Guideline No. 386-Gynaecologic Surgery for Patients with Obesity

Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: efficiency of robotic assistance compared to standard laparoscopy

Minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy (SC) is the treatment of choice for symptomatic, high-grade, apical or multi-compartmental pelvic organ prolapse (POP), in terms of anatomical correction and treatment durability. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) could be an attractive alternative to the gold standard laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC), for its ergonomic advantages in such a technically demanding procedure. However, it has not yet proven its superiority, consequently raising cost-effectiveness issues. Our primary objective was to assess if RASC can achieve better overall operative time (OOT) over LSC, with at least equivalent perioperative results. This was a single-center retrospective study including 100 patients (58 consecutive RASC cases and 42 LSC within the same time-period), with primary endpoint the OOT in both groups. Secondary results included complication rate, hospital stay, short-term anatomic results and OOT within and beyond the RASC learning curve. A multivariate linear regression was carried out for our primary outcome. The groups had comparable characteristics, except for BMI, which was lower in RASC group. The mean OOT was significantly lower in the RASC group (188 vs. 217 min, p ≤ 0.01), even after adjusting for possible confounders. Short-term anatomic results, complication rate, and blood loss were similar in the two groups. Mean hospital stay was significantly longer in the RASC group. Average RASC OOT was significantly shorter after the first 20 cases realized. This study demonstrated a significant reduction of OOT for RASC compared to LSC, with similar perioperative results, encouraging further use of the robotic technology for this indication.

Efficiency based updating of evidence based surgical guidelines - Experiences from a multidisciplinary guideline upon Minimally Invasive Surgery

Background

Updating evidence-based clinical practice guidelines is an onerous process and there is a call for more efficient determination of key questions that need updating. Especially for surgical techniques it is unclear if new evidence will result in substantial changes after wide implementation and if continuous updating is always necessary.

Objectives

This study analyses the impact of updating a surgical guideline and proposes suggestions for optimising this process.

Materials and methods

The Dutch Minimally Invasive Surgery guideline was developed in 2011 and updated in 2021. For both versions a multidisciplinary guideline working group (GDG) was created, that determined key questions. Changes in conclusions and recommendations were analysed by the GDG and statements for expected change of recommendations in the future were made.

Results

15 key questions were formed, of which 12 were updates of the previous guideline. For only 27% of the updated key questions, the conclusions changed. In ten years, the body grew only marginally for most key questions and quality of the evidence did not improve substantially for almost all key questions. However, in this first update of the MIC guideline, many recommendations did change due to a more robust interpretation of the conclusions by the GDG. Based on analysis of this updating process, the GDG expects that only four out of 15 recommendations may change in the future.

Conclusion

We propose an additional step at the end of guideline development and updating, where the necessity for updating in the future is determined for each key question by the GDG, using their valuable knowledge gained from developing or updating the guideline. For surgical guidelines, the authors suggest updating key issues if it includes a relatively newly introduced surgical- or adapted technique or a new patient group. Low quality or small body of evidence should not be a reason in itself for updating, as this mostly does not lead to new evidence-based conclusions. This new step is expected to result in a more efficient prioritising of key questions that need updating.

What’s new?

By adding one additional step at the end of the updating process, the future updating process could become more efficient.

Systematic review of randomized control trials into effective preoperative weight loss interventions and impact on surgical outcomes for major benign gynecological surgery

AIMS

Limited information exists on what preoperative weight loss interventions (lifestyle, pharmacological, surgical) are effective in improving outcomes of elective, nononcological, gynecological surgery. Obesity rates are increasing and associated with poorer operative outcomes. We aimed to identify high quality studies into preoperative weight loss interventions and perform a systematic review of the literature to guide recommendations for reducing gynecological surgical complications and guide future research. Primary outcomes were mortality and surgical complications including conversion to open surgery, duration of surgery, and recovery.

METHODS

The review was pre-registered with PROPSERO. A systematic search was undertaken of the major electronic bibliographic databases. Search results were compiled and abstracts of studies identified before application of the Cochrane highly sensitive search strategy (CHSSS) were reviewed. Full text of studies after application of the CHSSS were evaluated for suitability. For data collection and analysis, a minimum three high-quality randomized control trials were required to synthesize data in relation to the primary outcome.

RESULTS

No trials met the inclusion criteria. No randomized control trials in gynecological cohorts were identified. Studies in gynecology-oncology were excluded due to the confounding nature of weight loss as a feature of illness as opposed to health optimization.

CONCLUSION

There is limited evidence regarding preoperative weight loss interventions in gynecology. Further research is needed as the prevalence of obesity among women is increasing and definitive surgical management options in gynecology remain essential. PROSPERO registration ID: 165643.

Minimally Invasive Surgery in Pregnancy

If it is medically necessary to perform nonobstetrical abdominal surgery in pregnancy, a minimally invasive approach should be considered. The benefits of laparoscopy are well known and current studies promote the safety of laparoscopy in pregnancy, when certain guidelines are followed. This article will review the safety of surgery in pregnancy, maternal physiology, fetal considerations, maternal obesity, laparoscopic cerclage, large adnexal mass, and complications. Guidelines for surgery will be reviewed as well.