Aarts Johanna W M, Nieboer Theodoor E, Johnson Neil, Tavender Emma, Garry Ray, Mol Ben Willem J, Kluivers Kirsten B
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, Nijmegen, Netherlands, 6500HB.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 12;2015(8):CD003677. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5.
The four approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH).
To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions.
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.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another.
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).
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.
良性疾病子宫切除术的四种手术途径为经腹子宫切除术(AH)、经阴道子宫切除术(VH)、腹腔镜子宫切除术(LH)和机器人辅助子宫切除术(RH)。
评估不同手术途径的子宫切除术治疗良性妇科疾病女性的有效性和安全性。
我们使用Ovid平台检索了以下数据库(从建库至2014年8月14日):Cochrane系统评价数据库(CENTRAL);医学期刊数据库(MEDLINE);荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE);护理学与健康照护领域累积索引数据库(CINAHL)和心理学文摘数据库(PsycINFO)。我们还检索了相关的参考文献列表。我们同时使用了索引词和自由词。
我们纳入了比较一种子宫切除手术途径与另一种手术途径临床结局的随机对照试验(RCT)。
至少两名综述作者独立选择试验、评估偏倚风险并进行数据提取。我们的主要结局包括恢复正常活动、满意度、生活质量、术中内脏损伤以及主要的长期并发症(即瘘管、盆腔腹部疼痛、排尿功能障碍、肠道功能障碍、盆底状况和性功能障碍)。
我们纳入了47项研究,共5102名女性。大多数比较的证据质量为低或中等。主要局限性在于报告不佳和精确性不足。经阴道子宫切除术(VH)与经腹子宫切除术(AH)比较(9项RCT,762名女性)VH组恢复正常活动的时间较短(平均差(MD)-9.5天,95%置信区间(CI)-12.6至-6.4,3项RCT,176名女性,I² = 75%,中等质量证据)。在其他主要结局方面,两组之间没有差异的证据。腹腔镜子宫切除术(LH)与AH比较(25项RCT,2983名女性)LH组恢复正常活动的时间较短(MD -13.6天,95%CI -15.4至-11.8;6项RCT,520名女性,I² = 71%,低质量证据),但LH组有更多的泌尿系统损伤(优势比(OR)2.4,95%CI 1.2至4.8,13项RCT,2140名女性,I² = 0%,低质量证据)。在其他主要结局方面,两组之间没有差异的证据。LH与VH比较(16项RCT,1440名女性)在任何主要结局方面,两组之间均无差异的证据。机器人辅助子宫切除术(RH)与LH比较(2项RCT,152名女性)在任何主要结局方面,两组之间均无差异的证据。两项研究均未报告满意度或生活质量。总体而言,纳入研究中的不良事件数量较少。
在因良性疾病接受子宫切除术的女性中,VH似乎优于LH和AH,因为它与更快恢复正常活动相关。在技术可行时,由于恢复更快且术后发热发作较少,应优先选择VH而非AH。在无法进行VH的情况下,LH相对于AH有一些优势(包括恢复更快、发热发作更少以及伤口或腹壁感染更少),但这些优势被更长的手术时间所抵消。未发现LH优于VH;LH的手术时间更长,全腹腔镜子宫切除术(TLH)的泌尿系统损伤更多。在LH的三个亚类中,腹腔镜辅助阴道子宫切除术和LH的RCT数据比TLH更多。单孔腹腔镜子宫切除术和RH应要么被放弃,要么进一步评估,因为缺乏比传统LH更具优势的证据。总体而言,本综述中的证据必须谨慎解读,因为不良事件发生率较低,导致这些比较的检验效能较低。子宫切除术的手术途径应根据相对的益处和风险进行讨论并决定。这些益处和风险似乎取决于手术专业知识,这可能会影响决策。总之,当VH不可行时,LH可能避免采用AH的必要性,但LH与更多的泌尿系统损伤相关。没有证据表明RH对该人群有益。理想情况下,子宫切除术的手术途径应由女性与她的外科医生共同讨论决定。