-
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 -
AJOG Global Reports Feb 2024Because vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques both aim to decrease tissue injury and postoperative morbidity... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Because vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques both aim to decrease tissue injury and postoperative morbidity and mortality and to improve a patient's quality of life, we sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a hysterectomy by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and compared that with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic diseases.
DATA SOURCES
We used Scopus, Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library and searched from database inception to September 1, 2023.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included all eligible articles that compared vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy with any conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy technique without robotic assistance for women with benign gynecologic pathology and that included at least 1 of our main outcomes. These outcomes included estimated blood loss (in mL), operation time (in minutes), length of hospital stay (in days), decrease in hemoglobin level (g/dL), visual analog scale pain score on postoperative day 1, opioid analgesic dose required, rate of conversion to another surgical technique, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and requirements for blood transfusion. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Ultimately, 14 studies met our criteria.
METHODS
The study quality of the randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane assessment tool, and the quality of the observational studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. We analyzed data using RevMan 5.4.1. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using the mean difference and 95% confidence intervals under the inverse variance analysis method. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using OpenMeta[Analyst] and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were reported.
RESULTS
The operative time and length of hospitalization were shorter in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery cohort. We also found lower visual analog scale pain scores, fewer postoperative complications, and fewer blood transfusions in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery group. We found no difference in the estimated blood loss, decrease in hemoglobin levels, analgesic usage, conversion rates, or intraoperative complications.
CONCLUSION
When evaluating the latest data, it seems that vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery techniques may have some advantages over conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques.
PubMed: 38440153
DOI: 10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100320 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2012Prolapse of the uterus or vagina is usually the result of loss of pelvic support, and causes mainly non-specific symptoms. It may affect over half of women aged 50 to 59... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Prolapse of the uterus or vagina is usually the result of loss of pelvic support, and causes mainly non-specific symptoms. It may affect over half of women aged 50 to 59 years, but spontaneous regression may occur. Risks of genital prolapse increase with advancing parity and age, increasing weight of the largest baby delivered, and hysterectomy.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-surgical treatments in women with genital prolapse? What are the effects of surgical treatments in women with anterior vaginal wall prolapse? What are the effects of surgical treatments in women with posterior vaginal wall prolapse? What are the effects of surgical treatments in women with upper vaginal wall prolapse? What are the effects of using different surgical materials in women with genital prolapse? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 15 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: abdominal Burch colposuspension; abdominal sacral colpopexy; abdominal sacrohysteropexy; anterior colporrhaphy with mesh reinforcement; laparoscopic surgery; mesh or synthetic grafts; native (autologous) tissue; open abdominal surgery; pelvic floor muscle exercises; posterior colporrhaphy (with or without mesh reinforcement); posterior intravaginal slingplasty (infracoccygeal sacropexy); sacrospinous colpopexy (vaginal sacral colpopexy); sutures; traditional anterior colporrhaphy; transanal repair; ultralateral anterior colporrhaphy alone or with cadaveric fascia patch; vaginal hysterectomy; vaginal oestrogen; vaginal pessaries; and vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy.
Topics: Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Incidence; Pelvic Floor; Prolapse; Surgical Mesh; Uterine Prolapse; Vagina
PubMed: 22414610
DOI: No ID Found -
International Urogynecology Journal Feb 2023We aim to review iatrogenic bladder and ureteric injuries sustained during caesarean section and hysterectomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
We aim to review iatrogenic bladder and ureteric injuries sustained during caesarean section and hysterectomy.
METHODS
A search of Cochrane, Embase, Medline and grey literature was performed using methods pre-published on PROSPERO. Eligible studies described iatrogenic bladder or ureter injury rates during caesarean section or hysterectomy. The 15 largest studies were included for each procedure sub-type and meta-analyses performed. The primary outcome was injury incidence. Secondary outcomes were risk factors and preventative measures.
RESULTS
Ninety-six eligible studies were identified, representing 1,741,894 women. Amongst women undergoing caesarean section, weighted pooled rates of bladder or ureteric injury per 100,000 procedures were 267 or 9 events respectively. Injury rates during hysterectomy varied by approach and pathological condition. Weighted pooled mean rates for bladder injury were 212-997 events per 100,000 procedures for all approaches (open, vaginal, laparoscopic, laparoscopically assisted vaginal and robot assisted) and all pathological conditions (benign, malignant, any), except for open peripartum hysterectomy (6,279 events) and laparoscopic hysterectomy for malignancy (1,553 events). Similarly, weighted pooled mean rates for ureteric injury were 9-577 events per 100,000 procedures for all hysterectomy approaches and pathologies, except for open peripartum hysterectomy (666 events) and laparoscopic hysterectomy for malignancy (814 events). Surgeon inexperience was the prime risk factor for injury, and improved anatomical knowledge the leading preventative strategy.
