-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Dec 2020(1) Objective: We aimed to report an update of the systematic review and meta-analysis by Baekelandt et al. (2016). (2) Method: We followed PRISMA guidelines to perform... (Review)
Review
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Hysterectomy by Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) Compared to Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Indications.
(1) Objective: We aimed to report an update of the systematic review and meta-analysis by Baekelandt et al. (2016). (2) Method: We followed PRISMA guidelines to perform this systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and additional sources and aimed to retrieve randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and prospective/retrospective cohort studies in human subjects that allowed direct comparison of vNOTES to laparoscopy. (3) Results: Our search yielded one RCT and five retrospective cohort trials. Pooled analysis of two subgroups showed that, compared to conventional laparoscopy, vNOTES is equally effective to successfully remove the uterus in individuals meeting the inclusion criteria. vNOTES had significantly lower values for operation time, length of stay and estimated blood loss. There was no significant difference in intra- and postoperative complications, readmission, pain scores at 24 h postoperative and change in hemoglobin (Hb) on day 1 postoperative.
PubMed: 33297354
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9123959 -
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology... Apr 2021To compare success and complication rates of apical suspension procedures for the surgical management of symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare success and complication rates of apical suspension procedures for the surgical management of symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse.
TARGET POPULATION
Women with symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse seeking surgical correction.
OPTIONS
Interventions included abdominal apical reconstructive repairs (sacrocolpopexy, sacrohysteropexy, or uterosacral hysteropexy) via open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches; vaginal apical reconstructive repairs (vault suspensions or hysteropexy, sacrospinous, uterosacral, iliococcygeus, McCall's, or Manchester types); and vaginal obliterative procedures (with or without uterus in situ). Individual procedures or broad categories of procedures were compared: (1) vaginal versus abdominal routes for reconstruction, (2) abdominal procedures for reconstruction, (3) vaginal procedures for reconstruction, (4) hysterectomy and suspension versus hysteropexy for reconstruction, and (5) reconstructive versus obliterative options.
OUTCOMES
The Urogynaecology Committee selected outcomes of interest: objective failure (obtained via validated pelvic organ prolapse [POP] quantification systems and defined as overall objective failure as well as failure rate by compartment); subjective failure (recurrence of bulge symptoms determined subjectively, with or without use of a validated questionnaire); reoperation for POP recurrence; complications of postoperative lower urinary tract symptoms (de novo or postoperative stress urinary incontinence; reoperation for persistent, recurrent, or de novo stress urinary incontinence; urge urinary incontinence; and voiding dysfunction); perioperatively recognized urinary tract injury (bladder or ureter); other complications (mesh exposure, defined as mesh being visible and exposed in the vagina, and non-sexual pelvic pain); and sexual function (de novo dyspareunia and sexual function score according to a validated questionnaire).
BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS
This guideline will benefit patients seeking surgical correction of apical POP by improving counselling on surgical treatment options and possible outcomes. It will also benefit surgical providers by improving their knowledge of various surgical approaches. Data presented could be used to develop frameworks and tools for shared decision-making.
EVIDENCE
We searched Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase from 2002 to 2019. The search included multiple terms for apical POP surgical procedures, approaches, and complications. We excluded POP repairs using transvaginal mesh and studies that compared procedures without apical suspension. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective comparative studies. We limited language of publication to English and French and accessibility to full text. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.
VALIDATION METHODS
The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and weak recommendations).
INTENDED USERS
Gynaecologists, urologists, urogynaecologists, and other health care providers who assess, counsel, and care for women with POP.
SUMMARY STATEMENTS
All statements refer to correction of apical vaginal prolapse in the short and medium term (up to 5 years), except when otherwise specified.
Topics: Decision Making, Shared; Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Societies, Medical; Surgical Mesh; Treatment Outcome; Uterine Prolapse
PubMed: 33548503
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2021.02.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Currently, there are five major approaches to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease: abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Currently, there are five major approaches to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease: abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) and vaginal natural orifice hysterectomy (V-NOTES). Within the LH category we further differentiate the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) from the total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH).
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 their inception to December 2022): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the trial registries and relevant reference lists, and communicated with experts in the field for any additional trials.
