-
International Urogynecology Journal Dec 2017The treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse (VVP) has been investigated in several randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but a systematic review of the topic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
The treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse (VVP) has been investigated in several randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but a systematic review of the topic is still lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of treatments for VVP.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on the treatment of VVP found in PubMed and Embase. Reference lists of identified relevant articles were checked for additional articles. A network plot was constructed to illustrate the geometry of the network of the treatments included. Only RCTs reporting on the treatment of VVP were eligible, conditional on a minimum of 30 participants with VVP and a follow-up of at least 6 months.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs reporting 846 women (ranging from 95 to 168 women) met the inclusion criteria. All surgical techniques were associated with good subjective results, and without differences between the compared technique, with the exception of the comparison of vaginal mesh (VM) vs laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). LSC is associated with a higher satisfaction rate. The anatomical results of the sacrocolpopexy (laparoscopic, robotic [RSC]. and abdominal [ASC]) are the best (62-91%), followed by the VM. However, the ranges of the anatomical outcome of VM were wide (43-97%). The poorest results are described for the sacrospinal fixation (SSF; 35-81%), which also correlates with the higher reoperation rate for pelvic organ prolapse (POP; 5-9%). The highest percentage of complications were reported after ASC (2-19%), VM (6-29%), and RSC (54%). Mesh exposure was seen most often after VM (8-21%). The rate of reoperations carried out because of complications, recurrence prolapse, and incontinence of VM was 13-22%. Overall, sacrocolpopexy reported the best results at follow-up, with an outlier of one trial reporting the highest reoperation rate for POP (11%). The results of the RSC are too small to make any conclusion, but LSC seems to be preferable to ASC.
CONCLUSIONS
A comparison of techniques was difficult because of heterogeneity; therefore, a network meta-analysis was not possible. All techniques have proved to be effective. The reported differences between the techniques were negligible. Therefore, a standard treatment for VVP could not be given according to this review.
Topics: Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Postoperative Complications; Sacrum; Surgical Mesh; Treatment Outcome; Vagina
PubMed: 29038834
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-017-3493-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2014This is an updated merged review of two originally separate Cochrane reviews: one on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological disease, the other on RAS for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated merged review of two originally separate Cochrane reviews: one on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological disease, the other on RAS for gynaecological cancer. RAS is a relatively new innovation in laparoscopic surgery that enables the surgeon to conduct the operation from a computer console, situated away from the surgical table. RAS is already widely used in the United States for hysterectomy and has been shown to be feasible for other gynaecological procedures. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not been clearly established and require independent review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in the treatment of women with benign and malignant gynaecological disease.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 5) and the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group Trials Register. We also searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, to complement the searches of the original malignant and benign disease reviews (conducted up to July 2010 and November 2011, respectively), from July 2010 to June 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We subgrouped data according to type of procedure and pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3. We performed sensitivity analyses by excluding studies at high risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs involving 517 women. Most were at low to moderate overall risk of bias; one was at high risk of bias. Four studies evaluated RAS for hysterectomy (371 women), and two studies evaluated RAS for sacrocolpopexy (146 women). All studies compared RAS with CLS, except for one study, which compared RAS with CLS or a vaginal surgical approach for hysterectomy. Confidence intervals for the risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications included benefits with either approach when they were analysed together (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.99; participants = 513; studies = 6; I(2) = 74%) and separately (low-quality evidence). Moderate-quality evidence was found for the effects of RAS on intraoperative injury when compared with CLS (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.46; participants = 415; studies = 5; I(2) = 0%), along with low-quality evidence for bleeding and infection complications.Mean total operating time was consistent across procedures and on average was about 42 minutes longer in the RAS arm compared with the CLS arm (95% CI 17 to 66 minutes; participants = 294; studies = 4; I(2) = 82%; moderate-quality evidence). Mean hospital stay for hysterectomy procedures was on average about seven hours shorter in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06; participants = 217; studies = 2; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). The estimated effect of conversion with RAS compared with CLS was imprecise (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.12; participants = 337; studies = 4; I(2) = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Limited data from two studies suggest that RAS for sacrocolpopexy may be associated with increased postoperative pain compared with CLS; this needs further investigation. We identified five ongoing trials-four of cancer surgery.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain as to whether RAS or CLS has lower intraoperative and postoperative complication rates because of the imprecision of the effect and inconsistency among studies when they are used for hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that these procedures take longer with RAS but may be associated with a shorter hospital stay following hysterectomy. We found limited evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for surgical procedures performed for gynaecological cancer; therefore its use should be limited to clinical trials. Ongoing trials are likely to have an important impact on evidence related to the use of RAS in gynaecology.
