Postoperative pain and perioperative outcomes after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: a randomised controlled trial

A meta-analysis examining the impact of open surgical therapy versus minimally invasive surgery on wound infection in females with cervical cancer

A meta-analysis study was executed to measure the effect of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgical management (OSM) on wound infection (WI) in female's cervical cancer (CC). A comprehensive literature study till February 2023 was applied and 1675 interrelated investigations were reviewed. The 41 chosen investigations enclosed 10 204 females with CC and were in the chosen investigations' starting point, 4294 of them were utilizing MIS, and 5910 were utilizing OSM. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized to compute the value of the effect of MIS and OSM on WI in female's CC and by the dichotomous approaches and a fixed or random model. The MIS had significantly lower WI (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.15-0.35, p < 0.001) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%) and postoperative aggregate complications (PACs) (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.64, p < 0.001) in females with CC and compared OSM. However, MIS compared with OSM in females with CC and had no significant difference in pelvic infection and abscess (PIA) (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.31-1.16, p = 0.13). The MIS had significantly lower WI, and PACs, though, had no significant difference in PIA in females with CC and compared with OSM. However, care must be exercised when dealing with its values because of the low sample size of some of the nominated investigations for the meta-analysis.

Comparison of 3D and 2D laparoscopy: Initial experience of perioperative outcomes and clinical assessment

INTRODUCTION

This study was designed to compare three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy and conventional two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy in surgical performance and clinical assessment during laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy (LRHND) for treating early-stage cervical cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this study, we included 67 consecutive patients underwent LRHND for treating early-stage cervical cancer by the experienced laparoscopic surgeons between August 2018 and December 2020. amongst these patients, 32 patients underwent 3D laparoscopy (2D group) and 35 patients underwent 2D laparoscopy (2D group). Demographic data, clinical and surgical parameters were obtained from each patient. An end-of-operation questionnaire was administered regarding subjective perception of 3D laparoscopy system.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics, including age, BMI, FIGO stage, and histology, were comparable between the two groups. Compared with 2D imaging system, 3D system significantly shortened the operation time, especially bilateral lymph node dissection time. Blood loss was lower in 3D group compared with 2D group. There were no significant differences regarding pelvic nodes retrieved, incidence of complications, hospital stay, the recovery time of bowel, abdominal drainage fluid, hospitalization costs and visual symptoms. In addition, 3D system significantly improved depth perception and precision, and reduced surgical strain and eye strain for surgeon. No statistical difference was observed in visual symptoms and adverse events between the two groups. The surgeon was more willing to accept 3D laparoscopy.

CONCLUSION

The 3D laparoscopy is safe, feasible and comfortable, with obvious advantage in depth perception, precision and surgical strain. It triggered no increase in the complications and adverse events.

Effect of minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy on wound infection and postoperative and intraoperative complications in the management of cervical cancer: A meta-analysis

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy on wound infection and postoperative and intraoperative complications in the management of cervical cancer. A systematic literature search up to July 2022 was performed and 10 231 subjects with cervical cancer at the baseline of the studies; 4307 of them were using the minimally invasive surgery, and 5924 were using laparotomy. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the effect of minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy on wound infection and postoperative and intraoperative complications in the management of cervical cancer using the dichotomous methods with a random or fixed-effect model. The minimally invasive surgery had significantly lower wound infection (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.13-0.30, P < .001), and postoperative complications (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.64, P < .001) in subjects with cervical cancer compared laparotomy. However, minimally invasive surgery compared with laparotomy in subjects with cervical cancer had no significant difference in intraoperative complications (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.36, P = 0.76). The minimally invasive surgery had significantly lower wound infection, and postoperative complications however, had no significant difference in intraoperative complications in subjects with cervical cancer compared with laparotomy. The analysis of outcomes should be with caution because of the low sample size of 22 out of 41 studies in the meta-analysis and a low number of studies in certain comparisons.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer

Recent evidence has shown an increase in recurrence and a decrease in overall survival in patients treated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) open techniques (ORH). In addition, several high quality trials were recently published regarding the laparoscopic treatment of early stage cervical cancer. We sought out to reassess the recurrence rates, overall survival, complications and outcomes associated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) techniques against open techniques (ORH) when robotic assisted techniques were excluded. We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.Gov and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials and observational studies. We included all studies that compared with early stage cervical cancer receiving LRH compared with ORH. We included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort trials. We included studies that included LRH and RRH as long as data was available to separate the two arms. We excluded studies that combined LRH and RRH without supplying data to differentiate. Of 1244 total studies, we used a manual three step screening process. Sixty studies ultimately met our criteria. We performed this review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We analyzed continuous data using mean difference (MD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous data were analyzed using odds ratio (OR) and a 95% CI. Review Manager and Endnote software were utilized in the synthesis. We found that when excluding RRH, the was no significant difference regarding 5-year overall Survival (OR = 1.24 [0.94, 1.64], (P = 0.12), disease free survival (OR = 1.00 [0.80, 1.26], (P = 0.98), recurrence (OR = 1.01 [0.81, 1.25], (P = 0.95), or intraoperative complications (OR = 1.38 [0.94, 2.04], (P = 0.10). LRH was statistically better than ORH in terms of estimated blood loss (MD = - 325.55 [- 386.16, - 264.94] (P < 0.001), blood transfusion rate (OR = 0.28 [0.14, 0.55], (P = 0.002), postoperative complication rate (OR = 0.70 [0.55, 0.90], (P = 0.005), and length of hospital stay (MD = - 3.64[- 4.27, - 3.01], (P < 0.001). ORH was superior in terms of operating time (MD = 20.48 [8.62, 32.35], (P = 0.007) and number of resected lymph nodes (MD = - 2.80 [- 4.35, - 1.24], (P = 0.004). The previously seen increase recurrence and decrease in survival is not seen in LRH when robotic assisted techniques are included and all new high quality is considered. LRH is also associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower complication rate.Prospero Prospective Registration Number: CRD42022267138.

