• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

开放手术与微创子宫切除术围手术期患者纵向报告的结局比较

Longitudinal perioperative patient-reported outcomes in open compared with minimally invasive hysterectomy.

作者信息

Huepenbecker Sarah P, Iniesta Maria D, Wang Xin S, Cain Katherine E, Zorrilla-Vaca Andres, Shen Shu-En, Basabe M Sol, Suki Tina, Garcia Lopez Juan E, Mena Gabriel E, Lasala Javier D, Williams Loretta A, Ramirez Pedro T, Meyer Larissa A

机构信息

Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.

Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.

出版信息

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Feb;230(2):241.e1-241.e18. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.10.012. Epub 2023 Oct 11.

DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2023.10.012
PMID:37827271
Abstract

BACKGROUND

There are few prospective studies in the gynecologic surgical literature that compared patient-reported outcomes between open and minimally invasive hysterectomies within enhanced recovery after surgery pathways.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare prospectively collected perioperative patient-reported symptom burden and interference measures in open compared with minimally invasive hysterectomy cohorts within enhanced recovery after surgery pathways.

STUDY DESIGN

We compared patient-reported symptom burden and functional interference in 646 patients who underwent a hysterectomy (254 underwent open surgery and 392 underwent minimally invasive surgery) for benign and malignant indications under enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. Outcomes were prospectively measured using the validated MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, which was administered perioperatively up to 8 weeks after surgery. Cohorts were compared using Fisher exact and chi-squared tests, adjusted longitudinal generalized linear mixed modeling, and Kaplan Meier curves to model return to no or mild symptoms.

RESULTS

The open cohort had significantly worse preoperative physical functional interference (P=.001). At the time of hospital discharge postoperatively, the open cohort reported significantly higher mean symptom severity scores and more moderate or severe scores for overall (P<.001) and abdominal pain (P<.001), fatigue (P=.001), lack of appetite (P<.001), bloating (P=.041), and constipation (P<.001) when compared with the minimally invasive cohort. The open cohort also had significantly higher interference in physical functioning (score 5.0 vs 2.7; P<.001) than the minimally invasive cohort at the time of discharge with no differences in affective interference between the 2 groups. In mixed modeling analysis of the first 7 postoperative days, both cohorts reported improved symptom burden and functional interference over time with generally slower recovery in the open cohort. From 1 to 8 postoperative weeks, the open cohort had worse mean scores for all evaluated symptoms and interference measures except for pain with urination, although scores indicated mild symptomatic burden and interference in both cohorts. The time to return to no or mild symptoms was significantly longer in the open cohort for overall pain (14 vs 4 days; P<.001), fatigue (8 vs 4 days; P<.001), disturbed sleep (2 vs 2 days; P<.001), and appetite (1.5 vs 1 days; P<.001) but was significantly longer in the minimally invasive cohort for abdominal pain (42 vs 28 days; P<.001) and bloating (42 vs 8 days; P<.001). The median time to return to no or mild functional interference was longer in the open than in the minimally invasive hysterectomy cohort for physical functioning (36 vs 32 days; P<.001) with no difference in compositive affective functioning (5 vs 5 days; P=.07) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Open hysterectomy was associated with increased symptom burden in the immediate postoperative period and longer time to return to no or mild symptom burden and interference with physical functioning. However, all patient-reported measures improved within days to weeks of both open and minimally invasive surgery and differences were not always clinically significant.

摘要

背景

在妇科手术文献中,很少有前瞻性研究比较在手术加速康复路径下,开腹子宫切除术和微创子宫切除术患者报告的结局。

目的

本研究旨在前瞻性比较在手术加速康复路径下,开腹子宫切除术与微创子宫切除术队列中围手术期患者报告的症状负担和干扰指标。

研究设计

我们比较了646例行子宫切除术患者(254例行开腹手术,392例行微创手术)在手术加速康复方案下,因良性和恶性指征导致的患者报告的症状负担和功能干扰。使用经过验证的MD安德森症状量表前瞻性测量结局,该量表在围手术期直至术后8周进行管理。使用Fisher精确检验和卡方检验、调整后的纵向广义线性混合模型以及Kaplan Meier曲线对队列进行比较,以模拟恢复至无症状或轻度症状的情况。