Topics: Female; Genital Diseases, Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 25493418
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011422 -
Electronic Physician Oct 2016Laparoscopic surgery is a modern surgical technique in which operations are performed far from their location through small incisions elsewhere in the body. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic surgery is a modern surgical technique in which operations are performed far from their location through small incisions elsewhere in the body.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review is aimed to overview single-incision laparoscopy surgery.
METHODS
This systematic review was carried out by searching studies in PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and IranMedex databases. The initial search strategy identified about 87 references. In this study, 54 studies were accepted for further screening and met all our inclusion criteria [in English, full text, therapeutic effects of single-incision laparoscopy surgery and dated mainly from the year 1990 to 2016]. The search terms were "single-incision," "surgery," and "laparoscopy."
RESULTS
Single-incision laparoscopy surgery is widely used for surgical operations in cholecystectomy, sleeve gastrectomy, cholecystoduodenostomy, hepatobiliary disease, colon cancer, obesity, appendectomy, liver surgery, rectosigmoid cancer, vaginal hysterectomy, vaginoplasty, colorectal lung metastases, pyloroplasty, endoscopic surgery, hernia repair, nephrectomy, rectal cancer, colectomy and uterus-preserving repair, bile duct exploration, ileo-ileal resection, lymphadenectomy, incarcerated inguinal hernia, anastomosis, congenital anomaly, colectomy for cancer.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings, single-incision laparoscopy surgery is a scarless surgery with minimal access. Although it possesses lots of benefits, including less incisional pain and scars, cosmesis, and the ability to convert to standard multiport laparoscopic surgery, it has some disadvantages, for example, less freedom of movement, fewer number of ports that can be used, and the proximity of the instruments to each other during the operation.
PubMed: 27957308
DOI: 10.19082/3088 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Dec 2023Iatrogenic bladder injury is a rare complication following obstetric and gynecologic surgery and only sparse information is available regarding length of transurethral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Iatrogenic bladder injury is a rare complication following obstetric and gynecologic surgery and only sparse information is available regarding length of transurethral catheterization following injuries, suturing techniques including choice of suture, and complications. The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate length of transurethral catheterization in relation to complications following iatrogenic bladder injury. Second, we aimed to evaluate the number of complications following repair of iatrogenic bladder injuries and to describe suture technique and best choice of suture.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, and the results were presented in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Medline electronic databases were searched, and followed by screening from two independent reviewers. Studies published between January 2000 and March 2023 describing methods of bladder injury repair following obstetric or gynecologic benign surgery were included. Data extraction was done using Covidence. We performed a meta-analysis on complications after repair and explored this with a meta-regression analysis (Metafor package R) on length of catheterization to determine if length of catheterization influenced the risk of complication. A risk of bias tool from Cochrane was used to assess risk of bias and the study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021290586).
RESULTS
Out of 2175 articles, we included 21 retrospective studies, four prospective studies, and one case-control study. In total, 595 bladder injuries were included. Cesarean section was the most prominent surgery type, followed by laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. We found no statistically significant association between length of transurethral catheterization and numbers of complications following repair of iatrogenic bladder injuries. More than 90% of injuries were recognized intraoperatively. Approximately 1% had complications following iatrogenic bladder injury repair (0.010, 95% confidence interval 0.0015-0.0189, 26 studies, 595 participants, I = 4%).