Preliminary observational study of the implementation of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer in the gynecological surgery department at the University Hospital of Strasbourg

OBJECTIVE

According to French guidelines, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) can be performed for Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III primary epithelial ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers that are initially unresectable after 3 or 4 cycles of intravenous chemotherapy. The main objective of this preliminary study was to analyze the components necessary for the establishment of HIPEC in an expert gynecological oncological surgery center. The secondary objective was to compare HIPEC using conventional laparotomy and laparoscopic approaches.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective study of patients who received HIPEC. All patients who met the criteria of the French HIPEC guidelines were included from 2019 to 2021.

RESULTS

Prior to HIPEC, there were a mean of 3.7 courses of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel. Of the 16 patients who received HIPEC, 9 (56.2%) underwent HIPEC laparoscopically, while 7 (43.8%) underwent laparotomy. There were no differences between the rates of intra- and postoperative complications between the two groups. (p > 0.05). The duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter in patients who were operated laparoscopically than in those treated using laparotomy (55.6% <10 days vs. 0 by laparotomy, p = 0.01). There was also a tendency, although not significant, for a more rapid resumption of adjuvant chemotherapy in the laparoscopy group, with 57.1% resuming chemotherapy in <6 weeks compared to 42.9% in the laparotomy group (p = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the feasibility of HIPEC in a center with expertise in gynecological surgery when there is a suitable technical platform and close collaboration between the different teams involved. We also showed the first cases of HIPEC using laparoscopy, which seems to be a promising approach.

Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and open abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) have been used for cervical cancer treatment. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of LRH and ARH in the treatment of cervical cancer to provide reliable evidence to the clinical cervical cancer treatment.

METHODS

Two investigators independently searched PubMed and other databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LRH and ARH for cervical cancer treatment up to May 31, 2022. The risk of bias assessment tool recommended by Cochrane library was used for quality assessment. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs with a total of 1700 patients with cervical cancer were finally included. Meta-analyses indicated that compared with ARH, LRH reduced the intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD]=-58.08; 95% CI, -70.91, -45.24), the time to first passage of flatus (MD=-14.50; 95% CI, -16.55, -12.44) (all P <0.05), and increase the number of lymph nodes removed (MD=3.47; 95% CI, 0.51, 6.43; P =0.02). There were no significant differences in the duration of surgery (MD=27.62; 95% CI, -6.26, 61.49), intraoperative complications (odd ratio [OR]=1.10; 95% CI, 0.17, 7.32), postoperative complications (OR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.33, 1.86), relapse rate (OR=1.45; 95% CI, 0.56, 3.74), and survival rate (OR=0.75; 95% CI, 0.52, 1.08) between LRH group and ARH group (all P >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

LRH has more advantages over ARH in the treatment of cervical cancer. Still, the long-term effects and safety of LRH and ARH need more high-quality, large-sample RCTs to be further verified.

Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy

Purpose

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Studies have shown superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, but peri- and postoperative complication rates were shown vice versa. This meta-analysis evaluates the peri- and postoperative morbidities and complications of robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared to open surgery.

Methods

Embase and Ovid-Medline databases were systematically searched in June 2020 for studies comparing robotic, laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy. There was no limitation in publication year. Inclusion criteria were set analogue to the LACC trial. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the operative technique, the study design and the date of publication for the endpoints intra- and postoperative morbidity, estimated blood loss, hospital stay and operation time.

Results

27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between robotic radical hysterectomy (RH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) concerning intra- and perioperative complications. Operation time was longer in both RH (mean difference 44.79 min [95% CI 38.16; 51.42]), and LH (mean difference 20.96 min; [95% CI − 1.30; 43.22]) than in open hysterectomy (AH) but did not lead to a rise of intra- and postoperative complications. Intraoperative morbidity was lower in LH than in AH (RR 0.90 [0.80; 1.02]) as well as in RH compared to AH (0.54 [0.33; 0.88]). Intraoperative morbidity showed no difference between LH and RH (RR 1.29 [0.23; 7.29]). Postoperative morbidity was not different in any approach. Estimated blood loss was lower in both LH (mean difference − 114.34 [− 122.97; − 105.71]) and RH (mean difference − 287.14 [− 392.99; − 181.28]) compared to AH, respectively. Duration of hospital stay was shorter for LH (mean difference − 3.06 [− 3.28; − 2.83]) and RH (mean difference − 3.77 [− 5.10; − 2.44]) compared to AH.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy appears to be associated with reduced intraoperative morbidity and blood loss and improved reconvalescence after surgery. Besides oncological and surgical factors these results should be considered when counseling patients for radical hysterectomy and underscore the need for new randomized trials.

