Prospective comparison of tissue trauma after laparoscopic hysterectomy types with retroperitoneal lateral transsection of uterine vessels using ligasure and abdominal hysterectomy

Comparison of tissue damage and inflammation for robotic laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy in early endometrial cancer

Introduction

This study was to analyze the dynamics of tissue damage and inflammatory response markers perioperatively and whether these differ between robotic laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy in early endometrial cancer.

Methods

In a randomized controlled trial conducted at SHANGHAI FIRST MATERNITY and INFANT HOSPITAL, eighty women with early-stage, low-risk endometrial cancer were randomly assigned to receive either robotic or conventional laparoscopy. Blood samples were collected at admission, immediately before surgery, 2 h after surgery, 24 h after surgery, 48 h after surgery, and 1 week after surgery. The samples were analyzed for various biomarkers associated with inflammatory processes and tissue damage. These included high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), white blood cell count (WBC), platelet count, interleukin-6 (IL-6), cortisol, creatine kinase (CK), and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α). These markers provide insights into the underlying physiological responses and potential tissue-level changes within the study participants.

Results

There was no significant difference in clinical and preoperative data between two groups. The results showed that the patients who underwent robotic laparoscopy had a longer pre-surgical time compared to the conventional laparoscopy group. However, the robotic group had shorter operating times, quicker vaginal cuff closures, and lower estimated blood loss compared to the conventional laparoscopy group. The hospital stays, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score and drainage volume on the first day after operation were lower in robotic group compared to conventional laparoscopy group. hs-CRP, WBC, IL-6 and cortisol were significantly lower in the robotic group, though the differences were transient.

Discussion

This study demonstrated that robotic laparoscopy, used in early endometrial cancer treatment, leads to a reduced inflammatory response, less tissue damage, and lower stress levels, as evidenced by decreased levels of hs-CRP, IL-6, and cortisol, compared to conventional laparoscopy. These findings suggest that robot- laparoscopy may facilitate a quicker recovery and improve patient-reported outcomes.

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are five major approaches to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease: abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) and vaginal natural orifice hysterectomy (V-NOTES). Within the LH category we further differentiate the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) from the total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (from their inception to December 2022): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the trial registries and relevant reference lists, and communicated with experts in the field for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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 and quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvic-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 63 studies with 6811 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate certainty. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (12 RCTs, 1046 women) Return to normal activities was probably faster in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -10.91 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.95 to -3.87; 4 RCTs, 274 women; I2 = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after AH is assumed to be 42 days, then after VH it would be between 24 and 38 days. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (28 RCTs, 3431 women) Return to normal activities may be sooner in the LH group (MD -13.01 days, 95% CI -16.47 to -9.56; 7 RCTs, 618 women; I2 = 68%, low-certainty evidence), but there may be more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.16, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.93; 18 RCTs, 2594 women; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 37 days, then after laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 22 and 25 days. It also suggests that if the rate of ureter injury during abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 0.2%, then during laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 0.2% and 2%. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (22 RCTs, 2135 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for any of our primary outcomes. Both short- and long-term complications were rare in both groups. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (three RCTs, 296 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for our other primary outcomes. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH) versus LH (seven RCTs, 621 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates, quality of life or major long-term complications. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) versus laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) (three RCTs, 233 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury or major long-term complications. Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (V-NOTES) versus LH (two RCTs, 96 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of bladder injury. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. Overall, adverse events were rare in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to AH. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because it is associated with faster return to normal activities, fewer wound/abdominal wall infections and shorter hospital stay. Where VH is not possible, LH has advantages over AH including faster return to normal activities, shorter hospital stay, and decreased risk of wound/abdominal wall infection, febrile episodes or unspecified infection, and transfusion. These advantages must be balanced against the increased risk of ureteric injury and longer operative time. When compared to LH, VH was associated with no difference in time to return to normal activities but shorter operative time and shorter hospital stay. RH and V-NOTES require further evaluation since there is a lack of evidence of any patient 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 with the patient and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. Surgical expertise is difficult to quantify and poorly reported in the available studies and this may influence outcomes in ways that cannot be accounted for in this review. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH has multiple advantages over AH, but at the cost of more ureteric injuries. Evidence is limited for RH and V-NOTES.