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 and quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvic-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 63 studies with 6811 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate certainty. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (12 RCTs, 1046 women) Return to normal activities was probably faster in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -10.91 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.95 to -3.87; 4 RCTs, 274 women; I = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after AH is assumed to be 42 days, then after VH it would be between 24 and 38 days. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (28 RCTs, 3431 women) Return to normal activities may be sooner in the LH group (MD -13.01 days, 95% CI -16.47 to -9.56; 7 RCTs, 618 women; I = 68%, low-certainty evidence), but there may be more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.16, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.93; 18 RCTs, 2594 women; I = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 37 days, then after laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 22 and 25 days. It also suggests that if the rate of ureter injury during abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 0.2%, then during laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 0.2% and 2%. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (22 RCTs, 2135 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for any of our primary outcomes. Both short- and long-term complications were rare in both groups. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (three RCTs, 296 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for our other primary outcomes. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH) versus LH (seven RCTs, 621 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates, quality of life or major long-term complications. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) versus laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) (three RCTs, 233 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury or major long-term complications. Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (V-NOTES) versus LH (two RCTs, 96 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of bladder injury. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. Overall, adverse events were rare in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to AH. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because it is associated with faster return to normal activities, fewer wound/abdominal wall infections and shorter hospital stay. Where VH is not possible, LH has advantages over AH including faster return to normal activities, shorter hospital stay, and decreased risk of wound/abdominal wall infection, febrile episodes or unspecified infection, and transfusion. These advantages must be balanced against the increased risk of ureteric injury and longer operative time. When compared to LH, VH was associated with no difference in time to return to normal activities but shorter operative time and shorter hospital stay. RH and V-NOTES require further evaluation since there is a lack of evidence of any patient 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 with the patient and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. Surgical expertise is difficult to quantify and poorly reported in the available studies and this may influence outcomes in ways that cannot be accounted for in this review. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH has multiple advantages over AH, but at the cost of more ureteric injuries. Evidence is limited for RH and V-NOTES.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Abdominal Injuries; Fever; Hospitals
PubMed: 37642285
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Apical vaginal prolapse is the descent of the uterus or vaginal vault (post-hysterectomy). Various surgical treatments are available, but there are no guidelines to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Apical vaginal prolapse is the descent of the uterus or vaginal vault (post-hysterectomy). Various surgical treatments are available, but there are no guidelines to recommend which is the best.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of any surgical intervention compared to another intervention for the management of apical vaginal prolapse.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group's Specialised Register of controlled trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 14 March 2022).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery and recurrent prolapse (any site).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 59 RCTs (6705 women) comparing surgical procedures for apical vaginal prolapse. Evidence certainty ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations included imprecision, poor methodology, and inconsistency. Vaginal procedures compared to sacral colpopexy for vault prolapse (seven RCTs, n=613; six months to f four-year review) Awareness of prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 4.21, 4 RCTs, n = 346, I = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). If 8% of women are aware of prolapse after sacral colpopexy, 18% (10% to 32%) are likely to be aware after vaginal procedures. Surgery for recurrent prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.04; 6 RCTs, n = 497, I = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). The confidence interval suggests that if 6% of women require repeat prolapse surgery after sacral colpopexy, 14% (8% to 25%) are likely to require it after vaginal procedures. Prolapse on examination is probably more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.65; 5 RCTs, n = 422; I = 24%, moderate-certainty evidence). If 18% of women have recurrent prolapse after sacral colpopexy, between 23% and 47% are likely to do so after vaginal procedures. Other outcomes: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.94; 3 RCTs, n = 263; I = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of vaginal procedures on dyspareunia was uncertain (RR 3.44, 95% CI 0.61 to 19.53; 3 RCTs, n = 106, I = 65%, low-certainty