Comparison of the complications between minimally invasive surgery and open surgical treatments for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis comprehensively compared intraoperative and postoperative complications between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and laparotomy in the management of cervical cancer. Even though the advantages of laparotomy over MIS in disease-free survival and overall survival for management of gynecological diseases have been cited in the literature, there is a lack of substantial evidence of the advantage of one surgical modality over another, and it is uncertain whether MIS is justifiable in terms of safety and efficacy.

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, the studies were abstracted that the outcomes of complications to compare MIS (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) and open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics classification stage IA1-IIB) cervical cancer. The primary outcomes were intraoperative overall complications, as well as postoperative aggregate complications. Secondary outcomes included the individual complications. Two investigators independently performed the screening and data extraction. All articles that met the eligibility criteria were included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis finally included 39 non-randomized studies and 1 randomized controlled trial (8 studies were conducted on robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) vs open radical hysterectomy (ORH), 27 studies were conducted on laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) vs ORH, and 5 studies were conducted on all three approaches). Pooled analyses showed that MIS was associated with higher risk of intraoperative overall complications (OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.07-1.86, P<0.05) in comparison with ORH. However, compared to ORH, MIS was associated with significantly lower risk of postoperative aggregate complications (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.34-0.48, P = 0.0143). In terms of individual complications, MIS appeared to have a positive effect in decreasing the complications of transfusion, wound infection, pelvic infection and abscess, lymphedema, intestinal obstruction, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and urinary tract infection. Furthermore, MIS had a negative effect in increasing the complications of cystotomy, bowel injury, subcutaneous emphysema, and fistula.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that MIS is superior to laparotomy, with fewer postoperative overall complications (wound infection, pelvic infection and abscess, lymphedema, intestinal obstruction, pulmonary embolism, and urinary tract infection). However, MIS is associated with a higher risk of intraoperative aggregate complications (cystotomy, bowel injury, and subcutaneous emphysema) and postoperative fistula complications.

Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups

Purpose

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy presents the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Recently, studies have shown a superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, however, the reasons remain to be speculated. This meta-analysis evaluates the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to open hysterectomy. Risk groups including the use of uterine manipulators or colpotomy were created.

Methods

Ovid-Medline and Embase databases were systematically searched in June 2020. No limitation in date of publication or country was made. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the surgical approach and the endpoints OS and DFS.

Results

30 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Patients were analyzed concerning the surgical approach [open surgery (AH), laparoscopic surgery (LH), robotic surgery (RH)]. Additionally, three subgroups were created from the LH group: the LH high-risk group (manipulator), intermediate-risk group (no manipulator, intracorporal colpotomy) and LH low-risk group (no manipulator, vaginal colpotomy). Regarding OS, the meta-analysis showed inferiority of LH in total over AH (0.97 [0.96; 0.98]). The OS was significantly higher in LH low risk (0.96 [0.94; 0.98) compared to LH intermediate risk (0.93 [0.91; 0.94]). OS rates were comparable in AH and LH Low-risk group. DFS was higher in the AH group compared to the LH group in general (0.92 [95%-CI 0.88; 0.95] vs. 0.87 [0.82; 0.91]), whereas the application of protective measures (no uterine manipulator in combination with vaginal colpotomy) was associated with increased DFS in laparoscopy (0.91 [0.91; 0.95]).

Conclusion

DFS and OS in laparoscopy appear to be depending on surgical technique. Protective operating techniques in laparoscopy result in improved minimal invasive survival.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00404-021-06082-y.

Comparison of oncological outcomes and major complications between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer with a tumour size less than 2 cm

OBJECTIVE

To compare the oncological outcomes and major complications of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) with a tumour size less than 2 cm.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes and major complications of 1207 stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumour size less than 2 cm who received LRH (n = 546) or ARH (n = 661) in 37 hospitals.

RESULTS

(1) There was no significant difference in 3-year overall survival (OS; 97.3% vs. 98.5%, P = 0.288) or 3-year disease-free survival (DFS; 95.1% vs. 95.4%, P = 0.792) between LRH (n = 546) and ARH (n = 661).(2) The rate of any 1 complication refers to the incidence of one or more complications in a patient, which was higher with LRH than ARH (OR = 4.047, 95% CI = 2.035-8.048, P < 0.001). Additionally, intraoperative complications occurred with LRH (OR = 12.313, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.571-96.493, P = 0.017), and postoperative complications (OR = 3.652, 95% CI = 1.763-7.562, P < 0.001) were higher with LRH than ARH. The ureteral injury rate was higher with LRH than with ARH (1.50% vs. 0.20%, OR = 9.814, 95% CI = 1.224-78.712, P = 0.032). The ureterovaginal fistula rate was higher with LRH than ARH. The rates of obturator nerve injury, bladder injury, vesicovaginal fistula, rectovaginal fistula, venous thromboembolism, bowel obstruction, chylous leakage, pelvic haematoma, and haemorrhage were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The oncological outcomes of LRH and ARH for stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumour size less than 2 cm do not differ significantly. However, incidences of any 1 complication, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications were higher with LRH than ARH, with complications manifesting mainly as ureteral injury and uterovaginal fistula.

