Different minimally invasive surgical methods to hysterectomy for benign gynecological disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

Background and Aims

This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the perioperative efficacy of various minimally invasive hysterectomy procedures for treating benign gynecological diseases and to assess whether vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic hysterectomy (VNOTEH), a recently emerging procedure, is inferior to traditional laparoscopy.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine disc (CBM), Wanfang Data, and China VIP Database from inception to August 2022 and updated in June 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different minimally invasive hysterectomy techniques in patients with benign gynecological conditions. The intervention measures included nine minimally invasive hysterectomies. The two researchers used the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for study appraisal. All statistical analyses and drawings were performed using STATA 17.0 and R 4.4.1. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the effectiveness of minimally invasive hysterectomy and rank its relative impact probabilistically.

Results

A total of 78 RCTs involving 7640 patients and nine minimally invasive hysterectomy methods with 16 intervention combinations were included in this study. Among these, 2, 63, and 13 studies were deemed to have a low, medium, and high risk of bias, respectively. Based on the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) probability ranking results of NMA, laparoendoscopic single-site surgery-laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LESS-LAVH) demonstrated superior outcomes in terms of complications, infections, and 24-h postoperative pain scores. LAVH exhibited better performance in injuries and hospital stays, total laparoscopic hysterectomy showed the least blood loss, and vaginal hysterectomy had the shortest operation time.

Conclusion

LESS-LAVH and LAVH are recommended options, if feasible. Meanwhile, VNOTEH can achieve comparable results to traditional laparoscopy but requires careful attention to the risk of injury and infection. Future research should aim to broaden the search scope by including high-quality, large-scale, multicenter RCTs.