CONCLUSIONS
Our review did not identify conclusive evidence on the length of postoperative catheterization following bladder injury warranting further research. However, the rate of complications was low following iatrogenic bladder injury with a wide range of repair approaches.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Urinary Bladder; Cesarean Section; Retrospective Studies; Case-Control Studies; Prospective Studies; Urinary Bladder Diseases; Obstetric Surgical Procedures; Iatrogenic Disease
PubMed: 37552010
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14641 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2024Primary vaginal cancer is a rare condition. Some studies have revealed an increased risk of vaginal cancer among patients who have undergone hysterectomy for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Primary vaginal cancer is a rare condition. Some studies have revealed an increased risk of vaginal cancer among patients who have undergone hysterectomy for premalignant and malignant cervical disease. However, there is limited literature available on primary vaginal cancer following hysterectomy for benign conditions.
OBJECTIVES
This review aimed to investigate available evidence on clinical characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of primary vaginal cancer following hysterectomy for benign diseases. Additionally, we provide a case of a patient who developed primary vaginal cancer 10 years after undergoing hysterectomy for abnormal uterine bleeding.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We conducted a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science using a combination of title and abstract represented by "hysterectomy", and "vaginal cancer"; "vaginal neoplasm"; and "cancer of vagina". No article type restrictions were applied.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight studies with a total of 56 cases were included in this review. The main symptom observed was vaginal bleeding. Squamous cancer was found to be the most common type, followed by adenocarcinoma. The majority of vaginal cancer cases occurred approximately 10 years after undergoing hysterectomy. The most common location of the tumor was in the vaginal apex. The management approaches varied and details were available in 25 cases. Among these, 7 cases were treated with radiotherapy alone, 1 case received concurrent chemoradiation therapy, and the of rest of the cases underwent surgery as the primary treatment, with or without additional adjuvant therapy. Data of follow-up was available for 15 cases, with 2 cases resulting in death and 2 cases experiencing recurrence. The other cases were alive and well at the time of considered follow up.
CONCLUSION
Primary vaginal cancer after hysterectomy for benign conditions is an extremely rare condition. It is essential to have high-level evidence to guide the screening and treatment strategy for this rare condition. A part of women who have undergone hysterectomy for benign disorders can benefit from vaginal cytology evaluation. It is reasonable to postpone the initial screening after surgery and to extend the interval between subsequent screenings. Further retrospective case-control trials are expected to determine which specific subgroups of patients mentioned above might most potentially benefit from screening. The treatment decision for vaginal cancer after hysterectomy is more favorable to radiotherapy-based management rather than surgery. Vaginal endometrioid adenocarcinoma may arise from the malignant transformation of endometriosis. More studies are expected to investigate the correlation between these two diseases.
PubMed: 38347832
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1334778 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Feb 2023Total hysterectomy is one of the most common gynecologic surgical procedures and it is mainly performed for benign pathologies. The introduction of robotic single-site... (Review)
Review
Total hysterectomy is one of the most common gynecologic surgical procedures and it is mainly performed for benign pathologies. The introduction of robotic single-site surgery (RSS) as an acceptable alternative to laparoendoscopic surgery combines the advantages of robotics with the aesthetic result of a single incision. This study aims to review the existing literature on a single-site robotic hysterectomy in patients with benign pathologies and verify its safety and feasibility. : Following the recommendations in the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, FP and AR systematically screened the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. No temporal or geographical limitation was discriminatory. Studies containing data about feasibility and safety were included. : From 219, only eight studies met the inclusion criteria, and a total of 212 patients were included with a mean patient age of 45.42 years old (range 28-49.5 years old) and a mean BMI of 25.74 kg/m (range 22-28.5 kg/m). The mean presurgical time, including port placement and docking time, was 15.56 (range 3-30) minutes. Mean console time was reported in six studies and is 83.21 min (range 25-180 min). The mean operative time is 136.6 min (range 60-294 min) and the mean blood loss is 43.68 mL (range 15-300 mL). Only two patients in the total analyzed had intraoperative complications and no conversion to LPT occurred. The median hospital stay was 1.71 days (range 0.96-3.5 days). The postoperative complication rate was estimated at 1.4% (vaginal bleeding). Our review supports the safety and feasibility of robotic single-site hysterectomy for benign gynecological diseases.