CONCLUSIONS
Caesarean section and most types of hysterectomy carry low rates of urological injury. Obstetricians and gynaecologists should counsel the patient for her individual risk of injury, prospectively establish risk factors and implement preventative strategies.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Cesarean Section; Hysterectomy; Iatrogenic Disease; Urinary Bladder; Urinary Bladder Diseases
PubMed: 36251061
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-022-05339-7 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Sep 2021Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy presents the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Recently, studies have shown a superior oncological outcome... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups.
PURPOSE
Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy presents the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Recently, studies have shown a superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, however, the reasons remain to be speculated. This meta-analysis evaluates the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to open hysterectomy. Risk groups including the use of uterine manipulators or colpotomy were created.
METHODS
Ovid-Medline and Embase databases were systematically searched in June 2020. No limitation in date of publication or country was made. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the surgical approach and the endpoints OS and DFS.
RESULTS
30 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Patients were analyzed concerning the surgical approach [open surgery (AH), laparoscopic surgery (LH), robotic surgery (RH)]. Additionally, three subgroups were created from the LH group: the LH high-risk group (manipulator), intermediate-risk group (no manipulator, intracorporal colpotomy) and LH low-risk group (no manipulator, vaginal colpotomy). Regarding OS, the meta-analysis showed inferiority of LH in total over AH (0.97 [0.96; 0.98]). The OS was significantly higher in LH low risk (0.96 [0.94; 0.98) compared to LH intermediate risk (0.93 [0.91; 0.94]). OS rates were comparable in AH and LH Low-risk group. DFS was higher in the AH group compared to the LH group in general (0.92 [95%-CI 0.88; 0.95] vs. 0.87 [0.82; 0.91]), whereas the application of protective measures (no uterine manipulator in combination with vaginal colpotomy) was associated with increased DFS in laparoscopy (0.91 [0.91; 0.95]).
CONCLUSION
DFS and OS in laparoscopy appear to be depending on surgical technique. Protective operating techniques in laparoscopy result in improved minimal invasive survival.
Topics: Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Colpotomy; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Pregnancy; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 34021804
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-06082-y -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2011Between 5% and 77% of women may have fibroids, depending on the method of diagnosis used. Fibroids may be asymptomatic, or may present with menorrhagia, pain,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Between 5% and 77% of women may have fibroids, depending on the method of diagnosis used. Fibroids may be asymptomatic, or may present with menorrhagia, pain, infertility, or recurrent pregnancy loss. Risk factors for fibroids include obesity, having no children, and no long-term use of the oral contraceptive pill. Fibroids tend to shrink or fibrose after the menopause.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of: medical treatment alone; preoperative medical treatments for women scheduled for surgery; and surgical treatments in women with fibroids? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 54 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: gonadorelin analogues (with progestogen, raloxifene, tibolone, or combined oestrogen-progestogen), hysterectomy (plus oophorectomy), hysteroscopic resonance-focused ultrasound, laparoscopic myomectomy, laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy, rollerball endometrial ablation, thermal balloon ablation, thermal myolysis with laser, total abdominal hysterectomy, total abdominal myomectomy, total laparoscopic hysterectomy, total vaginal hysterectomy, and uterine artery embolisation.
Topics: Humans; Leiomyoma; Menopause; Pain; Premenopause; Progestins; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Regression Analysis; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 21477393
DOI: No ID Found -
Gynecologic Oncology Sep 2022Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy are considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). Minimal Invasive approach to this surgery...
BACKGROUND
Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy are considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). Minimal Invasive approach to this surgery has been debated after the publication of a recent prospective randomized trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer, LACC trial). It demonstrated poorer oncological outcomes for Minimal Invasive Surgery in ECC. However, the reasons are still an open debate. Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVRH) seems to be a logical option to Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy (ARH). This meta-analysis has the aim to prove it.
METHODS
Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Pubmed database and Scopus database were systematically searched in January 2022 since early first publications. No limitation of the country was made. Only English article were considered. The studies containing data about Disease-free Survival (DFS) and/or Overall Survival (OS) and/or Recurrence Rate (RcR) were included.
RESULTS
18 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. 8 comparative studies were enrolled in meta-analysis. Patients were analyzed concerning surgical approach (Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Radical Hysterectomy) and compared with ARH Oncological outcomes such as DFS and OS were considered. 3033 patiets were included. Meta-analysis highlighted a non-statistic significant difference between LARVH and ARH (RR 0.82 [95% CI 0.55-1.23] p = 0.34; I = 0%; p = 0.96). OS was feasible only for 3 studies (RR 1.14 [95% CI 0.28-4.67] p = 0.43; I = 0 p = 0.86). Data about the type of recurrences (loco-regional vs distant) were collected.
CONCLUSION
LARVH does not appear to affect DFS and OS in ECC patients. The proposed results seem to be comparable with the open approach group of the LACC trial, which today represents the reference standard for the treatment of this pathology. More studies will be needed to test the safety and efficacy of LARVH in the ECC.
