Meta-Analysis

Authors: Seung Hyun Lee, So Ra Oh, Yeon Jean Cho...

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

Meta-Analysis Review

Authors: Johanna W M Aarts, Theodoor E Nieboer, Neil Johnson...

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

Authors: Denis Querleu, David Cibula, Nadeem R Abu-Rustum...

BACKGROUND

One of the most important principles in modern cervical cancer surgery is the concept of tailoring surgical radicality. In practice, this means abandoning the "one-fits-all" concept in favor of tailored operations. The term "radical hysterectomy" is used to describe many different procedures, each with a different degree of radicality. Anatomic structures are subjected to artificial dissection artifacts, as well as different interpretations and nomenclatures. This study aimed to refine and standardize the principles and descriptions of the different classes of radical hysterectomy as defined in the Querleu-Morrow classification and to propose its universal applicability.

METHODS

All three authors independently examined the current literature and undertook a critical assessment of the original classification. Images and pathologic slides demonstrating different types of radical hysterectomy were examined to document a consensual vision of the anatomy. The Cibula 3-D concept also was included in this update.

RESULTS

The Querleu-Morrow classification is based on the lateral extent of resection. Four types of radical hysterectomy are described, including a limited number of subtypes when necessary. Two major objectives remain constant: excision of central tumor with clear margins and removal of any potential sites of nodal metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Studies evaluating radicality in the surgical management of cervical cancer should be based on precise, universally accepted descriptions. The authors' updated classification presents standardized, universally applicable descriptions of different types of hysterectomies performed worldwide, categorized according to degree of radicality, independently of theoretical considerations.

Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Lymph Node Excision; Prognosis; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms

PubMed: 28785898
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-017-6031-z

Authors: Reynir Tomas Geirsson

Topics: Female; Gynecology; Humans; Hysterectomy

PubMed: 25032252
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12335

Authors: Denis Querleu, David Cibula, Nadeem R Abu-Rustum...

BACKGROUND

The anatomic descriptions and extents of radical hysterectomy often vary across the literature and operative reports worldwide. The same nomenclature is often used to describe varying procedures, and different nomenclature is often used to describe the same procedure despite the availability of guideline and classification systems. This makes it difficult to interpret retrospective surgical reports, analyze surgical databases, understand technique descriptions, and interpret the findings of surgical studies.

OBJECTIVE

In collaboration with international experts in gynecologic oncology, the purpose of this study was to establish a consensus in defining and interpreting the 2017 updated Querleu-Morrow classification of radical hysterectomies.

STUDY DESIGN

The anatomic templates of type A, B, and C radical hysterectomy were documented through a set of 13 images taken at the time of cadaver dissection. An online survey related to radical hysterectomy nomenclature and definitions or descriptions of the associated procedures was circulated among international experts in radical hysterectomy. A 3-step modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. Image legends were amended according to the experts' responses and then redistributed as part of a second round of the survey. Consensus was defined by a yes response to a question concerning a specific image. Anyone who responded no to a question was welcome to comment and provide justification. A final set of images and legends were compiled to anatomically illustrate and define or describe a lateral, ventral, and dorsal excision of the tissues surrounding the cervix.

RESULTS

In total, there were 13 questions to review, and 29 experts completed the whole process. Final consensus exceeded 90% for all questions except 1 (86%). Questions with relatively lower consensus rates concerned the definitions of types A and B2 radical hysterectomy, which were the main innovations of the 2017 updated version of the 2008 Querleu-Morrow classification. Questions with the highest consensus rates concerned the definitions of types B1 and C, which are the most frequently performed radical hysterectomies.

CONCLUSION

The 2017 version of the Querleu-Morrow classification proved to be a robust tool for defining and describing the extent of radical hysterectomies with a high level of consensus among international experts in gynecologic oncology. Knowledge and implementation of the exact definitions of hysterectomy radicality are imperative in clinical practice and clinical research.

Topics: Female; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Consensus; Hysterectomy; Cervix Uteri

PubMed: 37788719
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.09.099

Review

Authors: Mark P Lachiewicz, Laura J Moulton, Oluwatosin Jaiyeoba...

