant publications from January 2000 to February 2016. All randomized controlled trials and cohort studies for benign indication or low-grade malignancy comparing TLH with VH were considered for inclusion. From the literature search, 24 articles were found to be relevant and included in this review. The results of our meta-analysis showed no difference between the 2 groups for overall complications (OR 1.24 [.68, 2.28] for major complications; OR .83 [.53, 1.28] for minor complications), risk of ureter and bladder injuries (OR .81 [.34, 1.92]), intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD] -30 mL [-67.34, 7.60]), and length of hospital stay (-.61 days [-1.23, -.01]). VH was associated with a shorter operative time (MD 42 minute [29.34, 55.91]) and a lower rate of vaginal cuff dehiscence (OR 6.28 [2.38, 16.57]) and conversion to laparotomy (OR 3.89 [2.18, 6.95]). Although not significant, the costs of procedure were lower for VH (MD 3889.9 dollars [2120.3, 89 000]). Patients in the TLH group had lower postoperative visual analog scale scores (MD -1.08, [-1.74, -.42]) and required less analgesia during a shorter period of time (MD -.64 days, [-1.06, -.22]). Defining the best surgical approach is a dynamic process that requires frequent re-evaluation as techniques improve. Although TLH and VH result in similar outcomes, our meta-analysis showed that when both procedures are feasible, VH is currently still associated with greater benefits, such as shorter operative time, lower rate of vaginal dehiscence and conversion to laparotomy, and lower costs. Many factors influence the choice for surgical approach to hysterectomy, and shared decision-making is recommended.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Cohort Studies; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Laparoscopy; Laparotomy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27867051
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.10.020 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015The four approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and robotic-assisted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Female; Genital Diseases, Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Laparoscopy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 26264829
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5 -
BMC Women's Health Jun 2019There are various surgical approaches of hysterectomy for benign indications. This study aimed to compare vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are various surgical approaches of hysterectomy for benign indications. This study aimed to compare vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) with respect to their complications and operative outcomes.
METHODS
We selected randomised controlled trials that compared VH with LH for benign gynaecological indications. We included studies published after January 2000 in the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library). The primary outcome was comparison of the complication rate. The secondary outcomes were comparisons of operating time, blood loss, intraoperative conversion, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay and duration of recuperation. We used Review Manager 5.3 software to perform the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies of 1618 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed no differences in overall complications, intraoperative conversion, postoperative pain on the day of surgery and at 48 h, length of hospital stay and recuperation time between VH and LH. VH was associated with a shorter operating time and lower postoperative pain at 24 h than LH.
CONCLUSIONS
When both surgical approaches are feasible, VH should remain the surgery of choice for benign hysterectomy.
Topics: Female; Gynecology; Humans; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 31234852
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-019-0784-4 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2019To evaluate the effectiveness and success of uterus preserving sacrospinous hysteropexy as an alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Observational Study Randomized Controlled Trial
Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness and success of uterus preserving sacrospinous hysteropexy as an alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse five years after surgery.
DESIGN
Observational follow-up of SAVE U (sacrospinous fixation versus vaginal hysterectomy in treatment of uterine prolapse ≥2) randomised controlled trial.
SETTING
Four non-university teaching hospitals, the Netherlands.
PARTICIPANTS
204 of 208 healthy women in the initial trial (2009-12) with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher requiring surgery and no history of pelvic floor surgery who had been randomised to sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. The women were followed annually for five years after surgery. This extended trial reports the results at five years.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Prespecified primary outcome evaluated at five year follow-up was recurrent prolapse of the uterus or vaginal vault (apical compartment) stage 2 or higher evaluated by pelvic organ prolapse quantification system in combination with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery for recurrent apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes were overall anatomical failure (recurrent prolapse stage 2 or higher in apical, anterior, or posterior compartment), composite outcome of success (defined as no prolapse beyond the hymen, no bothersome bulge symptoms, and no repeat surgery or pessary use for recurrent prolapse), functional outcome, quality of life, repeat surgery, and sexual functioning.