Failure to rescue following proctectomy for rectal cancer: the additional benefit of laparoscopic approach in a nationwide observational study of 44,536 patients

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence that failure to rescue (FTR) is an important factor of postoperative mortality (POM) after rectal cancer surgery and surgical approach modified post-operative outcomes. However, the impact of laparoscopy on FTR after proctectomy for rectal cancer remains unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the rates of postoperative complications and FTR after laparoscopy vs open proctectomy for cancer.

METHODS

All patients who underwent proctectomy for rectal cancer between 2012 and 2016 were included. FTR was defined as the 90-day POM rate among patients with major complications. Outcomes of patients undergoing open or laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery were compared after 1:1 propensity score matching by year of surgery, hospital volume, sex, age, Charlson score, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, tumor localization and type of anastomosis.

RESULTS

Overall, 44,536 patients who underwent proctectomy were included, 7043 of whom (15.8%) developed major complications. The rates of major complications, POM and FTR were significantly higher in open compared to laparoscopic procedure (major complications: 19.2% vs 13.7%, p < 0.001; POM: 5.4% vs 2.3%, p < 0.001; FTR: 13.6% vs 8.3%, p < 0.001; respectively). After matching, open and laparoscopic groups were comparable. Multivariate analysis showed that age, Charlson score, sphincter-preserving procedure and surgical approach were predictive factors for FTR. Open proctectomy was found to be a risk factor for FTR (OR 1.342, IC95% [1.066; 1.689], p = 0.012) compared to laparoscopic procedure.

CONCLUSION

When complications occurred, patients operated on by open proctectomy were more likely to die.

Markers of tissue damage and inflammation after robotic and abdominal hysterectomy in early endometrial cancer: a randomised controlled trial

The aim of this study was to analyse the dynamics of tissue damage and inflammatory response markers perioperatively and whether these differ between women operated with robotic and abdominal hysterectomy in treating early-stage endometrial cancer. At a Swedish university hospital fifty women with early-stage low-risk endometrial cancer were allocated to robotic or abdominal hysterectomy in a randomiszed controlled trial. Blood samples reflecting inflammatory responses (high sensitivity CRP, white blood cells (WBC), thrombocytes, IL-6, cortisol) and tissue damage (creatine kinase (CK), high-mobility group box 1 protein (HMGB1)) were collected one week preoperatively, just before surgery, postoperatively at two, 24 and 48 hours, and one and six weeks postoperatively. High sensitivity CRP (p = 0.03), WBC (p < 0.01), IL-6 (p = 0.03) and CK (p = 0.03) were significantly lower in the robotic group, but fast transitory. Cortisol returned to baseline two hours after robotic hysterectomy but remained elevated in the abdominal group comparable to the preoperative high levels for both groups just before surgery (p < 0.0001). Thrombocytes and HMGB1 were not affected by the mode of surgery. Postoperative inflammatory response and tissue damage were lower after robotic hysterectomy compared to abdominal hysterectomy. A significant remaining cortisol elevation two hours after surgery may reflect a higher stress response in the abdominal group.

Prediction of early C-reactive protein levels after non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia

Background

Early detection of postoperative increase in C-reactive protein (CRP) correlates with postoperative complications. The present study examined the association between preoperative / intraoperative factors and postoperative CRP levels, with development and validation of a prediction model of early postoperative CRP level, for prophylactic management of postoperative complications in patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia.

Material and methods

Multivariate regression analysis was retrospectively performed to determine the independent factor of CRP levels on postoperative day (POD) 1 and to develop a prediction model. Validation of the prediction model was prospectively performed. Data from 316 adult patients on perioperative variables were retrospectively obtained in a training cohort in patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery. In a validation cohort, 88 patients undergoing mastectomy and 68 patients undergoing laparoscopic colon surgery were prospectively utilized to evaluate the value of the prediction model. Major complications after surgery were defined as the Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or greater.

