-
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 -
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2019It is widely accepted that nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy is associated with less postoperative morbidity compared with radical hysterectomy, whereas clinical safety... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Laparoscopic Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy vs Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Efficacy and Bladder Dysfunction.
It is widely accepted that nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy is associated with less postoperative morbidity compared with radical hysterectomy, whereas clinical safety is similar in the 2 procedures. However, there is insufficient evidence to compare these procedures performed via a laparoscopic approach. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to compare the clinical efficacy and the rate of bladder dysfunction, including urodynamic assessment, in laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). Thirty articles including a total of 2743 participants were analyzed. Operating times were shorter (MD, 29.88 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.92-47.83 minutes) and hospital stays were longer (MD, -1.56 days; 95% CI, -2.27 to -0.84 days) in the LRH group compared with the LNSRH group. In addition, blood loss and the number of resected lymph nodes were not significantly different between the 2 groups. However, resected parametrium length (MD, -0.02 cm; 95% CI, -0.05 to -0.00 cm) and vaginal cuff width (MD, -0.06 cm; 95% CI, -0.09 to -0.04) were smaller in the LNSRH group. Furthermore, LNSRH tended to result in more satisfactory micturition (odds ratio, 2.90; 95% CI, 2.01-4.19), shorter catheterization time (MD, -7.20 days; 95% CI, -8.10 to -6.29 days), and shorter recovery to normal postvoid residual urine time (MD, -7.71 days; 95% CI, -8.92 to -6.50 days). Other bladder dysfunction symptoms, including urinary retention, nocturia, dysuria, urinary incontinence, and frequency/urgency were more frequent in the LRH group. Furthermore, LNSRH achieved better results in urodynamic assessments (all p < .05). In conclusion, LNSRH was associated with lower rates of impaired bladder function and a shorter extent of resection compared with LRH. Clinical applications involving LNSRH should be explored with caution.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Lymph Node Excision; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; Organ Sparing Treatments; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Bladder; Urinary Bladder Diseases; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Uterus
PubMed: 30359783
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.10.012 -
International Journal of Gynecological... Feb 2019Vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy may be an alternative strategy for patients with low-risk endometrial cancer and medical co-morbidities...
Vaginal hysterectomy with or without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy may be an alternative treatment for endometrial cancer patients with medical co-morbidities precluding standard surgical procedures: a systematic review.
OBJECTIVE
Vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy may be an alternative strategy for patients with low-risk endometrial cancer and medical co-morbidities precluding laparoscopic or abdominal procedures. The current study evaluates the prevalence of co-existent ovarian malignancy in patients with endometrial cancer and the influence of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy on survival outcomes in these patients.
METHODS
Medline and EMBASE were searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and November 20, 2017 that investigated (1) the prevalence of co-existing ovarian malignancy (either metastases or primary synchronous ovarian cancer in women with endometrial cancer, and (2) the influence of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy on recurrence and/or survival rates.
RESULTS
Of the pre-menopausal and post-menopausal patients (n=6059), 373 were identified with metastases and 106 were identified with primary synchronous ovarian cancer. Of the post-menopausal patients (n=6016), 362 were identified with metastases and 44 were identified with primary synchronous ovarian cancer. Survival outcomes did not differ for pre-menopausal patients with endometrial cancer with and without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (5-year overall survival rates were 89-94.5% and 86-97.8%, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy during vaginal hysterectomy seems to have a limited impact on disease outcome in patients with endometrial cancer. These results support the view that vaginal hysterectomy alone or with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy may be an option for patients with endometrial cancer who are not ideal surgical candidates.
PubMed: 30659027
DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2018-000015 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Mar 2022More than 30 regimens, medical and surgical, have been described for the treatment of Cesarean Scar Pregnancies (CSPs). This study aims to collect and analyze data in... (Review)
Review
More than 30 regimens, medical and surgical, have been described for the treatment of Cesarean Scar Pregnancies (CSPs). This study aims to collect and analyze data in the published literature regarding the hysteroscopic management of CSPs focusing on efficacy and complications. Using a protocol registered with Prospero (#CRD42021242314), the electronic databases PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Clinical-Trials.gov and the Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched, from their inception to June 2020. Medical Subject Headings terms such as caesarean ectopic, hysteroscopy and endoscopy were used for the identification of the relevant records. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to design the present systematic review. Eligible articles assessing the role of hysteroscopy in CSP were considered the studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Any studies with less than 10 cases or articles that insufficiently detailed the treatment regimen, the outcomes, and the success rate, were excluded. Selected articles were assessed for the level of evidence, based on Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine guidelines. The methodologic quality, including the risk of bias, was evaluated with the employment of the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool. Ten out of 613 studies were included in the present review comprising 812 women with CSP treated by hysteroscopy. The treatment modalities were divided into three categories: (i) hysteroscopic resection of CSP, (ii) hysteroscopy after preoperative use of HIFU and (iii) preoperative use of UAE before hysteroscopic treatment. The overall success rate of hysteroscopic treatment on CSP cases was 91%, whereas the rate of hemorrhage or excessive vaginal bleeding (>500 mL) and the rate of hysterectomy were 1.66% and 0.28% respectively. According to the results of this systematic review, hysteroscopy appears to be a safe and effective procedure for CSP management. Current findings are primarily based on retrospective studies with poor methodological quality. Multicenter, well-designed studies are needed to draw definite conclusions.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Cicatrix; Female; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Ectopic; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Uterine Hemorrhage
PubMed: 35016136
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.12.038 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024Endometrial 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 that are currently used to treat women with endometrial hyperplasia are associated with adverse effects in up to 84% of women. A levonorgestrel intrauterine device 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. This is an update of a review first published in 2017.
