Hysterectomy Techniques and Outcomes for Benign Large Uteri: A Systematic Review.

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Obstetrics and gynecology Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-15 DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005607
Mamta M Mamik, Shunaha Kim-Fine, Linda Yang, Vidya Sharma, Rajiv Gala, Sarit Aschkenazi, David Sheyn, David Howard, Andrew J Walter, Bela Kudish, Ethan M Balk, Danielle D Antosh
{"title":"Hysterectomy Techniques and Outcomes for Benign Large Uteri: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Mamta M Mamik, Shunaha Kim-Fine, Linda Yang, Vidya Sharma, Rajiv Gala, Sarit Aschkenazi, David Sheyn, David Howard, Andrew J Walter, Bela Kudish, Ethan M Balk, Danielle D Antosh","doi":"10.1097/AOG.0000000000005607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify the optimal hysterectomy approach for large uteri in gynecologic surgery for benign indications from a perioperative morbidity standpoint.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception through September 19, 2022. Meta-analyses were conducted as feasible.</p><p><strong>Methods of study selection: </strong>This review included studies that compared routes of hysterectomy with or without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for large uteri (12 weeks or more or 250 g or more) and excluded studies with any concurrent surgery for pelvic organ prolapse, incontinence, gynecologic malignancy, or any obstetric indication for hysterectomy.</p><p><strong>Tabulation, integration, and results: </strong>The review included 25 studies comprising nine randomized trials, two prospective, and 14 retrospective nonrandomized comparative studies. Studies were at high risk of bias. There was lower operative time for total vaginal hysterectomy compared with laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) (mean difference 39 minutes, 95% CI, 18-60) and total vaginal hysterectomy compared with total laparoscopic hysterectomy (mean difference 50 minutes, 95% CI, 29-70). Total laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with much greater risk of ureteral injury compared with total vaginal hysterectomy (odds ratio 7.54, 95% CI, 2.52-22.58). There were no significant differences in bowel injury rates between groups. There were no differences in length of stay among the laparoscopic approaches. For LAVH compared with total vaginal hysterectomy, randomized controlled trials favored total vaginal hysterectomy for length of stay. When rates of blood transfusion were compared between these abdominal hysterectomy and robotic-assisted total hysterectomy routes, abdominal hysterectomy was associated with a sixfold greater risk of transfusion than robotic-assisted total hysterectomy (6.31, 95% CI, 1.07-37.32). Similarly, single studies comparing robotic-assisted total hysterectomy with LAVH, total laparoscopic hysterectomy, or total vaginal hysterectomy all favored robotic-assisted total hysterectomy for reduced blood loss.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Minimally invasive routes are safe and effective and have few complications. Minimally invasive approach (vaginal, laparoscopic, or robotic) results in lower blood loss and shorter length of stay, whereas the abdominal route has a shorter operative time.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO, CRD42021233300.</p>","PeriodicalId":19483,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics and gynecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000005607","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To identify the optimal hysterectomy approach for large uteri in gynecologic surgery for benign indications from a perioperative morbidity standpoint.

Data sources: PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception through September 19, 2022. Meta-analyses were conducted as feasible.

Methods of study selection: This review included studies that compared routes of hysterectomy with or without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for large uteri (12 weeks or more or 250 g or more) and excluded studies with any concurrent surgery for pelvic organ prolapse, incontinence, gynecologic malignancy, or any obstetric indication for hysterectomy.

Tabulation, integration, and results: The review included 25 studies comprising nine randomized trials, two prospective, and 14 retrospective nonrandomized comparative studies. Studies were at high risk of bias. There was lower operative time for total vaginal hysterectomy compared with laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) (mean difference 39 minutes, 95% CI, 18-60) and total vaginal hysterectomy compared with total laparoscopic hysterectomy (mean difference 50 minutes, 95% CI, 29-70). Total laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with much greater risk of ureteral injury compared with total vaginal hysterectomy (odds ratio 7.54, 95% CI, 2.52-22.58). There were no significant differences in bowel injury rates between groups. There were no differences in length of stay among the laparoscopic approaches. For LAVH compared with total vaginal hysterectomy, randomized controlled trials favored total vaginal hysterectomy for length of stay. When rates of blood transfusion were compared between these abdominal hysterectomy and robotic-assisted total hysterectomy routes, abdominal hysterectomy was associated with a sixfold greater risk of transfusion than robotic-assisted total hysterectomy (6.31, 95% CI, 1.07-37.32). Similarly, single studies comparing robotic-assisted total hysterectomy with LAVH, total laparoscopic hysterectomy, or total vaginal hysterectomy all favored robotic-assisted total hysterectomy for reduced blood loss.