Results

Duration of surgery, mean nociceptive response (NR) during surgery as intraoperative nociception level, and preoperative CRP level were selected to set up the prediction model of CRP level on POD1 (P < 0.0001). In the validation cohort, the predicted CRP levels on POD1 significantly correlated with the measured CRP after mastectomy (P < 0.0001) and laparoscopic colon surgery (P = 0.0001). Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the predicted CRP levels on POD1 was significantly associated with major complications after mastectomy (P = 0.0259) and laparoscopic colon surgery (P = 0.0049). The measured and predicted CRP levels significantly increased in the order of severity of postoperative complications (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

Increases in duration of surgery, intraoperative nociceptive level and preoperative CRP level were selected to predict early increases in CRP level after non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia. Predicted CRP levels on POD1 were likely associated with severity of postoperative complications.

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease

BACKGROUND

The four approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions.

SEARCH METHODS

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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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).

MAIN RESULTS

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.

Laparoscopic hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy for severe pelvic endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) in patients with severe pelvic endometriosis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients undergoing hysterectomy for endometriosis was conducted between January 2002 and December 2007. A total of 503 patients had severe pelvic endometriosis; of these, 115 patients underwent LH and 388 patients underwent AH. Surgical outcomes-including operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and need for blood transfusion-were analyzed and compared between the 2 treatment groups.

RESULTS

Operative time was significantly longer for LH than for AH (185.1 ± 48.7 minutes and 139.9 ± 52.4 minutes, respectively; P<0.001). However, estimated volume of blood loss, length of hospital stay, and complication rates were significantly less for patients in the LH group than for those in the AH group (302.6 ± 255.1 mL versus 760.9 ± 633.2 mL [P<0.001]; 3.5 ± 1.1 days versus 6.4 ± 3.0 days [P<0.001]; and 18.3% versus 49.0% [P<0.001], respectively).

CONCLUSION

Compared with AH, LH was associated with fewer complications. LH should, therefore, be the preferred surgical option for women with severe pelvic endometriosis who require a hysterectomy.

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease

BACKGROUND

The three approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH). Laparoscopic hysterectomy has three further subdivisions depending on the part of the procedure performed laparoscopically.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the most beneficial and least harmful surgical approach to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials (15 August 2008), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2008), EMBASE (1980 to August 2008), Biological Abstracts (1969 to August 2008), the National Research Register, and relevant citation lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials comparing one surgical approach to hysterectomy with another were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Independent selection of trials and data extraction were employed following Cochrane guidelines.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 34 included studies with 4495 women. The benefits of VH versus AH were speedier return to normal activities (mean difference (MD) 9.5 days), fewer febrile episodes or unspecified infections (odds ratio (OR) 0.42), and shorter duration of hospital stay (MD 1.1 days). The benefits of LH versus AH were speedier return to normal activities (MD 13.6 days), lower intraoperative blood loss (MD 45 cc), a smaller drop in haemoglobin (MD 0.55 g/dl), shorter hospital stay (MD 2.0 days), and fewer wound or abdominal wall infections (OR 0.31) at the cost of more urinary tract (bladder or ureter) injuries (OR 2.41) and longer operation time (MD 20.3 minutes). The benefits of LAVH versus TLH were fewer febrile episodes or unspecified infection (OR 3.77) and shorter operation time (MD 25.3 minutes). There was no evidence of benefits of LH versus VH and the operation time (MD 39.3 minutes) as well as substantial bleeding (OR 2.76) were increased in LH. For some important outcomes, the analyses were underpowered to detect important differences or they were simply not reported in trials. Data were absent for many important long-term outcome measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Because of equal or significantly better outcomes on all parameters, VH should be performed in preference to AH where possible. Where VH is not possible, LH may avoid the need for AH however the length of the surgery increases as the extent of the surgery performed laparoscopically increases. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be decided by the woman in discussion with her surgeon in light of the relative benefits and hazards.