Topics: Humans; Female; Adult; Middle Aged; Laparoscopy; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Hysterectomy; Robotics; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36837612
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59020411 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Oct 2015Some studies suggest that also regarding the patient with a body mass index (BMI) ≥35 kg/m(2) the minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is superior. However,... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Some studies suggest that also regarding the patient with a body mass index (BMI) ≥35 kg/m(2) the minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is superior. However, current practice and research on the preference of gynaecologists still show that the rate of abdominal hysterectomy (AH) increases as the BMI increases. A systematic review with cumulative analysis of comparative studies was performed to evaluate the outcomes of AH, laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and vaginal hysterectomy (VH) in very obese and morbidly obese patients (BMI ≥35 kg/m(2)).
METHODS
PubMed and EMBASE were searched for records on AH, LH and VH for benign indications or (early stage) malignancy through October 2014. Included studies were graded on level of evidence. Studies with a comparative design were pooled in a cumulative analysis.
RESULTS
Two randomized controlled trials, seven prospective studies and 14 retrospective studies were included (2232 patients; 1058 AHs, 959 LHs, and 215 VHs). The cumulative analysis identified that, compared to LH, AH was associated with more wound dehiscence [risk ratio (RR) 2.58, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.71-3.90; P = 0.000], more wound infection (RR 4.36, 95 % CI 2.79-6.80; P = 0.000), and longer hospital admission (mean difference 2.9 days, 95 % CI 1.96-3.74; P = 0.000). The pooled conversion rate was 10.6 %. Compared to AH, VH was associated with similar advantages as LH.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to AH, both LH and VH are associated with fewer postoperative complications and shorter length of hospital stay. Therefore, the feasibility of LH and VH should be considered prior the abdominal approach to hysterectomy in very obese and morbidly obese patients.
Topics: Adult; Female; Genital Diseases, Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Middle Aged; Morbidity; Obesity; Obesity, Morbid; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25773357
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-015-3680-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2017Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates. Endometrial hyperplasia is a precancerous condition in women that can lead to endometrial cancer if left untreated. Endometrial hyperplasia occurs more commonly than endometrial cancer. Progesterone tablets currently used to treat women with endometrial hyperplasia are associated with adverse effects in up to 84% of women. The levonorgestrel intrauterine device (Mirena Coil, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Whippany, NJ, USA) may improve compliance, but it is invasive, is not acceptable to all women, and is associated with irregular vaginal bleeding in 82% of cases. Therefore, an alternative treatment for women with endometrial hyperplasia is needed. Metformin, a drug that is often used to treat people with diabetes, has been shown in some human studies to reverse endometrial hyperplasia. However, the effectiveness and safety of metformin for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia remain uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin in treating women with endometrial hyperplasia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and two trials registers from inception to 10 January 2017. We searched the bibliographies of all included studies and reviews on this topic. We also handsearched the conference abstracts of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) 2015 and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials comparing metformin (used alone or in combination with other medical therapies) versus placebo or no treatment, any conventional medical treatment, or any other active intervention for women with histologically confirmed endometrial hyperplasia of any type.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by deferment to a third review author. When study details were missing, review authors contacted study authors. The primary outcome of this review was regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology (with or without atypia) towards normal histology. Secondary outcome measures included recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, hysterectomy rate, abnormal uterine bleeding, health-related quality of life, and adverse effects during treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs in which a total of 77 women took part. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low for all outcomes owing to very serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting, attrition, and limitations in study design) and imprecision.We performed a meta-analysis of two trials with 59 participants. When metformin was compared with megestrol acetate in women with endometrial hyperplasia, we found insufficient evidence to determine whether there were differences between groups for the following outcomes: regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology towards normal histology (odds ratio (OR) 3.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 11.57, two RCTs, n = 59, very low-quality evidence), hysterectomy rates (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.52, two RCTs, n = 59, very low-quality evidence), and rates of abnormal uterine bleeding (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.52, two RCTs, n = 44 , very low-quality evidence). We found no data for recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia or health-related quality of life. Both studies (n = 59) provided data on progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer as well as one (n = 16) reporting some adverse effects in the metformin arm, notably nausea, thrombosis, lactic acidosis, abnormal liver and renal function among others.Another trial including 16 participants compared metformin plus megestrol acetate versus megestrol acetate alone in women with endometrial hyperplasia. We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there were differences between groups for the following outcomes: regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology towards normal histology (OR 9.