Primary treatment of pelvic organ prolapse : pessary use versus prolapse surgery

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Treatment of women with heavy menstrual bleeding:Results of a prospective cohort study alongside a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the reintervention rate of women who opted for treatment with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) to women who opted for endometrial ablation. Furthermore, the difference in reintervention rate between women in this observational cohort and women who were randomised was compared, with the hypothesis that women who actively decide on treatment have lower reintervention rates compared to women in a RCT. STUDY DESIGN: An observational cohort study alongside a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted between April 2012 and January 2016, with a follow-up time of 24 months, in 26 hospitals and nearby general practices in the Netherlands. Women suffering from heavy menstrual bleeding, aged 34 years and older, without intracavitary pathology and without a future fertility desire, were eligible for this trial. Women who declined randomisation were asked to participate in the observational cohort. The outcome measure was reintervention rate at 24 months of follow-up. RESULTS: 276 women were followed in the observational cohort of which 87 women preferred an initial treatment with LNG-IUS and 189 women preferred an initial treatment with endometrial ablation. At 24 months of follow-up women in the LNG-IUS-group were more likely to receive a reintervention compared to the women in the ablation group, 28/81 (35 %) versus 25/178 (14 %) (aRR 2.42, CI 1.47-3.98, p-value 0.001). No differences in reintervention rates were found between women in the observational cohort and women in the RCT. CONCLUSIONS: Women who receive an LNG-IUS are more likely to undergo an additional intervention compared to women who receive endometrial ablation. Reintervention rates of women in the cohort and RCT population were comparable. The results of this study endorse the findings of the RCT and will contribute to shared decision making in women with heavy menstrual bleeding

Women’s preference for laparoscopic or abdominal hysterectomy

In the present study, women’s preferences on advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and abdominal hysterectomy (AH) have been studied. Patients’ preferences were evaluated in individual, structured interviews in women scheduled for hysterectomy and questionnaires in nurses. Forty-three patients and 39 nurses were included. After general information, 84% of patients and 74% of nurses preferred LH over AH. This preference did not change after supplying more detailed information or after hysterectomy. The avoidance of complications was indicated as the most important factor in the decision. More than half of the women evaluated a difference of 1% as the maximum acceptable risk of major complications. When confronted with scenarios based on current evidence, both patients and nurses prefer LH over AH. This study supports further implementation of LH in clinical practice. The actual major complication rate in hysterectomy, however, is perceived as high

Recurrence and survival after laparoscopy versus laparotomy without lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial cancer:Long-term outcomes of a randomised trial

Background: Laparoscopic hysterectomy is accepted worldwide as the standard treatment option for early-stage endometrial cancer. However, there are limited data on long-term survival, particularly when no lymphadenectomy is performed. We compared the survival outcomes of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH), both without lymphadenectomy, for early-stage endometrial cancer up to 5 years postoperatively. Methods: Follow-up of a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial comparing TLH and TAH, without routine lymphadenectomy, for women with stage I endometrial cancer. Enrolment was between 2007 and 2009 by 2:1 randomisation to TLH or TAH. Outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and primary site of recurrence. Multivariable Cox regression analyses were adjusted for age, stage, grade, and radiotherapy with adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) reported. To test for significance, non-inferiority margins were defined. Results: In total, 279 women underwent a surgical procedure, of whom 263 (94%) had follow-up data. For the TLH (n = 175) and TAH (n = 88) groups, DFS (90.3% vs 84.1%; aHR[recurrence], 0.69; 95%CI, 0.31–1.52), OS (89.2% vs 82.8%; aHR[death], 0.60; 95%CI, 0.30–1.19), and DSS (95.0% vs 89.8%; aHR[death], 0.62; 95%CI, 0.23–1.70) were reported at 5 years. At a 10% significance level, and with a non-inferiority margin of 0.20, the null hypothesis of inferiority was rejected for all three outcomes. There were no port-site or wound metastases, and local recurrence rates were comparable. Conclusion: Disease recurrence and 5-year survival rates were comparable between the TLH and TAH groups and comparable to studies with lymphadenectomy, supporting the widespread use of TLH without lymphadenectomy as the primary treatment for early-stage, low-grade endometrial cancer

Protocol for the value of urodynamics prior to stress incontinence surgery (VUSIS) study: a multicenter randomized controlled trial to assess the cost effectiveness of urodynamics in women with symptoms of stress urinary incontinence in whom surgical treatment is considered

BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a common problem. In the Netherlands, yearly 64.000 new patients, of whom 96% are women, consult their general practitioner because of urinary incontinence. Approximately 7500 urodynamic evaluations and approximately 5000 operations for SUI are performed every year. In all major national and international guidelines from both gynaecological and urological scientific societies, it is advised to perform urodynamics prior to invasive treatment for SUI, but neither its effectiveness nor its cost-effectiveness has been assessed in a randomized setting. The Value of Urodynamics prior to Stress Incontinence Surgery (VUSIS) study evaluates the positive and negative effects with regard to outcome, as well as the costs of urodynamics, in women with symptoms of SUI in whom surgical treatment is considered. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicentre diagnostic cohort study will be performed with an embedded randomized controlled trial among women presenting with symptoms of (predominant) SUI. Urinary incontinence has to be demonstrated on clinical examination and/or voiding diary. Physiotherapy must have failed and surgical treatment needs to be under consideration. Patients will be excluded in case of previous incontinence surgery, in case of pelvic organ prolapse more than 1 centimeter beyond the hymen and/or in case of residual bladder volume of more than 150 milliliter on ultrasound or catheterisation. Patients with discordant findings between the diagnosis based on urodynamic investigation and the diagnosis based on their history, clinical examination and/or micturition diary will be randomized to operative therapy or individually tailored therapy based on all available information. Patients will be followed for two years after treatment by their attending urologist or gynaecologist, in combination with the completion of questionnaires. Six hundred female patients will be recruited for registration from approximately twenty-seven hospitals in the Netherlands. We aspect that one hundred and two women with discordant findings will be randomized. The primary outcome of this study is clinical improvement of incontinence as measured with the validated Dutch version of the Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI). Secondary outcomes of this study include costs, cure of incontinence as measured by voiding diary parameters, complications related to the intervention, re-interventions, and generic quality of life changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT0081474

Gynaecologists estimate and experience laparoscopic hysterectomy as more difficult compared with abdominal hysterectomy

The level of difficulty of various types of hysterectomy differs and may influence the choice of either approach. When surgeons consider one specific approach to hysterectomy as more difficult, they may be reluctant to perform this type of hysterectomy. The main objective of this study was to investigate the potential different levels of difficulty for laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy. Furthermore, the accuracy of estimating the level of difficulty was examined. In a randomized controlled trial between laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and abdominal hysterectomy (AH), gynaecologists were asked to record the preoperatively estimated and postoperatively experienced level of difficulty on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Differences between LH and AH were examined and the correlation between the estimated uterine weight on bimanual palpation and the actual uterine weight was calculated. A difference on the VAS of three points or more (ΔVAS ≥ 3) was considered clinically relevant. In 72 out of 76 cases, both VAS scores were recorded. LH was estimated and experienced as significantly more difficult as compared with AH. In 13 (18%) cases, ΔVAS was ≥3, equally distributed between LH (n = 6) and AH (n = 7). Eleven of these 13 cases had a positive ΔVAS ≥3, meaning that surgery was experienced as more difficult than it was estimated. Surgeon’s estimation of uterine size correlated well with the actual uterine weight. LH is considered as more difficult than AH, which might be a reason for its slow implementation. In a large proportion of cases, gynaecologists seem to be able to estimate the level of difficulty of hysterectomy accurately

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding

Acknowledgments: We thank all the women who participated in this trial; the participating general practitioners, gynecologists, and hospitals; the research nurses; and the staff of the Dutch Consortium for Studies in Women’s Health and Reproduction.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for endometrial carcinoma: a randomised controlled trial with 5-year follow-up

This report is on recovery and long-term outcomes in a small-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) after total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy in (potential) endometrial carcinoma patients. An RCT was performed among women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial carcinoma scheduled for hysterectomy in a teaching hospital in The Netherlands. Women were randomised to total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy both with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and were followed until 5 years after the intervention. Patients completed the RAND 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (RAND-36), Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) and Recovery Index-10 (RI-10) until 12 weeks after surgery. Main outcome measure was quality of life and recovery in the first 12 weeks after surgery. A linear mixed model was used for statistical analysis while accounting for baseline values where applicable. Seventeen women were included, of whom 11 allocated to the laparoscopic arm and 6 to the abdominal arm. Laparoscopic hysterectomy performed better on all scales and subscales used in the study. A statistically significant treatment effect, favouring laparoscopic hysterectomy, was found in the total RAND-36 (difference between groups 142 units, 95% confidence interval 46; 236). Clinical follow-up was completed after median 60 months, but this study was too small for conclusions regarding the safety and survival. Laparoscopic hysterectomy results in better postoperative quality of life in the first 12 weeks after surgery when compared with abdominal hysterectomy