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication of hysterectomy. Minimally invasive hysterectomy has lower infection rates than abdominal hysterectomy. The lower SSI rates reflect the role and benefit in infection control of having minimal incisions, rather than a large anterior abdominal wall incision. Despite the lower rates, SSI after laparoscopic hysterectomy is not uncommon.In this article, we review pre-, intra-, and postoperative risk factors for infection. Rates of postoperative fever after laparoscopic hysterectomy and when evaluation for infection is warranted in a febrile patient are also reviewed.

DATABASE

PubMed was searched for English-only articles using National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings(MESH) terms and keywords including but not limited to "postoperative," "surgical site," "infection," "fever," "laparoscopic," "laparoscopy," and "hysterectomy."

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing hospital-acquired infections such as SSI is one of the more effective ways of improving patient safety. Knowledge and understanding of risk factors for infection following laparoscopic hysterectomy enable the gynecologic surgeon or hospital to implement targeted preventive measures.

Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Incidence; Laparoscopy; Risk Factors; Surgical Wound Infection; United States

PubMed: 26390531
DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2015.00065

Authors: Elizabeth A Stewart, Lynne T Shuster, Walter A Rocca...

Hysterectomy is widely used for treating a variety of gynecologic conditions. Most hysterectomies are elective and are performed to treat benign indications for which there are other effective alternatives. Observational studies are increasingly highlighting the effects of hysterectomy and concomitant oophorectomy on a variety of long-term health outcomes including fracture risk, pelvic floor dysfunction, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and neurologic function. Individualizing therapy and discussing appropriate alternatives to hysterectomy is an important responsibility for all health care providers.

Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Genital Diseases, Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Leiomyoma; Menorrhagia; Minnesota; Patient Education as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Uterine Artery Embolization; Uterine Neoplasms; Utilization Review

PubMed: 22611818
DOI: No ID Found

Authors: Theresa A Lawrie, Hongqian Liu, DongHao Lu...

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), MEDLINE via Ovid, and EMBASE via Ovid, on 8 January 2018. We searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov. on 16 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RAS versus CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We examined different procedures in separate comparisons and for hysterectomy subgrouped data according to type of disease (non-malignant versus malignant). When more than one study contributed data, we pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs involving 1016 women. Studies were at moderate to high overall risk of bias, and we downgraded evidence mainly due to concerns about risk of bias in the studies contributing data and imprecision of effect estimates. Procedures performed were hysterectomy (eight studies) and sacrocolpopexy (three studies). In addition, one trial examined surgical treatment for endometriosis, which included resection or hysterectomy. Among studies of women undergoing hysterectomy procedures, two studies involved malignant disease (endometrial cancer); the rest involved non-malignant disease.• RAS versus CLS (hysterectomy)Low-certainty evidence suggests there might be little or no difference in any complication rates between RAS and CLS (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.59; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 51%), intraoperative complication rates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.50; participants = 583; studies = 6; I² = 37%), postoperative complications (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.34; participants = 629; studies = 6; I² = 44%), and blood transfusions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.94; participants = 442; studies = 5; I² = 0%). There was no statistical difference between malignant and non-malignant disease subgroups with regard to complication rates. Only one study reported death within 30 days and no deaths occurred (very low-certainty evidence). Researchers reported no survival outcomes.Mean total operating time was longer on average in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) 41.18 minutes, 95% CI -6.17 to 88.53; participants = 148; studies = 2; I² = 80%; very low-certainty evidence), and the mean length of hospital stay was slightly shorter with RAS than with CLS (MD -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.07; participants = 192; studies = 2; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).• RAS versus CLS (sacrocolpopexy)Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in rates of any complications between women undergoing sacrocolpopexy by RAS or CLS (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.24; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 78%), nor in intraoperative complications (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.59; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 47%). Low-certainty evidence on postoperative complications suggests these might be higher with RAS (RR 3.54, 95% CI 1.31 to 9.56; studies = 1; participants = 68). Researchers did not report blood transfusions and deaths up to 30 days.Low-certainty evidence suggests that RAS might be associated with increased operating time (MD 40.53 min, 95% CI 12.06 to 68.99; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 73%). Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between the two techniques in terms of duration of stay (MD 0.26 days, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.67; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 0%).• RAS versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy)A single study with a total sample size of 20 women was included in this comparison. For most outcomes, the sample size was insufficient to show any possible differences between groups.• RAS versus CLS for endometriosisA single study with data for 73 women was included in this comparison; women with endometriosis underwent procedures ranging from relatively minor endometrial resection through hysterectomy; many of the women included in this study had undergone previous surgery for their condition. For most outcomes, event rates were low, and the sample size was insufficient to detect potential differences between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS for non-malignant disease (hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy) is of low certainty but suggests that surgical complication rates might be comparable. Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for malignant disease is more uncertain because survival data are lacking. RAS is an operator-dependent expensive technology; therefore evaluating the safety of this technology independently will present challenges.