evidence). Vaginal hysterectomy compared to sacral hysteropexy/cervicopexy (six RCTS, 554 women, one to seven year review) Awareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.10 to 9.98; 2 RCTs, n = 200, very low-certainty evidence). Surgery for recurrent prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.54; 5 RCTs, n = 403; I = 9%, low-certainty evidence). Prolapse on examination- there was little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.11; 2 RCTs n = 230; I = 9%, moderate-certainty evidence). Vaginal hysteropexy compared to sacral hysteropexy/cervicopexy (two RCTs, n = 388, 1-four-year review) Awareness of prolapse - No difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.55 95% CI 0.21 to 1.44; 1 RCT n = 257, low-certainty evidence). Surgery for recurrent prolapse - No difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.44; 2 RCTs, n = 345; I = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). Prolapse on examination- There were little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 2 RCTs n =367; I =9%, moderate-certainty evidence). Vaginal hysterectomy compared to vaginal hysteropexy (four RCTs, n = 620, 6 months to five-year review) Awareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.0 95% CI 0.44 to 2.24; 2 RCTs, n = 365, I = 0% moderate-quality certainty evidence). Surgery for recurrent prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.60; 3 RCTs, n = 443; I = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). Prolapse on examination- There were little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.61; 2 RCTs n =361; I =74%, low-certainty evidence). Other outcomes: Total vaginal length (TVL) was shorter after vaginal hysterectomy (mean difference (MD) 0.89cm 95% CI 0.49 to 1.28cm shorter; 3 RCTs, n=413, low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between the groups in terms of operating time, dyspareunia and stress urinary incontinence. Other analyses There were no differences identified for any of our primary review outcomes between different types of vaginal native tissue repair (4 RCTs), comparisons of graft materials for vaginal support (3 RCTs), pectopexy versus other apical suspensions (5 RCTs), continuous versus interrupted sutures at sacral colpopexy (2 RCTs), absorbable versus permanent sutures at apical suspensions (5 RCTs) or different routes of sacral colpopexy. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy is associated with shorter admission time than open approach (3 RCTs) and quicker operating time than robotic approach (3 RCTs). Transvaginal mesh does not confer any advantage over native tissue repair, however is associated with a 17.5% rate of mesh exposure (7 RCTs).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Sacral colpopexy is associated with lower risk of awareness of prolapse, recurrent prolapse on examination, repeat surgery for prolapse, and postoperative SUI than a variety of vaginal interventions. The limited evidence does not support the use of transvaginal mesh compared to native tissue repair for apical vaginal prolapse. There were no differences in primary outcomes for different routes of sacral colpopexy. However, the laparoscopic approach is associated with a shorter operating time than robotic approach, and shorter admission than open approach. There were no significant differences between vaginal hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse nor between vaginal hysteropexy and abdominal hysteropexy/cervicopexy. There were no differences detected between absorbable and non absorbable sutures however, the certainty of evidence for mesh exposure and dyspareunia was low.
Topics: Female; Humans; Dyspareunia; Suspensions; Urinary Incontinence, Stress; Uterine Prolapse
PubMed: 37493538
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012376.pub2 -
Best Practice & Research. Clinical... Aug 2023Caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is an increasingly common clinical conundrum. The non-curettage surgical management of CSP can be categorised into hysteroscopic, vaginal,... (Review)
Review
Caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is an increasingly common clinical conundrum. The non-curettage surgical management of CSP can be categorised into hysteroscopic, vaginal, laparoscopic, and open removal modalities and the choice of treatment is surgeon-dependent. A systematic review of original studies reporting surgical treatment outcomes of CSP until March 2023 was conducted to evaluate the non-curettage surgical management of this highly morbid condition. A total of 60 studies of mostly weak methodological quality were identified involving 6720 CSP cases. Success rates were generally high across all treatment modalities although highest in vaginal and laparoscopic excisional approaches. Morbidity was most associated with haemorrhage although unplanned hysterectomy rates remained low across all treatment groups. Subsequent pregnancies are associated with morbidity despite being underreported and the impact of CSP treatment on future pregnancy is poorly understood. Substantive study heterogeneity precludes meta-analyses of pooled data and treatment superiority has not been demonstrated.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Cesarean Section; Cicatrix; Pregnancy, Ectopic; Laparoscopy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37379723
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2023.102367 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a very common condition in women of reproductive age, affecting 2 to 5 of every 10 women. Diverse treatments, either medical (hormonal or non-hormonal) or surgical, are currently available for HMB, with different effectiveness, acceptability, costs and side effects. The best treatment will depend on the woman's age, her intention to become pregnant, the presence of other symptoms, and her personal views and preferences.
OBJECTIVES
To identify, systematically assess and summarise all evidence from studies included in Cochrane Reviews on treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), using reviews with comparable participants and outcomes; and to present a ranking of the first- and second-line treatments for HMB.