RESULTS
At five years, surgical failure of the apical compartment with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery occurred in one woman (1%) after sacrospinous hysteropexy compared with eight women (7.8%) after vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (difference-6.7%, 95% confidence interval -12.8% to-0.7%). A statistically significant difference was found in composite outcome of success between sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy (89/102 (87%) 77/102 (76%). The other secondary outcomes did not differ. Time-to-event analysis at five years showed no differences between the interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
At five year follow-up significantly less anatomical recurrences of the apical compartment with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery were found after sacrospinous hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. After hysteropexy a higher proportion of women had a composite outcome of success. Time-to-event analysis showed no differences in outcomes between the procedures.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
trialregister.nl NTR1866.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Ligaments; Middle Aged; Netherlands; Quality of Life; Recurrence; Reoperation; Severity of Illness Index; Suture Techniques; Treatment Outcome; Uterine Prolapse
PubMed: 31506252
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l5149 -
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology... Jul 2018This guideline reviews the evidence relating to the potential benefits of the vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and supracervical hysterectomy (SCH) versus total abdominal...
OBJECTIVE
This guideline reviews the evidence relating to the potential benefits of the vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and supracervical hysterectomy (SCH) versus total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) with respect to postoperative sexual function, urinary function, and peri- and postoperative complications. Laparoscopic options are not included in this guideline.
OPTIONS
Women considering hysterectomy for benign disease can be given the option of retaining the cervix or proceeding with a total hysterectomy.
OUTCOMES
The outcomes measured are postoperative sexual function and urinary function, and peri- and postoperative complications.
EVIDENCE
The Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase were searched for articles published in English from January 1950 to March 2008 specifically comparing VH and SCH with TAH in the prevention of sexual dysfunction, urinary dysfunction, and peri- and postoperative complications. Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. Additional publications were identified from the bibliographies of these articles. Randomized controlled trials were considered evidence of the highest quality, followed by cohort studies. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology assessment-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies.
VALUES
The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (Table).
Topics: Canada; Cervix Uteri; Female; Gynecology; Humans; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Obstetrics; Societies, Medical
PubMed: 29921438
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2018.04.033 -
Current Opinion in Obstetrics &... Dec 2021Pelvic organ prolapse surgery is performed via native tissue or graft augmented repair. Graft augmentation with synthetic mesh was introduced to improve long-term... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Pelvic organ prolapse surgery is performed via native tissue or graft augmented repair. Graft augmentation with synthetic mesh was introduced to improve long-term surgical outcomes compared with vaginal native tissue repairs. Vaginal hysteropexy has recently become increasingly popular due to patient preference and an improved morbidity profile over hysterectomy, while maintaining comparable efficacy. As long-term outcomes remain unanswered, mesh augmentation to vaginal hysteropexy has sought to improve efficacy while minimizing complications.
RECENT FINDINGS
Recent studies have demonstrated superiority of vaginal mesh hysteropexy to vaginal hysterectomy with native tissue vault suspension. Short-term follow-up of vaginal mesh hysteropexy has also demonstrated lower blood loss and operative time with improved vaginal length compared with hysterectomy. Mesh exposure rates across studies were low and comparable to those of abdominally placed prolapse mesh.
SUMMARY
Vaginal mesh hysteropexy is a comparably well tolerated and effective surgical treatment option for women with uterovaginal prolapse. Although vaginal mesh kits are not commercially available, this procedure may be a viable treatment option in select patients.
Topics: Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Surgical Mesh; Treatment Outcome; Uterine Prolapse; Vagina
PubMed: 34747883
DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000748 -
International Urogynecology Journal Apr 2023Vaginal packing is often used after vaginal hysterectomy to reduce the risk of haemorrhagic and infectious complications, but the procedure may impair spontaneous... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
Vaginal packing is often used after vaginal hysterectomy to reduce the risk of haemorrhagic and infectious complications, but the procedure may impair spontaneous bladder emptying and necessitate permanent bladder catheterization, which itself increases the risk of urinary infection, patient bother, delayed discharge, and increased costs. This systematic review was aimed at assessing the complications and outcomes associated with vaginal packing after vaginal hysterectomy.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, using the Population, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, and Study design (PICOS) framework to define eligibility. Following data synthesis and subgroup analyses, we assessed the certainty of evidence according to GRADE guidance and formulated a clinical recommendation.
