-
BMC Women's Health Jun 2019There are various surgical approaches of hysterectomy for benign indications. This study aimed to compare vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are various surgical approaches of hysterectomy for benign indications. This study aimed to compare vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) with respect to their complications and operative outcomes.
METHODS
We selected randomised controlled trials that compared VH with LH for benign gynaecological indications. We included studies published after January 2000 in the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library). The primary outcome was comparison of the complication rate. The secondary outcomes were comparisons of operating time, blood loss, intraoperative conversion, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay and duration of recuperation. We used Review Manager 5.3 software to perform the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies of 1618 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed no differences in overall complications, intraoperative conversion, postoperative pain on the day of surgery and at 48 h, length of hospital stay and recuperation time between VH and LH. VH was associated with a shorter operating time and lower postoperative pain at 24 h than LH.
CONCLUSIONS
When both surgical approaches are feasible, VH should remain the surgery of choice for benign hysterectomy.
Topics: Female; Gynecology; Humans; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 31234852
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-019-0784-4 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015The four approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and robotic-assisted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The four approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases (from inception to 14 August 2014) using the Ovid platform: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO. We also searched relevant citation lists. We used both indexed and free-text terms.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction, quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvi-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 47 studies with 5102 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate quality. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (nine RCTs, 762 women)Return to normal activities was shorter in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -9.5 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.6 to -6.4, three RCTs, 176 women, I(2) = 75%, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (25 RCTs, 2983 women)Return to normal activities was shorter in the LH group (MD -13.6 days, 95% CI -15.4 to -11.8; six RCTs, 520 women, I(2) = 71%, low quality evidence), but there were more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.8, 13 RCTs, 2140 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (16 RCTs, 1440 women)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for any primary outcomes. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (two RCTs, 152 women)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for any primary outcomes. Neither of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life.Overall, the number of adverse events was low in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to LH and AH, as it is associated with faster return to normal activities. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because of more rapid recovery and fewer febrile episodes postoperatively. Where VH is not possible, LH has some advantages over AH (including more rapid recovery and fewer febrile episodes and wound or abdominal wall infections), but these are offset by a longer operating time. No advantages of LH over VH could be found; LH had a longer operation time, and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) had more urinary tract injuries. Of the three subcategories of LH, there are more RCT data for laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and LH than for TLH. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy and RH should either be abandoned or further evaluated since there is a lack of evidence of any benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. These benefits and hazards seem to be dependent on surgical expertise and this may influence the decision. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH may avoid the need for AH, but LH is associated with more urinary tract injuries. There is no evidence that RH is of benefit in this population. Preferably, the surgical approach to hysterectomy should be decided by the woman in discussion with her surgeon.
Topics: Female; Genital Diseases, Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Laparoscopy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 26264829
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Feb 2018To explore the outcome in women managed expectantly following the diagnosis of Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To explore the outcome in women managed expectantly following the diagnosis of Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP).
METHODS
An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was performed utilizing combinations of relevant medical subject headings for 'Cesarean scar pregnancy' and 'outcome'. Reference lists of relevant articles and reviews were hand-searched for additional reports. Observed outcomes included: severe first-trimester vaginal bleeding; clinical symptoms (abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding) requiring treatment; uncomplicated miscarriage; complicated miscarriage requiring intervention; first- or second-trimester uterine rupture or hysterectomy; third-trimester bleeding, uterine rupture or hysterectomy; maternal death; incidence of abnormally invasive placenta (AIP); prevalence of placenta percreta; ultrasound signs suggestive of AIP; and live birth. Meta-analyses of proportions using a random-effects model were used to combine data. Cases were stratified based on the presence or absence of embryonic/fetal heart activity at the time of diagnosis.
RESULTS
A total of 17 studies (69 cases of CSP managed expectantly, 52 with and 17 without embryonic/fetal heart beat) were included. In women with CSP and embryonic/fetal heart activity, 13.0% (95% CI, 3.8-26.7%) experienced an uncomplicated miscarriage, while 20.0% (95% CI, 7.1-37.4%) required medical intervention. Uterine rupture during the first or second trimester of pregnancy occurred in 9.9% (95% CI, 2.9-20.4%) of cases, while hysterectomy was required in 15.2% (95% CI, 3.6-32.8%) of all cases. Forty (76.9% (95% CI, 65.4-86.5%)) women progressed to the third trimester of pregnancy, of whom 39.2% (95% CI, 15.4-66.2%) experienced severe bleeding. Finally, 74.8% (95% CI, 52.0-92.1%) had a surgical or pathological diagnosis of AIP at delivery and around two-thirds (69.7% (95% CI, 42.8-90.1%)) of them had placenta percreta. In women with CSP but no embryonic/fetal cardiac activity, an uncomplicated miscarriage occurred in 69.1% (95% CI, 47.4-87.1%) of cases, while surgical or medical intervention during or immediately after miscarriage was required in 30.9% (95% CI, 12.9-52.6%). Uterine rupture during the first trimester of pregnancy occurred in 13.4% (95% CI, 2.7-30.3%) of cases, but hysterectomy was not required in any case.