METHODS
We searched for published Cochrane Reviews of HMB interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, adverse events and the requirement of further treatment. Two review authors independently selected the systematic reviews, extracted data and assessed quality, resolving disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We grouped the interventions into first- and second-line treatments, considering participant characteristics (desire for future pregnancy, failure of previous treatment, candidacy for surgery). First-line treatments included medical interventions, and second-line treatments included both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical treatments; thus the LNG-IUS is included in both groups. We developed different networks for first- and second-line treatments. We performed network meta-analyses of all outcomes, except for quality of life, where we performed pairwise meta-analyses. We reported the mean rank, the network estimates for mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the certainty of evidence (moderate, low or very low certainty). We also analysed different endometrial ablation and resection techniques separately from the main network: transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) with or without rollerball, other resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA), microwave non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation (NREA), hydrothermal ablation NREA, bipolar NREA, balloon NREA and other NREA.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to July 2021. We updated the reviews that were over two years old. In July 2020, we started the overview with no new reviews about the topic. The included medical interventions were: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid), combined oral contraceptives (COC), combined vaginal ring (CVR), long-cycle and luteal oral progestogens, LNG-IUS, ethamsylate and danazol (included to provide indirect evidence), which were compared to placebo. Surgical interventions were: open (abdominal), minimally invasive (vaginal or laparoscopic) and unspecified (or surgeon's choice of route of) hysterectomy, REA, NREA, unspecified endometrial ablation (EA) and LNG-IUS. We grouped the interventions as follows. First-line treatments Evidence from 26 studies with 1770 participants suggests that LNG-IUS results in a large reduction of menstrual blood loss (MBL; mean rank 2.4, MD -105.71 mL/cycle, 95% CI -201.10 to -10.33; low certainty evidence); antifibrinolytics probably reduce MBL (mean rank 3.7, MD -80.32 mL/cycle, 95% CI -127.67 to -32.98; moderate certainty evidence); long-cycle progestogen reduces MBL (mean rank 4.1, MD -76.93 mL/cycle, 95% CI -153.82 to -0.05; low certainty evidence), and NSAIDs slightly reduce MBL (mean rank 6.4, MD -40.67 mL/cycle, -84.61 to 3.27; low certainty evidence; reference comparator mean rank 8.9). We are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions and the sensitivity analysis for reduction of MBL, as the evidence was rated as very low certainty. We are uncertain of the true effect of any intervention (very low certainty evidence) on the perception of improvement and satisfaction. Second-line treatments Bleeding reduction is related to the type of hysterectomy (total or supracervical/subtotal), not the route, so we combined all routes of hysterectomy for bleeding outcomes. We assessed the reduction of MBL without imputed data (11 trials, 1790 participants) and with imputed data (15 trials, 2241 participants). Evidence without imputed data suggests that hysterectomy (mean rank 1.2, OR 25.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 439.96; low certainty evidence) and REA (mean rank 2.8, OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.29 to 5.66; low certainty evidence) result in a large reduction of MBL, and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.0, OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.53 to 7.23; moderate certainty evidence). Evidence with imputed data suggests hysterectomy results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 1.0, OR 14.31, 95% CI 2.99 to 68.56; low certainty evidence), and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.2, OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.29 to 6.05; moderate certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the true effect for REA (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea (very low certainty evidence). Evidence from 27 trials with 4284 participants suggests that minimally invasive hysterectomy results in a large increase in satisfaction (mean rank 1.3, OR 7.96, 95% CI 3.33 to 19.03; low certainty evidence), and NREA also increases satisfaction (mean rank 3.6, OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; low certainty evidence), but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions (very low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests LNG-IUS is the best first-line treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss (MBL); antifibrinolytics are probably the second best, and long-cycle progestogens are likely the third best. We cannot make conclusions about the effect of first-line treatments on perception of improvement and satisfaction, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. For second-line treatments, evidence suggests hysterectomy is the best treatment for reducing bleeding, followed by REA and NREA. We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. Minimally invasive hysterectomy may result in a large increase in satisfaction, and NREA also increases satisfaction, but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining second-line interventions, as evidence was rated as very low certainty.
Topics: Amenorrhea; Antifibrinolytic Agents; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Menorrhagia; Network Meta-Analysis; Progestins; Quality of Life; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 35638592
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013180.pub2 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Dec 2023Women's choice of birth following a cesarean delivery either includes a trial of elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) or a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). No... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Women's choice of birth following a cesarean delivery either includes a trial of elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) or a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). No comprehensive overview or systematic summary is currently available.