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 86.52, one RCT, n = 16, very low-quality evidence), recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia among women who achieve regression (OR not estimable, no events recorded, one RCT, n = 8, very low-quality evidence), progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer (OR not estimable, no events recorded, one RCT, n = 13, very low-quality evidence), or hysterectomy rates (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.37, one RCT, n = 16, very low-quality evidence). Investigators provided no data on abnormal uterine bleeding or health-related quality of life. In terms of adverse effects, three of eight participants (37.5%) in the metformin plus megestrol acetate study arm reported nausea.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At present, evidence is insufficient to support or refute the use of metformin alone or in combination with standard therapy - specifically, megestrol acetate - versus megestrol acetate alone, for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia. Robustly designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials yielding long-term outcome data are needed to address this clinical question.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Disease Progression; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Megestrol Acetate; Metformin; Middle Aged; Precancerous Conditions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Uterine Hemorrhage; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 29077194
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012214.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Elective hysterectomy is commonly performed for benign gynaecological conditions. Hysterectomy can be performed abdominally, laparoscopically, or vaginally, with or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Elective hysterectomy is commonly performed for benign gynaecological conditions. Hysterectomy can be performed abdominally, laparoscopically, or vaginally, with or without laparoscopic assistance. Antibiotic prophylaxis consists of administration of antibiotics to reduce the rate of postoperative infection, which otherwise affects 40%-50% of women after vaginal hysterectomy, and more than 20% after abdominal hysterectomy. No Cochrane review has systematically assessed evidence on this topic.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in women undergoing elective hysterectomy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched electronic databases to November 2016 (including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), as well as clinical trials registers, conference abstracts, and reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing use of antibiotics versus placebo or other antibiotics as prophylaxis in women undergoing elective hysterectomy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane standard methodological procedures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included in this review 37 RCTs, which performed 20 comparisons of various antibiotics versus placebo and versus one another (6079 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations of study findings were risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, imprecision due to small samples and low event rates, and inadequate reporting of adverse effects. Any antibiotic versus placebo Vaginal hysterectomyModerate-quality evidence shows that women who received antibiotic prophylaxis had fewer total postoperative infections (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.40; five RCTs, N = 610; I = 85%), less urinary tract infection (UTI) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; eight RCTs, N = 1790; I = 44%), fewer pelvic infections (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.39; 11 RCTs, N = 2010; I = 57%), and fewer postoperative fevers (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.54; nine RCTs, N = 1879; I = 48%) than women who did not receive such prophylaxis. This suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the average risk of postoperative infection from about 34% to 7% to 14%. Whether this treatment has led to differences in rates of other serious infection remains unclear (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.10; one RCT, N = 146; very low-quality evidence).Data were insufficient for comparison of adverse effects. Abdominal hysterectomyWomen who received antibiotic prophylaxis of any class had fewer total postoperative infections (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.38; one RCT, N = 345; low-quality evidence), abdominal wound infections (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92; 11 RCTs, N = 2434; I = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), UTIs (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.51; 11 RCTs, N = 2547; I = 26%; moderate-quality evidence), pelvic infections (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.71; 11 RCTs, N = 1883; I = 11%; moderate-quality evidence), and postoperative fevers (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.70; 11 RCTs, N = 2581; I = 51%; moderate-quality evidence) than women who did not receive prophylaxis, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the average risk of postoperative infection from about 16% to 1% to 6%. Whether this treatment has led to differences in rates of other serious infection remains unclear (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.69; two RCTs, N = 476; I = 29%; very low-quality evidence).It is unclear whether rates of adverse effects differed between groups (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 5.18; two RCTs, N = 430; I = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Head-to-head comparisons between