Survival after Laparoscopic versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Early Cervical Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported the safety of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer, as option to laparotomy. This study aims to compare overall survival between laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer.

METHODS

A single-center randomized controlled trial enrolled 30 patients with clinically staged IA2 cervical cancer and lymphovascular invasion, IB and IIA, who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (16) or abdominal radical hysterectomy (14).

RESULT

The mean overall survival time was 74.74 months (CI 95%: 54.15-95.33) for LRH 91.67 months (CI 95%: 74.97-108.37) for ARH (log-rank test = 0.30). The mean disease-free survival time was 81.07 months (CI 95%: 60.95-101.19) for LRH and 95.82 months (CI 95%: 80.18-111.47) for ARH (log-rank test = 0.371). The overall survival hazard ratio was 2.05 (CI 95%: 0.51-8.24), and the disease-free hazard ratio was 2.13 (CI 95%: 0.39-11.7).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests a non-significant trend of worse outcomes for LRH. In light of recent controversy and need for prospective studies, further studies in different populations are required for definite conclusions and until then, patients should be aware of risks and benefits, survival data and quality of life outcomes related to both surgical techniques.

Survival After Minimally Invasive vs. Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for cervical cancer patients remains controversial. We evaluated the survival outcomes of cervical cancer patients who underwent different surgical approaches.

Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to February 2020, using the MESH terms “minimally invasive surgical procedures” and “Uterine Cervical Neoplasms.” Included were all original comparative studies and trials both published and unpublished in English that were related to minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for cervical cancer patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage < IIB. Begg's and Egger's regressions were used to evaluate publication bias.

Results: This meta-analysis included 28 studies enrolling 18,961 patients with cervical cancer. The overall analyses indicated that cervical cancer patients with FIGO 2009 stage < IIB who underwent minimally invasive surgery had a lower rate of OS (HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.06–1.92, P = 0.019) and DFS (HR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.21–1.85, P < 0.001) than those who underwent open surgery. Moreover, minimally invasive surgery could lower OS (HR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.50–3.52, P < 0.001) and DFS (HR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.36–2.76, P < 0.001) of cervical cancer patients with FIGO 2009 stage ≤ IB1 compared to open surgery. However, there were no significant differences in OS (HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.65–1.76, P = 0.801) and DFS (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.65–2.19, P = 0.559) in patients with tumors < 2 cm between the two groups.

Conclusions: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with poor survival outcomes compared to open surgery. Patients with FIGO 2009 stage ≤ IB1 cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery have lower OS and DFS rates than those who underwent open surgery. Therefore, open surgery should be performed for cervical cancer patients. However, patients with tumors < 2 cm might take the most advantage of minimally invasive surgery without increasing poor prognosis. There are some limitations in the meta-analysis, which needs further high-quality multicenter studies to confirm and update our findings.

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy has higher risk of perioperative urologic complication than abdominal radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis of 38 studies

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis was performed to assess risks of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library for studies published up to December, 2018. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also performed. Two researchers independently performed data extraction. Inclusion criteria of studies were: (1) had information of perioperative complications, and (2) had at least ten patients per group.

RESULTS

A total of 38 eligible clinical trials were collected. Intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications were reported by 34 studies and 35 studies, respectively. When all studies were pooled, odd ratios (OR) of LRH for the risk of intraoperative urologic complications compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) was 1.40 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.87]. The OR of LRH for postoperative complication risk compared to ARH was 1.35 [95% CI 1.01-1.80]. However, significant adverse effects of intraoperative urologic complications in LRH were not observed among articles published after 2012 (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.77-1.62) in cumulative meta-analysis or subgroup analysis. The incidence of bladder injury was statistically higher than that of ureter injury (p = 0.001). In subgroup analysis, obesity and laparoscopic type (laparoscopic assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy) were associated with intraoperative urologic complications.

CONCLUSION

LRH is associated with significantly higher risk of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications than abdominal radical hysterectomy.

No Differences in the Prevalence and Intensity of Chronic Postsurgical Pain Between Laparoscopic Hysterectomy and Abdominal Hysterectomy: A Prospective Study

Objective

To compare the prevalence and characteristics of chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) between laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and abdominal hysterectomy (AH) groups 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, and to assess the impact of pain on the activities of daily living (ADL) of patients.

Methods

The demographic characteristics, intraoperative clinical factors, and postoperative pain score were collected prospectively in patients scheduled for elective LH or AH for benign disease at our institution from July 2014 to June 2015. Patients were interviewed by telephone and followed up for pain assessment 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. The prevalence, intensity, and specific locations of pain, as well as analgesic administration and impact on the ADL, were included in the questionnaire.