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, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, LILACS, and two trials registers from inception to 5 September 2022. We searched the bibliographies of all relevant studies, and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials.
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, 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, assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, and assessed the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by deferring to a third review author. When study details were missing, review authors contacted the study authors. The primary outcome of this review was regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology (with or without atypia) towards normal histology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven RCTs, in which a total of 387 women took part. In the comparison, Metformin plus megestrol versus megestrol alone, we rated the certainty of the evidence as low for the outcome, regression of endometrial hyperplasia. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the rest of the outcomes, in all three comparisons. Although there was a low risk of selection bias, there was a high risk of bias in the blinding of personnel and outcome assessment (performance bias and detection bias) in many studies. This update identified four new RCTs and six ongoing RCTs. Metformin versus megestrol We are uncertain whether metformin increases the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology over megestrol (odds ratio (OR) 4.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 15.32; P = 0.006; 2 RCTs, 83 participants; I² = 7%; very low-certainty evidence). This evidence suggests that if the rate of regression with megestrol is 61%, the rate of regression with metformin would be between 71% and 96%. It is unresolved whether metformin results in different rates of abnormal uterine bleeding or hysterectomy compared to megestrol. No study in this comparison reported progression of hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, health-related quality of life, or adverse effects during treatment. Metformin plus megestrol versus megestrol monotherapy The combination of metformin and megestrol may enhance the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology more than megestrol alone (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.65 to 6.51; P = 0.0007; 4 RCTs, 258 participants; I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the rate of regression with megestrol monotherapy is 54%, the rate of regression with the addition of metformin would be between 66% and 84%. In one study, 3/8 (37.5%) of participants who took metformin had nausea that settled without further treatment. It is unresolved whether the combination of metformin and megestrol results in different rates of recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, or hysterectomy compared to megestrol monotherapy. No study in this comparison reported abnormal uterine bleeding, or health-related quality of life. Metformin plus levonorgestrel (intrauterine system) versus levonorgestrel (intrauterine system) monotherapy We are uncertain whether there is a difference between groups in the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.56; 1 RCT, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This evidence suggests that if the rate of regression with levonorgestrel monotherapy is 96%, the rate of regression with the addition of metformin would be between 73% and 100%. It is unresolved whether the combination of metformin and levonorgestrel results in different rates of abnormal uterine bleeding, hysterectomy, or the development of adverse effects during treatment compared to levonorgestrel monotherapy. No study in this comparison reported recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, or health-related quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Review authors found insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of metformin, specifically megestrol acetate, given alone or in combination with standard therapy, for the treatment of women with endometrial hyperplasia. Robustly designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials, yielding long-term outcome data are still needed to address this clinical question.
Topics: Female; Humans; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Metformin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38695827
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012214.pub3 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Jun 2017Less postoperative pain typically is associated with a minimally invasive hysterectomy compared with a laparotomy approach; however, poor pain control can still be an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Less postoperative pain typically is associated with a minimally invasive hysterectomy compared with a laparotomy approach; however, poor pain control can still be an issue. Multiple guidelines exist for managing postoperative pain, yet most are not specialty-specific and are based on procedures that bear little relevance to a minimally invasive hysterectomy.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is enough quality evidence within the benign gynecology literature to make non-opioid pain control recommendations for women who undergo a benign minimally invasive hysterectomy.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
We queried PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane databases using MeSH terms: "postoperative pain," "perioperative pain," "postoperative analgesia," "pain management," "pain control," "minimally invasive gynecologic surgery," and "hysterectomy." A manual examination of references from identified studies was also performed. All PubMed published studies that involved minimally invasive hysterectomies through November 9, 2016, were included. This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were restricted to benign minimally invasive hysterectomies evaluating non-opioid pharmacologic therapies. Primary outcomes included amount of postoperative analgesics consumed and postoperative pain scores. Two reviewers independently completed an in-depth evaluation of each study for characteristics and results using an established database, according to inclusion/exclusion criteria. A risk assessment was performed, and a quality rating was assigned with the use of the Cochrane Collaboration's Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
Initially 1155 studies were identified, and 24 studies met all inclusion criteria. Based on limited data of varying quality, intravenous acetaminophen, anticonvulsants and dexamethasone demonstrate opioid-sparing benefits; ketorolac shows mixed results in laparoscopic hysterectomies. Paracervical blocks provide pain-reducing benefits in vaginal hysterectomies.