antibiotics Vaginal hysterectomyWe identified four comparisons: cephalosporin versus penicillin (two RCTs, N = 470), cephalosporin versus tetracycline (one RCT, N = 51), antiprotozoal versus lincosamide (one RCT, N = 80), and cephalosporin versus antiprotozoal (one RCT, N = 78). Data show no evidence of differences between groups for any of the primary outcomes, except that fewer cases of total postoperative infection and postoperative fever were reported in women who received cephalosporin than in those who received antiprotozoal.Only one comparison (cephalosporin vs penicillin; two RCTs, N = 451) yielded data on adverse effects and showed no differences between groups. Abdominal hysterectomyWe identified only one comparison: cephalosporin versus penicillin (N = 220). Data show no evidence of differences between groups for any of the primary outcomes. Adverse effects were not reported. Combined antibiotics versus single antibiotics Vaginal hysterectomyWe identified three comparisons: cephalosporin plus antiprotozoal versus cephalosporin (one RCT, N = 78), cephalosporin plus antiprotozoal versus antiprotozoal (one RCT, N = 78), and penicillin plus antiprotozoal versus penicillin (one RCT, N = 230). Data were unavailable for most outcomes, including adverse effects. We found no evidence of differences between groups, except that fewer women receiving cephalosporin with antiprotozoal received a diagnosis of total postoperative infection, UTI, or postoperative fever compared with women receiving antiprotozoal. Abdominal hysterectomyWe identified one comparison (penicillin plus antiprotozoal vs penicillin only; one RCT, N = 230). Whether differences between groups occurred was unclear. Adverse effects were not reported. Comparison of cephalosporins in different regimensSingle small trials addressed dose comparisons and provided no data for most outcomes, including adverse effects. Whether differences between groups occurred was unclear. No trials compared route of administration.The quality of evidence for all head-to-head and dose comparisons was very low owing to very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias related to poor reporting of methods.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic prophylaxis appears to be effective in preventing postoperative infection in women undergoing elective vaginal or abdominal hysterectomy, regardless of the dose regimen. However, evidence is insufficient to show whether use of prophylactic antibiotics influences rates of adverse effects. Similarly, evidence is insufficient to show which (if any) individual antibiotic, dose regimen, or route of administration is safest and most effective. The most recent studies included in this review were 14 years old at the time of our search. Thus findings from included studies may not reflect current practice in perioperative and postoperative care and may not show locoregional antimicrobial resistance patterns.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Antiprotozoal Agents; Bacterial Infections; Cephalosporins; Elective Surgical Procedures; Fever; Humans; Hysterectomy; Lincosamides; Pelvis; Penicillins; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfonamides; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 28625021
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004637.pub2 -
AJOG Global Reports Feb 2024Because vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques both aim to decrease tissue injury and postoperative morbidity... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Because vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques both aim to decrease tissue injury and postoperative morbidity and mortality and to improve a patient's quality of life, we sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a hysterectomy by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and compared that with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic diseases.
DATA SOURCES
We used Scopus, Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library and searched from database inception to September 1, 2023.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included all eligible articles that compared vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy with any conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy technique without robotic assistance for women with benign gynecologic pathology and that included at least 1 of our main outcomes. These outcomes included estimated blood loss (in mL), operation time (in minutes), length of hospital stay (in days), decrease in hemoglobin level (g/dL), visual analog scale pain score on postoperative day 1, opioid analgesic dose required, rate of conversion to another surgical technique, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and requirements for blood transfusion. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Ultimately, 14 studies met our criteria.
METHODS
The study quality of the randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane assessment tool, and the quality of the observational studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. We analyzed data using RevMan 5.4.1. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using the mean difference and 95% confidence intervals under the inverse variance analysis method. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using OpenMeta[Analyst] and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were reported.
RESULTS
The operative time and length of hospitalization were shorter in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery cohort. We also found lower visual analog scale pain scores, fewer postoperative complications, and fewer blood transfusions in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery group. We found no difference in the estimated blood loss, decrease in hemoglobin levels, analgesic usage, conversion rates, or intraoperative complications.
CONCLUSION
When evaluating the latest data, it seems that vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery techniques may have some advantages over conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques.
PubMed: 38440153
DOI: 10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100320