Melnikoff Anna K, Doo David W, Cohen Alexander C, Landers Emily, Walters-Haygood Christen, McGwin Gerald, Straughn J Michael, Kim Kenneth H
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 Sep;29(7):1110-1115. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000559. Epub 2019 Jul 30.
While traditional teaching has been to wait 6 weeks between cervical excisional procedure and hysterectomy, studies have produced conflicting evidence, with data supporting a delay of anywhere between 48 hours to 6 weeks depending on surgical approach. Our study sought to evaluate if the time between cervical excisional procedure and robotic hysterectomy impacts peri-operative complication rates.
A retrospective cohort of patients who underwent robotic hysterectomy from August 2006 to December 2013 for cervical dysplasia or International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IA1-B1 cervical cancer at a single tertiary care center was performed. Patients were categorized into three groups: early surgical intervention (<6 weeks from excisional procedure), delayed surgical intervention (≥6 weeks from excisional procedure), and no excisional procedure. Secondary analysis was performed by hysterectomy type (simple vs radical). Peri-operative outcomes and complications were compared. Statistical analysis included Chi-square, Fisher's exact test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test.
A total of 160 patients were identified. Of these, 32 (20.0%) had early surgical intervention, 52 (32.5%) had delayed surgical intervention, and 76 (47.5%) had no excisional procedure. There was no difference between groups in complication rates, including average estimated blood loss (82 vs 55 vs 71 mL; p=0.07), urologic injury (0% in all groups; p=1.0), anemia (3% vs 0% vs 1%; p=0.47), infection (0% vs 2% vs 3%; p=1.0), vaginal cuff separation (0% in all groups; p=1.0), or venous thromboembolism (0% vs 0% vs 1%; p=1.0). Additionally, there were no differences in length of stay (p=0.18) or 30-day readmission rates (p=1.0). Finally, there were no significant differences in peri-operative outcomes when stratified by radical versus simple hysterectomy.
Waiting 6 weeks between cervical excisional procedure and robotic hysterectomy does not impact peri-operative complication rates. This suggests that the time from excisional procedure should not factor into surgical planning for those who undergo robotic hysterectomy.
传统教学一直主张在宫颈切除术后等待6周再进行子宫切除术,但研究得出了相互矛盾的证据,数据支持根据手术方式在48小时至6周之间的任何时间延迟。我们的研究旨在评估宫颈切除术后与机器人辅助子宫切除术之间的时间间隔是否会影响围手术期并发症发生率。
对2006年8月至2013年12月在一家三级医疗中心因宫颈发育异常或国际妇产科联盟(FIGO)2009年IA1 - B1期宫颈癌接受机器人辅助子宫切除术的患者进行回顾性队列研究。患者分为三组:早期手术干预(切除术后<6周)、延迟手术干预(切除术后≥6周)和未进行切除手术。根据子宫切除术类型(单纯性与根治性)进行二次分析。比较围手术期结果和并发症。统计分析包括卡方检验、Fisher精确检验和Wilcoxon秩和检验。
共确定了160例患者。其中,32例(20.0%)接受早期手术干预,52例(32.5%)接受延迟手术干预,76例(47.5%)未进行切除手术。各组之间的并发症发生率无差异,包括平均估计失血量(82 vs 55 vs 71 mL;p = 0.07)、泌尿系统损伤(所有组均为0%;p = 1.0)、贫血(3% vs 0% vs 1%;p = 0.47)、感染(0% vs 2% vs 3%;p = 1.0)、阴道残端分离(所有组均为0%;p = 1.0)或静脉血栓栓塞(0% vs 0% vs 1%;p = 1.0)。此外,住院时间(p = 0.18)或30天再入院率(p = 1.0)也无差异。最后,按根治性与单纯性子宫切除术分层时,围手术期结果无显著差异。
宫颈切除术后与机器人辅助子宫切除术之间等待6周不会影响围手术期并发症发生率。这表明对于接受机器人辅助子宫切除术的患者,切除术后的时间不应纳入手术规划的考虑因素。