CONCLUSIONS
Convincing conclusions are difficult to draw because of the heterogeneous and contradictory nature of the literature. There is a clear need for more high-quality research that will evaluate each medication type for posthysterectomy pain control.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Anticonvulsants; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Ketorolac; Laparoscopy; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28043841
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.12.175 -
International Journal of Gynaecology... Jul 2024Previous reviews on hysterectomy versus uterine-sparing surgery in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair did not consider that the open abdominal approach or transvaginal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Previous reviews on hysterectomy versus uterine-sparing surgery in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair did not consider that the open abdominal approach or transvaginal mesh use have been largely abandoned.
OBJECTIVES
To provide up-to-date evidence by examining only studies investigating techniques currently in use for POP repair.
SEARCH STRATEGY
MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception to January 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized and non-randomized studies comparing surgical procedures for POP with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Studies describing open abdominal approaches or transvaginal mesh implantation were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A random effect meta-analysis was conducted on extracted data reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-eight studies were included. Hysterectomy and uterine-sparing procedures did not differ in reoperation rate (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.74-1.17), intraoperative major (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.79-2.26) and minor (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.79-2.4) complications, postoperative major (OR 1.42; 95% CI 0.85-2.37) and minor (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.9-1.53) complications, and objective (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.92-2.07) or subjective (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.8-1.88) success. Uterine preservation was associated with a shorter operative time (-22.7 min; 95% CI -16.92 to -28.51 min), shorter hospital stay (-0.35 days, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.65 days), and less blood loss (-61.7 mL; 95% CI -31.3 to -92.1 mL). When only studies using a laparoscopic approach for both arms were considered, no differences were observed in investigated outcomes between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
No major differences were observed in POP outcomes between procedures with and without concomitant hysterectomy. The decision to preserve or remove the uterus should be tailored on individual factors.
Topics: Humans; Female; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Hysterectomy; Organ Sparing Treatments; Postoperative Complications; Uterus; Reoperation; Operative Time
PubMed: 38269852
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.15343 -
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2015
PubMed: 27679232
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.112 -
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 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Oct 2021Following the publication of several high quality randomized controlled trials regarding the comparison of similar laparoscopic gynecologic procedures being performed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Following the publication of several high quality randomized controlled trials regarding the comparison of similar laparoscopic gynecologic procedures being performed with or without robotic assistance, we aimed to perform a systematic review to identify any differences in patient safety and expected incidence of complications in these procedures.
DATA SOURCES
Articles on ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were retrieved and screened for eligibility up to April 1st 2021.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
In addition to meeting our screening algorithm, we included studies that met all the following: randomized control trials (RCT), enrolling patients for indicated laparoscopic gynecologic procedures, and comparing Robotic Surgery (RS) with Laparoscopic Surgery (LS) in terms of safety or complications.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Data was pooled as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Ultimately, six studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data revealed that RS and LS have similar risk for intraoperative complications (RR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.23, 3.36], P = 0.84), postoperative complications (RR = 1.07; 95% CI [0.57, 2.01], P = 0.83), significant intraoperative hemorrhage (RR = 1.40; 95% CI [0.59, 3.34], P = 0.44), postoperative hemorrhage (RR = 0.43; 95% CI [0.15, 1.22], P = 0.11), vaginal cuff dehiscence (RR = 1.13; 95% CI [0.24, 5.41], P = 0.88), postoperative wound infection, urinary tract infection, and urinary bladder or ureteral injury. RS had "surgeon declared" lower estimated blood loss (MD = 85.27; 95% CI [46.45, 124.09], P < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = 1.20; 95% CI [0.38, 2.01], P = 0.004).
CONCLUSION
There was a statistically significant decrease in hospital stay and "surgeon declared" blood loss seen in the RS group. There was no statistically significant increase in risk of developing other postoperative complications between the LS and R groups.
Topics: Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 34418694
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.07.038