Results

The results from 406 patients (225 patients in the LH group and 181 patients in the AH group) were obtained. Three months after surgery, the prevalence of CPSP was 20.9% in the LH group and 20.4% in the AH group. At 6 months, the prevalence of pain declined to 11.6% in the LH group and 9.4% in the AH group. At 12 months after surgery, only 13 (5.8%) patients in the LH group and 11 (6.1%) patients in the AH group complained about persistent pain. The prevalence of CPSP, as well as the average numerical rating scale pain scores at rest and during movement, during 12 months after surgery were not significantly different between the groups. CPSP after hysterectomy exhibited a negative impact on the ADL.

Conclusion

The prevalence and intensity of CPSP were not significantly different between patients undergoing LH or AH within 12 months after surgery. A tendency towards a reduction in chronic pain over time was documented. Chronic post-hysterectomy pain exhibited a negative impact on the ADL.

Effect of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy on major surgical complications in women with stage IA-IIB cervical cancer in China, 2004-2015

OBJECTIVES

To report the trends in surgical approaches and compare the major surgical complication rates of laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

METHODS

From the major surgical complications of cervical cancer in China (MSCCCC) database, we obtained the demographic, clinical, treatment hospital and complication data of patients with cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy from 2004 to 2015 at 37 hospitals. The patients were assigned to the laparoscopic and abdominal surgery groups. The differences in the complication rates were analyzed using univariate and multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 18447 patients; 5491 (29.8%) underwent laparoscopic surgery and 12956 (70.2%) underwent abdominal surgery. The proportion of laparoscopic surgery rose from 0.35% in 2004 to 49.31% in 2015. In the multivariate analysis, the laparoscopic group had increased odds of intraoperative and postoperative complications (OR = 3.88, 95% CI = 2.47-6.11; OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.11-1.82). A more detailed analysis showed that laparoscopic surgery was associated with increased rates of intraoperative ureteral injury (OR = 3.83, 95% CI = 2.11-6.95), bowel injury (OR = 14.83, 95% CI = 1.32-167.25), vascular injury (OR = 3.37, 95% CI = 1.18-9.62), postoperative vesicovaginal fistula (OR = 4.16, 95% CI = 2.08-8.32), ureterovaginal fistula (OR = 4.16, 95% CI = 2.08-8.32), rectovaginal fistula (OR = 8.04, 95% CI = 1.63-39.53), and chylous leakage (OR = 10.65, 95% CI = 1.18-95.97), while abdominal surgery was more likely to cause bowel obstruction (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.35-0.87). The two groups had similar rates of bladder injury, obturator nerve injury, pelvic hematoma, rectovaginal fistula and venous thromboembolism (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery was associated with more major surgical complications, especially intraoperative ureteral injury and postoperative fistula, than abdominal surgery among women with cervical cancer.

Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology

BACKGROUND

This is an updated merged review of two originally separate Cochrane reviews: one on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological disease, the other on RAS for gynaecological cancer. RAS is a relatively new innovation in laparoscopic surgery that enables the surgeon to conduct the operation from a computer console, situated away from the surgical table. RAS is already widely used in the United States for hysterectomy and has been shown to be feasible for other gynaecological procedures. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not been clearly established and require independent review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in the treatment of women with benign and malignant gynaecological disease.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, and EMBASE via Ovid, on 8 January 2018. We searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov. on 16 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RAS versus CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We examined different procedures in separate comparisons and for hysterectomy subgrouped data according to type of disease (non-malignant versus malignant). When more than one study contributed data, we pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs involving 1016 women. Studies were at moderate to high overall risk of bias, and we downgraded evidence mainly due to concerns about risk of bias in the studies contributing data and imprecision of effect estimates. Procedures performed were hysterectomy (eight studies) and sacrocolpopexy (three studies). In addition, one trial examined surgical treatment for endometriosis, which included resection or hysterectomy. Among studies of women undergoing hysterectomy procedures, two studies involved malignant disease (endometrial cancer); the rest involved non-malignant disease.• RAS versus CLS (hysterectomy)Low-certainty evidence suggests there might be little or no difference in any complication rates between RAS and CLS (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.59; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 51%), intraoperative complication rates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.50; participants = 583; studies = 6; I² = 37%), postoperative complications (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.34; participants = 629; studies = 6; I² = 44%), and blood transfusions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.94; participants = 442; studies = 5; I² = 0%). There was no statistical difference between malignant and non-malignant disease subgroups with regard to complication rates. Only one study reported death within 30 days and no deaths occurred (very low-certainty evidence). Researchers reported no survival outcomes.Mean total operating time was longer on average in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) 41.18 minutes, 95% CI -6.17 to 88.53; participants = 148; studies = 2; I² = 80%; very low-certainty evidence), and the mean length of hospital stay was slightly shorter with RAS than with CLS (MD -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.07; participants = 192; studies = 2; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).• RAS versus CLS (sacrocolpopexy)Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in rates of any complications between women undergoing sacrocolpopexy by RAS or CLS (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.24; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 78%), nor in intraoperative complications (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.59; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 47%). Low-certainty evidence on postoperative complications suggests these might be higher with RAS (RR 3.54, 95% CI 1.31 to 9.56; studies = 1; participants = 68). Researchers did not report blood transfusions and deaths up to 30 days.Low-certainty evidence suggests that RAS might be associated with increased operating time (MD 40.53 min, 95% CI 12.06 to 68.99; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 73%). Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between the two techniques in terms of duration of stay (MD 0.26 days, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.67; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 0%).• RAS versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy)A single study with a total sample size of 20 women was included in this comparison. For most outcomes, the sample size was insufficient to show any possible differences between groups.• RAS versus CLS for endometriosisA single study with data for 73 women was included in this comparison; women with endometriosis underwent procedures ranging from relatively minor endometrial resection through hysterectomy; many of the women included in this study had undergone previous surgery for their condition. For most outcomes, event rates were low, and the sample size was insufficient to detect potential differences between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS for non-malignant disease (hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy) is of low certainty but suggests that surgical complication rates might be comparable. Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for malignant disease is more uncertain because survival data are lacking. RAS is an operator-dependent expensive technology; therefore evaluating the safety of this technology independently will present challenges.