METHODS
EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to 1 February 2020. Studies reporting the safety of TOLAC and ERCS in pregnant women with prior cesarean delivery were included. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were adopted as the effective measures.
RESULTS
A total of 13 studies covering 676,532 cases were included in this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that the rates of uterine rupture (OR = 3.35, 95%CI [1.57, 7.15], = 81%), neonatal asphyxia (OR = 2.32, 95%CI [1.76, 3.08], = 0%) and perinatal death (OR = 1.71, 95%CI [1.29, 2.25], = 0%) were higher in the TOLAC group compared with the ERCS group. The rates of peripartum hysterectomy (OR = 0.70, 95%CI [0.44, 1.11], = 62%), blood transfusion (OR = 1.24, 95%CI [0.72, 2.12], = 95%), and puerperal infection (OR = 1.11, 95%CI [0.77, 1.60], = 95%) showed no significant differences between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
TOLAC is associated with a higher risk of uterine rupture, neonatal asphyxia, and perinatal death compared with ERCS. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the risks of all complications were small in both groups. This information is important for healthcare providers and women choosing the delivery type.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Cesarean Section; Cesarean Section, Repeat; Trial of Labor; Perinatal Death; Uterine Rupture; Asphyxia; Vaginal Birth after Cesarean; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37217450
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2023.2214831 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Apr 2020To assess the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of uterine balloon tamponade for treating postpartum hemorrhage. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of uterine balloon tamponade for treating postpartum hemorrhage.
STUDY DESIGN
We searched electronic databases (from their inception to August 2019) and bibliographies. We included randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized studies, and case series that reported on the efficacy, effectiveness, and/or safety of uterine balloon tamponade in women with postpartum hemorrhage. The primary outcome was the success rate of uterine balloon tamponade for treating postpartum hemorrhage (number of uterine balloon tamponade success cases/total number of women treated with uterine balloon tamponade). For meta-analyses, we calculated pooled success rate for all studies, and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals for studies that included a comparative arm.
RESULTS
Ninety-one studies, including 4729 women, met inclusion criteria (6 randomized trials, 1 cluster randomized trial, 15 nonrandomized studies, and 69 case series). The overall pooled uterine balloon tamponade success rate was 85.9% (95% confidence interval, 83.9-87.9%). The highest success rates corresponded to uterine atony (87.1%) and placenta previa (86.8%), and the lowest to placenta accreta spectrum (66.7%) and retained products of conception (76.8%). The uterine balloon tamponade success rate was lower in cesarean deliveries (81.7%) than in vaginal deliveries (87.0%). A meta-analysis of 2 randomized trials that compared uterine balloon tamponade vs no uterine balloon tamponade in postpartum hemorrhage due to uterine atony after vaginal delivery showed no significant differences between the study groups in the risk of surgical interventions or maternal death (relative risk, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-16.69). A meta-analysis of 2 nonrandomized before-and-after studies showed that introduction of uterine balloon tamponade in protocols for managing severe postpartum hemorrhage significantly decreased the use of arterial embolization (relative risk, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.63). A nonrandomized cluster study reported that use of invasive procedures was significantly lower in the perinatal network that routinely used uterine balloon tamponade than that which did not use uterine balloon tamponade (3.0/1000 vs 5.1/1000; P < .01). A cluster randomized trial reported that the frequency of postpartum hemorrhage-related invasive procedures and/or maternal death was significantly higher after uterine balloon tamponade introduction than before uterine balloon tamponade introduction (11.6/10,000 vs 6.7/10,000; P = .04). Overall, the frequency of complications attributed to uterine balloon tamponade use was low (≤6.5%).
CONCLUSION
Uterine balloon tamponade has a high success rate for treating severe postpartum hemorrhage and appears to be safe. The evidence on uterine balloon tamponade efficacy and effectiveness from randomized and nonrandomized studies is conflicting, with experimental studies suggesting no beneficial effect, in contrast with observational studies. Further research is needed to determine the most effective programmatic and healthcare delivery strategies on uterine balloon tamponade introduction and use.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Maternal Mortality; Parturition; Placenta Accreta; Placenta Previa; Placenta, Retained; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Uterine Artery Embolization; Uterine Balloon Tamponade; Uterine Inertia
PubMed: 31917139
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.11.1287 -
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 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