PubMed: 36150915
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.09.001 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2009Prolapse of the uterus or vagina is usually the result of loss of pelvic support, and causes mainly non-specific symptoms. It may affect over half of women aged 50 to 59... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Prolapse of the uterus or vagina is usually the result of loss of pelvic support, and causes mainly non-specific symptoms. It may affect over half of women aged 50 to 59 years, but spontaneous regression may occur. Risks of genital prolapse increase with advancing parity and age, increasing weight of the largest baby delivered, and hysterectomy.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-surgical treatments in women with genital prolapse? What are the effects of surgical treatments in women with anterior vaginal wall prolapse? What are the effects of surgical treatments in women with posterior vaginal wall prolapse? What are the effects of surgical treatments in women with upper vaginal wall prolapse? What are the effects of using different surgical materials in women with genital prolapse? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 14 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: abdominal Burch colposuspension; abdominal sacral colpopexy; abdominal sacrohysteropexy; anterior colporrhaphy with mesh reinforcement; laparoscopic surgery; mesh or synthetic grafts; native (autologous) tissue; open abdominal surgery; pelvic floor muscle exercises; posterior colporrhaphy (with or without mesh reinforcement); posterior intravaginal slingplasty (infracoccygeal sacropexy); sacrospinous colpopexy (vaginal sacral colpopexy); sutures; traditional anterior colporrhaphy; transanal repair; ultralateral anterior colporrhaphy alone or with cadaveric fascia patch; vaginal hysterectomy; vaginal oestrogen; vaginal pessaries; and vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy.
Topics: Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Incidence; Pelvic Floor; Prolapse; Surgical Mesh; Transplants; Uterine Prolapse; Vagina
PubMed: 21726473
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2007Between 5-77% of women may have fibroids, depending on the method of diagnosis used. Fibroids may be asymptomatic, or may present with menorrhagia, pain, infertility, or... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Between 5-77% of women may have fibroids, depending on the method of diagnosis used. Fibroids may be asymptomatic, or may present with menorrhagia, pain, infertility, or recurrent pregnancy loss. Risk factors for fibroids include obesity, having no children, and no long-term use of the oral contraceptive pill. Fibroids tend to shrink or fibrose after the menopause.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of: medical treatment alone; preoperative medical treatments for women scheduled for surgery; and surgical treatments in women with fibroids? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to November 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 41 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: gonadorelin analogues (with progestogen, raloxifene, tibolone, or combined oestrogen-progestogen); hysterectomy (plus oophorectomy); hysteroscopic resonance-focused ultrasound; laparoscopic myomectomy; laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy; rollerball endometrial ablation; thermal balloon ablation; thermal myolysis with laser; total abdominal hysterectomy; total abdominal myomectomy; total laparoscopic hysterectomy; total vaginal hysterectomy.
Topics: Humans; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Leiomyoma; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 19454074
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jun 2005To evaluate the most appropriate surgical method of hysterectomy (abdominal, vaginal, or laparoscopic) for women with benign disease. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the most appropriate surgical method of hysterectomy (abdominal, vaginal, or laparoscopic) for women with benign disease.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and Biological Abstracts.
SELECTION OF STUDIES
Only randomised controlled trials were selected; participants had to have benign gynaecological disease; interventions had to comprise at least one hysterectomy method compared with another; and trials had to report primary outcomes (time taken to return to normal activities, intraoperative visceral injury, and major long term complications) or secondary outcomes (operating time, other immediate complications of surgery, short term complications, and duration of hospital stay).
RESULTS
27 trials (total of 3643 participants) were included. Return to normal activities was quicker after vaginal than after abdominal hysterectomy (weighted mean difference 9.5 (95% confidence interval 6.4 to 12.6) days) and after laparoscopic than after abdominal hysterectomy (difference 13.6 (11.8 to 15.4) days), but was not significantly different for laparoscopic versus vaginal hysterectomy (difference -1.1 (-4.2 to 2.1) days). There were more urinary tract injuries with laparoscopic than with abdominal hysterectomy (odds ratio 2.61 (95% confidence interval 1.22 to 5.60)), but no other intraoperative visceral injuries showed a significant difference between surgical approaches. Data were notably absent for many important long term patient outcome measures, where the analyses were underpowered to detect important differences, or they were simply not reported in trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Significantly speedier return to normal activities and other improved secondary outcomes (shorter duration of hospital stay and fewer unspecified infections or febrile episodes) suggest that vaginal hysterectomy is preferable to abdominal hysterectomy where possible. Where vaginal hysterectomy is not possible, laparoscopic hysterectomy is preferable to abdominal hysterectomy, although it brings a higher chance of bladder or ureter injury.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Intraoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Tract
PubMed: 15976422
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.330.7506.1478