Topics: Female; Genital Diseases, Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Robotic Surgical Procedures

PubMed: 30985921
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011422.pub2

Authors: Leslie V Farland, Megan S Rice, William J Degnan...

Hysterectomy, oophorectomy, and tubal ligation are common surgical procedures. The literature regarding cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk after these surgeries has focused on oophorectomy with limited research on hysterectomy or tubal ligation. Participants in the Nurses' Health Study II ( = 116,429) were followed from 1989 to 2017. Self-reported gynecologic surgery was categorized as follows: no surgery, hysterectomy alone, hysterectomy with unilateral oophorectomy, and hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy. We separately investigated tubal ligation alone. The primary outcome was CVD based on medical-record confirmed fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, or fatal and nonfatal stroke. Our secondary outcome expanded CVD to include coronary revascularization (coronary artery bypass graft surgery, angioplasty, stent placement). Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were adjusted for confounding factors. We investigated differences by age at surgery (≤50, >50) and menopausal hormone therapy usage. At baseline, participants were on average, 34 years old. During 2,899,787 person-years, we observed 1,864 cases of CVD. Hysterectomy in combination with any oophorectomy was associated with a greater risk of CVD in multivariable-adjusted models (HR hysterectomy with unilateral oophorectomy:1.40 [95% CI: 1.08-1.82]; HR hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy:1.27 [1.07-1.51]). Hysterectomy alone, hysterectomy with oophorectomy, and tubal ligation were also associated with an increased risk of combined CVD and coronary revascularization (HR hysterectomy alone: 1.19 [95% CI: 1.02-1.39]; HR hysterectomy with unilateral oophorectomy: 1.29 [1.01-1.64]; HR hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy: 1.22 [1.04-1.43]; HR tubal ligation: 1.16 [1.06-1.28]). The association between hysterectomy/oophorectomy and CVD and coronary revascularization risk varied by age at gynecologic surgery, with the strongest association among women who had surgery before age 50 years. Our findings suggest that hysterectomy, alone or in combination with oophorectomy, as well as tubal ligation, may be associated with an increased risk of CVD and coronary revascularization. These findings extend previous research finding that oophorectomy is associated with CVD.

Topics: Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Adult; Cardiovascular Diseases; Sterilization, Tubal; Risk Factors; Ovariectomy; Hysterectomy; Nurses

PubMed: 37155739
DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2022.0207

Authors: Maja Lieng Johanson, Malin Dögl, Marit Lieng...

BACKGROUND

Hysterectomy is a common gynaecological procedure. No Norwegian guidelines for the choice of hysterectomy surgical method exist, but international guidelines recommend minimally invasive surgery. The objective of this study was to investigate the kinds of surgical methods that were used for hysterectomies in the period 2008-18. Furthermore, we wished to identify the scope of robot-assisted hysterectomies and to find out whether salpingectomies are undertaken on a benign indication in Norway.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The study is based on data from the Norwegian Patient Registry. Relevant variables for all gynaecological hysterectomies in Norway in the period 2008-18 were collected at the individual level.

RESULTS

During the study period, 53 178 hysterectomies were registered in the Norwegian Patient Registry. The proportion of hysterectomies that were performed with minimally invasive techniques increased from 41 % to 73 % during the study period. Robot-assisted hysterectomies accounted for 15 % of the total in 2018. The number of concomitant salpingectomies also increased during the period, and were performed in more than half of all hysterectomies undertaken on a benign indication.

INTERPRETATION

Norwegian gynaecologists largely follow international guidelines and recommendations regarding minimally invasive hysterectomy and salpingectomy. Although the total proportion of minimally invasive hysterectomies is now relatively high, there are considerable variations between the different health trusts.

Topics: Female; Gynecology; Humans; Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Norway; Retrospective Studies

PubMed: 33070594
DOI: 10.4045/tidsskr.20.0167