结果

开腹手术队列术前身体功能干扰明显更严重(P = 0.001)。术后出院时,与微创队列相比,开腹队列报告的总体(P < 0.001)、腹痛(P < 0.001)、疲劳(P = 0.001)、食欲不振(P < 0.001)、腹胀(P = 0.041)和便秘(P < 0.001)的平均症状严重程度得分显著更高,且中度或重度得分更多。出院时,开腹队列的身体功能干扰也明显高于微创队列(得分5.0对2.7;P < 0.001),两组间情感干扰无差异。在术后前7天的混合模型分析中,两个队列的症状负担和功能干扰均随时间改善,但开腹队列恢复通常较慢。术后1至8周,除排尿疼痛外,开腹队列所有评估症状和干扰指标的平均得分均较差,尽管两组得分均表明症状负担和干扰较轻。开腹队列总体疼痛(14天对4天;P < 0.001)、疲劳(8天对4天;P < 0.001)、睡眠障碍(2天对2天;P < 0.001)和食欲(1.5天对1天;P < 0.001)恢复至无症状或轻度症状的时间明显更长,但微创队列腹痛(42天对28天;P < 0.001)和腹胀(42天对8天;P < 0.001)恢复时间明显更长。开腹子宫切除术队列恢复至无症状或轻度功能干扰的中位时间长于微创子宫切除术队列(36天对32天;P < 0.001),两组间综合情感功能无差异(5天对5天;P = 0.07)。

结论

开腹子宫切除术与术后即刻症状负担增加以及恢复至无症状或轻度症状负担和身体功能干扰的时间延长相关。然而,所有患者报告的指标在开腹手术和微创手术后的数天至数周内均有所改善,且差异并非总是具有临床意义。

相似文献

1
Longitudinal perioperative patient-reported outcomes in open compared with minimally invasive hysterectomy.开放手术与微创子宫切除术围手术期患者纵向报告的结局比较
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Feb;230(2):241.e1-241.e18. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.10.012. Epub 2023 Oct 11.
2
What Are the Recurrence Rates, Complications, and Functional Outcomes After Multiportal Arthroscopic Synovectomy for Patients With Knee Diffuse-type Tenosynovial Giant-cell Tumors?膝关节弥漫型腱鞘巨细胞瘤患者行多入路关节镜下滑膜切除术的复发率、并发症及功能结局如何?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2024 Jul 1;482(7):1218-1229. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002934. Epub 2023 Dec 28.
3
Does Minimally Invasive Surgery Provide Better Clinical or Radiographic Outcomes Than Open Surgery in the Treatment of Hallux Valgus Deformity? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.微创外科治疗拇外翻畸形是否优于开放手术:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2023 Jun 1;481(6):1143-1155. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002471. Epub 2022 Nov 4.
4
Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.良性妇科疾病的子宫切除术手术入路。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Aug 29;8(8):CD003677. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub6.
5
Urodynamics tests for the diagnosis and management of male bladder outlet obstruction: long-term follow-up of the UPSTREAM non-inferiority RCT.用于男性膀胱出口梗阻诊断和管理的尿动力学检查:UPSTREAM非劣效性随机对照试验的长期随访
Health Technol Assess. 2025 Jul;29(26):1-57. doi: 10.3310/SLPT4675.
6
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.成人全身麻醉后预防术后恶心呕吐的药物:网状Meta分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 19;10(10):CD012859. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2.
7
Surgical versus non-surgical interventions for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures.手术与非手术干预治疗移位型关节内跟骨骨折。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Nov 7;11(11):CD008628. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008628.pub3.
8
Intravenous magnesium sulphate and sotalol for prevention of atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass surgery: a systematic review and economic evaluation.静脉注射硫酸镁和索他洛尔预防冠状动脉搭桥术后房颤:系统评价与经济学评估
Health Technol Assess. 2008 Jun;12(28):iii-iv, ix-95. doi: 10.3310/hta12280.
9
Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.良性妇科疾病子宫切除术的手术入路
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 12;2015(8):CD003677. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5.
10
Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.两种现代生存预测工具 SORG-MLA 和 METSSS 在接受手术联合放疗和单纯放疗治疗有症状长骨转移患者中的比较。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2024 Dec 1;482(12):2193-2208. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003185. Epub 2024 Jul 23.

引用本文的文献

1
Who is Seeking Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) for Cancer? Insights from a Large Cohort in a Rehabilitation Clinic.哪些人在寻求中医治疗癌症?来自一家康复诊所的大型队列研究的见解。
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2025 Apr 2;19:883-896. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S509263. eCollection 2025.