Impact of hospital care volume on clinical outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In cervical cancer, the impact of hospital volume of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) has not been investigated systematically as in ovarian cancer.The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of hospital care volume of LRH on treatment outcomes of patients with cervical cancer.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched with the terms "cervical cancer," "radical hysterectomy," and "laparoscopy." The selection criteria included studies presenting operative outcomes and/or perioperative complications of LRH from high-volume hospitals (HVHs) (≥15 cases/year) and low-volume hospitals (LVHs) (<15 cases/year). Fifty-nine studies including 4367 cases were selected. Linear regression analysis weighted by the average annual case number in each study was performed to evaluate differences between the groups.

RESULTS

In HVH, a higher number of lymph nodes (24.5 vs 21.1; P = .037) were retrieved by LRH in older women (48.4 vs 44.5 years; P = .010) with tendencies of shorter operation time (224.4 vs 256.4 minutes; P = .096) and less blood loss (253.1 vs 322.2 mL; P = .080). Compared with LVH, HVH had fewer patients with stage IA disease (13.8 vs 24.4%; P = .003) and more patients with stage IIA disease (15.3 vs 7.1%; P = .052) with comparable 5-year overall survival (93.1 vs 88.6%; P = .112).

CONCLUSION

HVH is a prognostic factor for operative outcome and perioperative complications in patients with cervical cancer undergoing LRH. The exact effect of hospital volume on survival outcome needs to be evaluated.

Laparoscopic procedure compared with open radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer: a retrospective study

Objective

To compare clinical outcomes in laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy (LRH) in early cervical cancer without the selection bias.

Methods

One special retrospective study was conducted with more than 400 patients involved in laparoscopic procedure.

Results

Our results suggest that estimated blood loss and transfusion requirements were significantly lower in the LRH group. Postoperative hospital stay was also significantly shorter in the LRH group. Significant difference was found in the number of pelvic lymph nodes retrieved between the LRH and open radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy (ORH) groups. There were no differences in operating time, perioperative complications, progression-free survival, and overall survival between the LRH and ORH groups.

Conclusion

LRH can be considered a safe and effective alternative to conventional open surgery (ORH) for early-stage cervical cancer.

Early Cervical Cancer: Current Dilemmas of Staging and Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advances in cervical cancer screening and treatment have resulted in high cure rates in developed countries for early-stage disease. Current research focuses on minimizing morbidity and maximizing quality of life.

RECENT FINDINGS

Imaging has been disappointing in identifying small volume metastases. Sentinel lymph node biopsy represents a significant advantage with high sensitivity, low false negative rates, reduced morbidity, and equivalent survival in recent studies compared to pelvic lymphadenectomy. Non-radical surgical options are currently being investigated for early cervical cancer in a number of large prospective studies in patients at low risk for metastases. Evidence suggests that sentinel lymph node biopsy and non-radical surgery are safe approaches for the staging and management of early cervical cancer in appropriately selected patients with the potential to significantly reduce treatment-related morbidity.

Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer

Objective

Cervical cancer (CC) continues to be a global burden for women, with higher incidence and mortality rates reported annually. Many countries have witnessed a dramatic reduction in the prevalence of CC due to widely accessed robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH). This network meta-analysis aims to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in way of RRH, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LTH) and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in the treatment of early-stage CC.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases was performed from inception to June 2016. Clinical controlled trials (CCTs) of above three hysterectomies in the treatment of early-stage CC were included in this study. Direct and indirect evidence were incorporated for calculating values of weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR), and drawing the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).

Results

Seventeen 17 CCTs were ultimately enrolled in this network meta-analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that patients treated by RRH and LRH had lower estimated blood loss compared to patients treated by ORH (WMD = -399.52, 95% CI = -600.64~-204.78; WMD = -277.86, 95%CI = -430.84 ~ -126.07, respectively). Patients treated by RRH and LRH had less hospital stay (days) than those by ORH (WMD = -3.49, 95% CI = -5.79~-1.24; WMD = -3.26, 95% CI = -5.04~-1.44, respectively). Compared with ORH, patients treated with RRH had lower postoperative complications (OR = 0.21, 95%CI = 0.08~0.65). Furthermore, the SUCRA value of three radical hysterectomies showed that patients receiving RRH illustrated better conditions on intraoperative blood loss, operation time, the number of resected lymph nodes, length of hospital stay and intraoperative and postoperative complications, while patients receiving ORH demonstrated relatively poorer conditions.

