Suppr超能文献

eVALuate研究:两项平行随机试验,一项比较腹腔镜子宫切除术与经腹子宫切除术,另一项比较腹腔镜子宫切除术与经阴道子宫切除术。

The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy.

作者信息

Garry Ray, Fountain Jayne, Mason Su, Hawe Jeremy, Napp Vicky, Abbott Jason, Clayton Richard, Phillips Graham, Whittaker Mark, Lilford Richard, Bridgman Stephen, Brown Julia

机构信息

University of Western Australia, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Subiaco, Perth, WA 6008, Australia.

出版信息

BMJ. 2004 Jan 17;328(7432):129. doi: 10.1136/bmj.37984.623889.F6. Epub 2004 Jan 7.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy in the abdominal trial, and laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy in the vaginal trial.

DESIGN

Two parallel, multicentre, randomised trials.

SETTING

28 UK centres and two South African centres.

PARTICIPANTS

1380 women were recruited; 1346 had surgery; 937 were followed up at one year. Primary outcome Rate of major complications.

RESULTS

In the abdominal trial laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a higher rate of major complications than abdominal hysterectomy (11.1% v 6.2%, P = 0.02; difference 4.9%, 95% confidence interval 0.9% to 9.1%) and the number needed to treat to harm was 20. Laparoscopic hysterectomy also took longer to perform (84 minutes v 50 minutes) but was less painful (visual analogue scale 3.51 v 3.88, P = 0.01) and resulted in a shorter stay in hospital after the operation (3 days v 4 days). Six weeks after the operation, laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with less pain and better quality of life than abdominal hysterectomy (SF-12, body image scale, and sexual activity questionnaires). In the vaginal trial we found no evidence of a difference in major complication rates between laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy (9.8% v 9.5%, P = 0.92; difference 0.3%, -5.2% to 5.8%), and the number needed to treat to harm was 333. We found no evidence of other differences between laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy except that laparoscopic hysterectomy took longer to perform (72 minutes v 39 minutes) and was associated with a higher rate of detecting unexpected pathology (16.4% v 4.8%, P = < 0.01). However, this trial was underpowered.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a significantly higher rate of major complications than abdominal hysterectomy. It also took longer to perform but was associated with less pain, quicker recovery, and better short term quality of life. The trial comparing vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy was underpowered and is inconclusive on the rate of major complications; however, vaginal hysterectomy took less time.

摘要

目的

在腹部手术试验中比较腹腔镜子宫切除术与经腹子宫切除术的效果,以及在阴道手术试验中比较腹腔镜子宫切除术与经阴道子宫切除术的效果。

设计

两项平行、多中心、随机试验。

地点

28个英国中心和2个南非中心。

参与者

招募了1380名女性;1346名接受了手术;937名在术后一年接受随访。主要结局 严重并发症发生率。

结果

在腹部手术试验中,腹腔镜子宫切除术的严重并发症发生率高于经腹子宫切除术(11.1%对6.2%,P = 0.02;差异4.9%,95%置信区间0.9%至9.1%),造成伤害的需治疗人数为20。腹腔镜子宫切除术的手术时间也更长(84分钟对50分钟),但疼痛较轻(视觉模拟评分3.51对3.88,P = 0.01),术后住院时间较短(3天对4天)。术后六周,与经腹子宫切除术相比,腹腔镜子宫切除术的疼痛较轻,生活质量较好(SF-12、身体形象量表和性活动问卷)。在阴道手术试验中,我们没有发现腹腔镜子宫切除术与经阴道子宫切除术在严重并发症发生率上存在差异的证据(9.8%对9.5%,P = 0.92;差异0.3%,-5.2%至5.8%),造成伤害的需治疗人数为333。除了腹腔镜子宫切除术手术时间更长(72分钟对39分钟)以及发现意外病理的发生率更高(16.4%对4.8%,P = < 0.01)外,我们没有发现腹腔镜子宫切除术与经阴道子宫切除术之间存在其他差异的证据。然而,该试验的效能不足。

结论

腹腔镜子宫切除术的严重并发症发生率显著高于经腹子宫切除术。其手术时间也更长,但疼痛较轻,恢复更快,短期生活质量更好。比较经阴道子宫切除术与腹腔镜子宫切除术的试验效能不足,在严重并发症发生率方面尚无定论;然而,经阴道子宫切除术所需时间较短。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

5
Surgery and minimally invasive treatments for uterine fibroids.子宫肌瘤的手术及微创治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jun 4;6(6):CD015650. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015650.
10
Early versus delayed oral feeding after major gynaecologic surgery.妇科大手术后早期与延迟经口进食的比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Aug 12;8(8):CD004508. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004508.pub5.

本文引用的文献

2
Hysterectomy rates in the United States 1990-1997.1990 - 1997年美国子宫切除术的比率。
Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Feb;99(2):229-34. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01723-9.
4
A body image scale for use with cancer patients.一种供癌症患者使用的身体意象量表。
Eur J Cancer. 2001 Jan;37(2):189-97. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(00)00353-1.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验