RESULTS
The review included four clinical trials (involving 337 participants). These provided no clear evidence that vaginal packing led to clinically meaningful reductions in adverse effects, such as vaginal bleeding, hematoma formation, or postoperative vaginal cuff infection. Overall, the intervention produced no clear benefit regarding the predefined outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Routine vaginal packing after vaginal hysterectomy had no clear benefit on outcomes. We therefore advise against this procedure.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Postoperative Complications; Uterine Hemorrhage; Hematoma; Research Design; Hysterectomy
PubMed: 36018354
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-022-05331-1 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Aug 2020
Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterectomy, Vaginal
PubMed: 32732753
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004028 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Dec 2023To compare surgical efficacy outcomes and complications after laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy performed for benign gynecologic conditions. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare surgical efficacy outcomes and complications after laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy performed for benign gynecologic conditions.
DATA SOURCES
We performed an online search in major databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov , and the Cochrane Library from 2000 until February 28, 2023.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy in benign gynecologic conditions. We located 3,249 articles. After reviewing titles and abstracts, we identified 32 articles that were eligible for full-text screening. We excluded nine articles as not-RCT or not comparing vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy. Twenty-three articles were included in the final systematic review, with 22 articles included in the meta-analysis.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Twenty-three eligible RCTs included a total population of 2,408, with 1,105 in the vaginal hysterectomy group and 1,303 in the laparoscopic hysterectomy group. Blood loss and postoperative urinary tract infection rates were lower in the vaginal hysterectomy group than in the laparoscopic hysterectomy group (mean difference -68, 95% CI -104.29 to -31.7, P <.01, I2 =95% and odds ratio 1.73, 95% CI 0.92-3.26, P =.03, I2 =0%, respectively). Vaginal hysterectomy was associated with less total operative time, less recovery time, and greater postoperative pain on the day of surgery. Other complications, including conversion to laparotomy, visceral organ damage, or wound dehiscence, were uncommon. Because of insufficient data, we were not able to stratify by surgical indication.
CONCLUSION
Vaginal hysterectomy had a shorter total operative time and recovery time but greater postoperative pain on day of surgery compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, CRD42023338538.
Topics: Humans; Female; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Laparoscopy; Hysterectomy; Postoperative Complications; Pain, Postoperative; Genital Diseases, Female
PubMed: 37944141
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005434 -
Journal of Robotic Surgery Dec 2023The potential benefits and limitations of benign hysterectomy surgical approaches are still debated. We aimed at evaluating any differences with a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The potential benefits and limitations of benign hysterectomy surgical approaches are still debated. We aimed at evaluating any differences with a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were last searched on 6/2/2021 to identify English randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort and retrospective independent database studies published between Jan 1, 2010 and Dec 31, 2020 reporting perioperative outcomes following robotic hysterectomy versus laparoscopic, open, or vaginal approach (PROSPERO #CRD42022352718). Twenty-four articles were included that reported on 110,306 robotic, 262,715 laparoscopic, 189,237 vaginal, and 554,407 open patients. The robotic approach was associated with a shorter hospital stay (p < 0.00001), less blood loss (p = 0.009), and fewer complications (OR: 0.42 [0.27, 0.66], p = 0.0001) when compared to the open approach. The main benefit compared to the laparoscopic and vaginal approaches was a shorter hospital (R/L WMD: - 0.144 [- 0.21, - 0.08], p < 0.0001; R/V WMD: - 0.39 [- 0.70, - 0.08], p = 0.01). Other benefits seen were sensitive to the inclusion of database studies. Study type differences in outcomes, a lack of RCTs for robotic vs. open comparisons, learning curve issues, and limited robotic vs. vaginal publications are limitations. While the robotic approach was mainly comparable to the laparoscopic approach, this meta-analysis confirms the classic benefits of minimally invasive surgery when comparing robotic hysterectomy to open surgery. We also reported the advantages of robotic surgery over vaginal surgery in a patient population with a higher incidence of large uterus and prior surgery.
Topics: Female; Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Hysterectomy; Uterus; Robotics; Laparoscopy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal
PubMed: 37856058
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01724-6