Conclusion

The results of this meta-analysis confirmed that early-stage CC patients treated by RRH were superior to patients treated by LRH and ORH in intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay and intraoperative and postoperative complications, and RRH might be regarded as a safe and effective therapeutic procedure for the management of CC.

Factors Associated with Types and Intensity of Postoperative Pain following Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective

To evaluate influences of various factors on the types and intensity of postoperative pain following gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.

Study Design

Cross-sectional questionnaire and chart review.

Results

A total of 84 questionnaires were distributed and returned. The types of postlaparoscopic pain are different in multiparous women and nulliparous ones (71.43% surgical wound pain versus 63.64% nonsurgical wound pain, p = 0.0033) and those with striae gravidarum and without striae gravidarum (93.94% surgical wound pain versus 52.94% nonsurgical wound pain, p < 0.0001). On postoperative day 1, the average VAS score is higher in nonsurgical wound pain than in surgical wound pain (5.62 ± 1.50 versus 3.51 ± 1.68, p < 0.0001). The CO₂ removal procedure has a significant negative correlation with the VAS of nonsurgical wound pain (coefficient: −0.4339, p = 0.0187).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that women with abdominal rigidity (nulliparous, no striae gravidarum) experience mainly nonsurgical wound pain, while women with abdominal wall laxity mostly experience surgical wound pain. The VAS score of nonsurgical wound pain is greater than surgical wound pain on postoperative day 1. The CO₂ removal procedure has negative correlation to the VAS score of nonsurgical wound pain on postoperative day 1.

Laparoscopic Total Pancreatectomy With Islet Autotransplantation and Intraoperative Islet Separation as a Treatment for Patients With Chronic Pancreatitis

Importance

Pain management of patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) can be challenging. Laparoscopy has been associated with markedly reduced postoperative pain but has not been widely applied to total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TPIAT).

Objective

To examine the feasibility of using laparoscopic TPIAT (L-TPIAT) in the treatment of CP.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Thirty-two patients with CP presented for TPIAT at a tertiary hospital from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015. Of the 22 patients who underwent L-TPIAT, 2 patients converted to an open procedure because of difficult anatomy and prior surgery. Pain and glycemic outcomes were recorded at follow-up visits every 3 to 6 months postoperatively.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Operative outcomes included operative time, islet isolation time, warm ischemia time, islet equivalent (IE) counts, estimated blood loss, fluid resuscitation, and blood transfusions. Postoperative outcomes included length of stay, all-cause 30-day readmission rate, postoperative complications, mortality rate, subjective pain measurements, opioid use, random C-peptide levels, insulin requirements, and glycated hemoglobin level.

Results

Of the 32 patients who presented for TPIAT, 20 underwent L-TPIAT (8 men and 12 women; mean [SD] age, 39 [13] years; age range, 21-58 years). Indication for surgery was CP attributable to genetic mutation (n = 9), idiopathic pancreatitis (n = 6), idiopathic pancreatitis with pancreas divisum (n = 3), and alcohol abuse (n = 2). Mean (SD) operative time was 493 (78) minutes, islet isolation time was 185 (37) minutes, and warm ischemia time was 51 (62) minutes. The mean (SD) IE count was 1325 (1093) IE/kg. The mean (SD) length of stay was 11 (5) days, and the all-cause 30-day readmission rate was 35% (7 of 20 patients). None of the patients experienced postoperative surgical site infection, hernia, or small-bowel obstruction, and none died. Eighteen patients (90%) had a decrease or complete resolution of pain, and 12 patients (60%) no longer required opioid therapy at a median follow-up period of 6 months. Postoperative random insulin C-peptide levels were detectable in 19 patients (95%) at a median follow-up of 10.4 months. At a median follow-up of 12.5 months, 5 patients (25%) were insulin independent, whereas 9 patients (45%) required 1 to 10 U/d, 5 patients (25%) required 11 to 20 U/d, and 1 patient (5%) required greater than 20 U/d of basal insulin. The mean (SD) glycated hemoglobin level was 7.4% (0.5%).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study represents the first series of L-TPIAT, demonstrating its safety and feasibility. Our approach enables patients to experience shorter operative times and the benefits of laparoscopy, including reduced length of stay and quicker opioid independence.

Safety and Cost Considerations during the Introduction Period of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy

Objective. To compare the safety, efficacy, and direct cost during the introduction of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy within an enhanced recovery pathway. Methods. A 1 : 1 single centre retrospective case control study of 36 propensity matched pairs of patients receiving open or laparoscopic surgery for early cervical cancer. Results. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics of the two cohorts. Open surgery cohort had significantly higher intraoperative blood loss (189 versus 934 mL) and longer postoperative hospital stay (2.3 versus 4.1 days). Although no significant difference in the intraoperative or postoperative complications was found more urinary tract injuries were recorded in the laparoscopic cohort. Laparoscopic surgery had significantly longer duration (206 versus 159 minutes), lower lymph node harvest (12.6 versus 16.9), and slower bladder function recovery. The median direct hospital cost was £4850 for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and £4400 for open surgery. Conclusions. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy can be safely introduced in an enhanced recovery environment without significant increase in perioperative morbidity. The 10% higher direct hospital cost is not statistically significant and is expected to even out when indirect costs are included.