CONCLUSIONS
CSP with positive embryonic/fetal heart activity managed expectantly is associated with a high burden of maternal morbidity including severe hemorrhage, early uterine rupture, hysterectomy and severe AIP. Despite this, a significant proportion of pregnancies complicated by CSP may progress to, or close to, term, thus questioning whether termination of pregnancy should be the only therapeutic option offered to these women. Expectant management of CSP with no cardiac activity may be a reasonable option in view of the low likelihood of maternal complications requiring intervention, although close surveillance is advisable to avoid adverse maternal outcome. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Cesarean Section; Cicatrix; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy Trimesters; Pregnancy, Ectopic; Ultrasonography, Prenatal; Uterine Rupture
PubMed: 28661021
DOI: 10.1002/uog.17568 -
Journal of Robotic Surgery Dec 2023The potential benefits and limitations of benign hysterectomy surgical approaches are still debated. We aimed at evaluating any differences with a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The potential benefits and limitations of benign hysterectomy surgical approaches are still debated. We aimed at evaluating any differences with a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were last searched on 6/2/2021 to identify English randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort and retrospective independent database studies published between Jan 1, 2010 and Dec 31, 2020 reporting perioperative outcomes following robotic hysterectomy versus laparoscopic, open, or vaginal approach (PROSPERO #CRD42022352718). Twenty-four articles were included that reported on 110,306 robotic, 262,715 laparoscopic, 189,237 vaginal, and 554,407 open patients. The robotic approach was associated with a shorter hospital stay (p < 0.00001), less blood loss (p = 0.009), and fewer complications (OR: 0.42 [0.27, 0.66], p = 0.0001) when compared to the open approach. The main benefit compared to the laparoscopic and vaginal approaches was a shorter hospital (R/L WMD: - 0.144 [- 0.21, - 0.08], p < 0.0001; R/V WMD: - 0.39 [- 0.70, - 0.08], p = 0.01). Other benefits seen were sensitive to the inclusion of database studies. Study type differences in outcomes, a lack of RCTs for robotic vs. open comparisons, learning curve issues, and limited robotic vs. vaginal publications are limitations. While the robotic approach was mainly comparable to the laparoscopic approach, this meta-analysis confirms the classic benefits of minimally invasive surgery when comparing robotic hysterectomy to open surgery. We also reported the advantages of robotic surgery over vaginal surgery in a patient population with a higher incidence of large uterus and prior surgery.
Topics: Female; Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Hysterectomy; Uterus; Robotics; Laparoscopy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal
PubMed: 37856058
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01724-6 -
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 -
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 -
International Urogynecology Journal Sep 2022We conducted a systematic review of the effectiveness of local preemptive analgesia for postoperative pain control in women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
We conducted a systematic review of the effectiveness of local preemptive analgesia for postoperative pain control in women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched systematically to identify eligible studies published through September 25, 2019. Only randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews addressing local preemptive analgesia compared to placebo at vaginal hysterectomy were considered. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Results were compared, and disagreement was resolved by discussion. Forty-seven studies met inclusion criteria for full-text review. Four RCTs, including a total of 197 patients, and two SRs were included in the review.
RESULTS
Preemptive local analgesia reduced postoperative pain scores up to 6 h and postoperative opioid requirements in the first 24 h after surgery.
CONCLUSION
Preemptive local analgesia at vaginal hysterectomy results in less postoperative pain and less postoperative opioid consumption.
Topics: Female; Humans; Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 34870713
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-04999-1 -
Gynecology and Minimally Invasive... 2023Gradually increasing interest in laparoscopic surgeries has led to the advent of various lesser invasive techniques in the form of vaginal natural orifice transluminal... (Review)
Review
Comparison of Outcomes following Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery and Laparoendoscopic Single-site Surgery in Benign Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Gradually increasing interest in laparoscopic surgeries has led to the advent of various lesser invasive techniques in the form of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) and laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery. Very few studies have analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of vNOTES over LESS surgeries in hysterectomy. After a comprehensive search, full texts of relevant manuscripts were obtained to assess eligibility for recruitment. A comprehensive meta-analysis was subsequently performed to compare the outcomes of vNOTES and LESS in hysterectomy, and forest plots were constructed. Four articles were rendered for review (three retrospective cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial). Three studies showed lesser postoperative pain in vNOTES compared to LESS. In one study, postoperative vaginal pain was higher in vNOTES due to additional suture between uterine artery and vaginal wall. The meta-analysis concluded that vNOTES could be better alternative to LESS hysterectomies. However, further large multicentric randomized trials are required for the standardization of the surgical method.
PubMed: 38034107
DOI: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_88_22