Methods of hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

被引:278
|
作者
Johnson, N [1 ]
Barlow, D
Lethaby, A
Tavender, E
Curr, L
Garry, R
机构
[1] Univ Auckland, Auckland Hosp, Natl Womens Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Auckland, New Zealand
[2] John Radcliffe Hosp, Nuffield Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Oxford OX3 9DU, England
[3] Univ Manchester, Cochrane Oral Hlth Grp, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England
[4] Univ Western Australia, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
来源
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL | 2005年 / 330卷 / 7506期
关键词
D O I
10.1136/bmj.330.7506.1478
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective To evaluate the most appropriate surgical method of hysterectomy (abdominal, vaginal, or laparoscopic) for women with benign disease. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and Biological Abstracts. Selection of studies Only randomised controlled trials were selected; participants had to have benign gynaecological disease; interventions had to comprise at least one hysterectomy method compared with another; and trials had to report primary outcomes (time taken to return to normal activities, intraoperative visceral injury, and major long term complications) or secondary outcomes (operating time, other immediate complications of surgery, short term complications, and duration of hospital stay). Results 27 trials (total of 3643 participants) were included. Return to normal activities was quicker after vaginal than after abdominal hysterectomy (weighted mean difference 9.5 (95% confidence interval 6.4 to 12.6) days) and after laparoscopic than after abdominal hysterectomy (difference 13.6 (11.8 to 15.4)) days, but was not significantly different for laparoscopic versus vaginal hysterectomy (difference -1.1 (-4.2 to 2.1) days). There were more urinary tract injuries with laparoscopic than with abdominal hysterectomy (odds ratio 2.61 (95% confidence interval 1.22 to 5.60)), but no other intraoperative visceral injuries showed a significant difference between surgical approaches. Data were notably absent for many important long term patient outcome measures, where the analyses were underpowered to detect important differences, or they were simply not reported in trials. Conclusions Significantly speedier return to normal activities and other improved secondary outcomes (shorter duration of hospital stay and fewer unspecified infections or febrile episodes) suggest that vaginal hysterectomy is preferable to abdominal hysterectomy where possible. Where vaginal hysterectomy is not possible, laparoscopic hysterectomy is preferable to abdominal hysterectomy, although it brings a higher chance of bladder or ureter injury.
引用
收藏
页码:1478 / 1481
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A Systematic Literature Review & Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    Broderick, P.
    Clark, H.
    Monaghan, D.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE, 2023, 18 (01) : 122 - 122
  • [2] Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis
    Treweek, Shaun
    Lockhart, Pauline
    Pitkethly, Marie
    Cook, Jonathan A.
    Kjeldstrom, Monica
    Johansen, Marit
    Taskila, Taina K.
    Sullivan, Frank M.
    Wilson, Sue
    Jackson, Catherine
    Jones, Ritu
    Mitchell, Elizabeth D.
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2013, 3 (02):
  • [3] Screening for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    Lebeau, Jean-Pierre
    Pouchain, Denis
    [J]. EXERCER-LA REVUE FRANCOPHONE DE MEDECINE GENERALE, 2010, 21 (94): : 155 - 156
  • [4] Typhoid fever vaccines: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    Fraser, Abigail
    Paul, Mical
    Goldberg, Elad
    Acosta, Camilo J.
    Leibovici, Leonard
    [J]. VACCINE, 2007, 25 (45) : 7848 - 7857
  • [5] Treatment of human brucellosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    Skalsky, Keren
    Yahav, Dafna
    Bishara, Jihad
    Pitlik, Silvio
    Leibovici, Leonard
    Paul, Mical
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2008, 336 (7646): : 701 - 704I
  • [6] Is patellofemoral pain preventable? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    Culvenor, Adam G.
    van Middelkoop, Marienke
    Macri, Erin M.
    Crossley, Kay M.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2021, 55 (07) : 378 - +
  • [7] Acupuncture for premenstrual syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    Kim, S-Y
    Park, H-J
    Lee, H.
    Lee, H.
    [J]. BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2011, 118 (08) : 899 - 915
  • [8] Screening for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    Djulbegovic, Mia
    Beyth, Rebecca J.
    Neuberger, Molly M.
    Stoffs, Taryn L.
    Vieweg, Johannes
    Djulbegovic, Benjamin
    Dahm, Philipp
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2010, 341 : 593
  • [9] Pilates for neck pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    Martini, Josehelen D.
    Ferreira, Giovanni E.
    de Araujo, Francisco Xavier
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BODYWORK AND MOVEMENT THERAPIES, 2022, 31 : 37 - 44
  • [10] Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on surgery for pelvic organ prolapse
    Baessler, K.
    Maher, C.
    [J]. NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS, 2006, 25 (06) : 550 - 551