Prognostic and Safety Roles in Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis

Objective: Studies comparing the prognostic results between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in cervical cancer reported contradictory results. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic and safety roles of LRH by pooling studies in a meta-analysis.

Materials and Methods: Original articles were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The survival results (5-year disease-free survival [DFS], 5-year overall survival [OS], and recurrence rate [RR]), safety parameters (intra-, peri-, and postoperative complication rates and postoperative bowel or bladder recovery days), efficiency parameters (pelvic/para-aortic lymph nodes removed), and other parameters (operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital of stay) between the two approaches were reviewed.

Results: For the 2922 cases identified, DFS, OS, and RR did not differ in balanced prognostic factors, including lymph node metastasis, Stage IIB or above, non–squamous cancer histology, grade G3, lymphovascular space invasion, tumor size ≥4 cm, and positive parametrial and vaginal margin rates. Meanwhile, LRH was associated with higher complication rates and a shorter time to the recovery of bowel or bladder function than for ARH. The number of removed pelvic or para-aortic lymph nodes did not significantly differ. Other parameters showed LRH was associated with a longer operative time, less blood loss, and a shorter length of hospital stay. The survival and prognostic results did not differ in balanced prognostic factors.

Conclusions: LRH is safe and has lower operative complication rates than ARH.

Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology

BACKGROUND

This is an updated merged review of two originally separate Cochrane reviews: one on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological disease, the other on RAS for gynaecological cancer. RAS is a relatively new innovation in laparoscopic surgery that enables the surgeon to conduct the operation from a computer console, situated away from the surgical table. RAS is already widely used in the United States for hysterectomy and has been shown to be feasible for other gynaecological procedures. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not been clearly established and require independent review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in the treatment of women with benign and malignant gynaecological disease.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 5) and the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group Trials Register. We also searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, to complement the searches of the original malignant and benign disease reviews (conducted up to July 2010 and November 2011, respectively), from July 2010 to June 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We subgrouped data according to type of procedure and pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3. We performed sensitivity analyses by excluding studies at high risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs involving 517 women. Most were at low to moderate overall risk of bias; one was at high risk of bias. Four studies evaluated RAS for hysterectomy (371 women), and two studies evaluated RAS for sacrocolpopexy (146 women). All studies compared RAS with CLS, except for one study, which compared RAS with CLS or a vaginal surgical approach for hysterectomy. Confidence intervals for the risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications included benefits with either approach when they were analysed together (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.99; participants = 513; studies = 6; I(2) = 74%) and separately (low-quality evidence). Moderate-quality evidence was found for the effects of RAS on intraoperative injury when compared with CLS (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.46; participants = 415; studies = 5; I(2) = 0%), along with low-quality evidence for bleeding and infection complications.Mean total operating time was consistent across procedures and on average was about 42 minutes longer in the RAS arm compared with the CLS arm (95% CI 17 to 66 minutes; participants = 294; studies = 4; I(2) = 82%; moderate-quality evidence). Mean hospital stay for hysterectomy procedures was on average about seven hours shorter in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06; participants = 217; studies = 2; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). The estimated effect of conversion with RAS compared with CLS was imprecise (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.12; participants = 337; studies = 4; I(2) = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Limited data from two studies suggest that RAS for sacrocolpopexy may be associated with increased postoperative pain compared with CLS; this needs further investigation. We identified five ongoing trials-four of cancer surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain as to whether RAS or CLS has lower intraoperative and postoperative complication rates because of the imprecision of the effect and inconsistency among studies when they are used for hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that these procedures take longer with RAS but may be associated with a shorter hospital stay following hysterectomy. We found limited evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for surgical procedures performed for gynaecological cancer; therefore its use should be limited to clinical trials. Ongoing trials are likely to have an important impact on evidence related to the use of RAS in gynaecology.

Effects of Provision of Concrete Information about Patient-controlled Analgesia in Hysterectomy Patients

PURPOSE

This study was to investigate the effects of the provision of concrete information about patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in hysterectomy patients.

METHODS

Study design was a nonequivalent control group non-synchronized pre- and post-test design. Sixty subjects participated were assigned to experimental group (30 patients) or control group (30 patients) at one university hospital. Concrete information about PCA was composed of three sections: explanation with a leaflet, practice of using PCA, and question and answer session.

RESULTS

The experimental group who received concrete information about PCA before surgery had statistically higher knowledge level about PCA, more positive attitude toward pain control analgesia, a lower pain score, and a higher satisfaction level of the use of PCA post-surgery compared to the control group who received general information before surgery.

CONCLUSION

Provision of concrete information about PCA was an effective nursing intervention that reduced post-operative pain for patients and increased their satisfaction with using PCA. It is recommended that concrete information about PCA be provided by nurses to promote the use of PCA and consequently reduce patient's pain post-surgery.