Conclusion: Minimally invasive routes are safe and effective and have few complications. Minimally invasive approach (vaginal, laparoscopic, or robotic) results in lower blood loss and shorter length of stay, whereas the abdominal route has a shorter operative time.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021233300.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
良性大子宫的子宫切除术技术和结果:系统回顾。
目的从围手术期发病率的角度确定良性适应症妇科手术中大子宫切除术的最佳方法:数据来源:检索了从开始到 2022 年 9 月 19 日的 PubMed 和 Embase 数据库。在可行的情况下进行了荟萃分析:本综述纳入了对大子宫(12周或以上或250克或以上)进行子宫切除术与双侧输卵管卵巢切除术或不进行双侧输卵管卵巢切除术的途径进行比较的研究,并排除了同时进行盆腔器官脱垂、尿失禁、妇科恶性肿瘤手术或任何产科子宫切除术指征的研究:综述包括 25 项研究,其中包括 9 项随机试验、2 项前瞻性研究和 14 项回顾性非随机对比研究。这些研究存在较高的偏倚风险。与腹腔镜辅助阴道子宫切除术(LAVH)相比,全阴道子宫切除术的手术时间较短(平均相差39分钟,95% CI,18-60分钟),与全腹腔镜子宫切除术相比,全阴道子宫切除术的手术时间较长(平均相差50分钟,95% CI,29-70分钟)。全腹腔镜子宫切除术与全阴道子宫切除术相比,输尿管损伤的风险要大得多(几率比7.54,95% CI,2.52-22.58)。各组间肠道损伤率无明显差异。腹腔镜手术的住院时间没有差异。腹腔镜子宫切除术与全阴道子宫切除术相比,随机对照试验更倾向于全阴道子宫切除术的住院时间。当比较腹部子宫切除术和机器人辅助全子宫切除术的输血率时,腹部子宫切除术的输血风险是机器人辅助全子宫切除术的六倍(6.31,95% CI,1.07-37.32)。同样,将机器人辅助全子宫切除术与LAVH、全腹腔镜子宫切除术或全阴道子宫切除术进行比较的单项研究均认为机器人辅助全子宫切除术可减少失血:结论:微创途径安全有效,并发症少。微创方法(阴道、腹腔镜或机器人)可降低失血量,缩短住院时间,而腹腔途径的手术时间更短:prospero,CRD42021233300。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Obstetrics and gynecology
Obstetrics and gynecology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
11.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
867
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: "Obstetrics & Gynecology," affectionately known as "The Green Journal," is the official publication of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Since its inception in 1953, the journal has been dedicated to advancing the clinical practice of obstetrics and gynecology, as well as related fields. The journal's mission is to promote excellence in these areas by publishing a diverse range of articles that cover translational and clinical topics. "Obstetrics & Gynecology" provides a platform for the dissemination of evidence-based research, clinical guidelines, and expert opinions that are essential for the continuous improvement of women's health care. The journal's content is designed to inform and educate obstetricians, gynecologists, and other healthcare professionals, ensuring that they stay abreast of the latest developments and best practices in their field.
期刊最新文献
False-Positive Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Test Results With Rapid Seroreversion After Third-Trimester Tdap Booster Vaccination. Compliance Rate With Triage Test and Treatment for Participants Screening Positive in Cervical Cancer Screening Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Effects of Antihypertensive Therapy During Pregnancy on Postpartum Blood Pressure Control. Management of Vulvovaginal Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. Navigating the Legal Landscape of Reproductive Rights and Medical Training After LePage v. Mobile Infirmary Clinic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1