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

Costs and Effects of Abdominal versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: Systematic Review of Controlled Trials

Objective: Comparative evaluation of costs and effects of laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and abdominal hysterectomy (AH). Data sources: Controlled trials from Cochrane Central register of controlled trials, Medline, Embase and prospective trial registers. Selection of studies: Twelve (randomized) controlled studies including the search terms costs, laparoscopy, laparotomy and hysterectomy were identified. Methods: The type of cost analysis, perspective of cost analyses and separate cost components were assessed. The direct and indirect costs were extracted from the original studies. For the cost estimation, hospital stay and procedure costs were selected as most important cost drivers. As main outcome the major complication rate was taken. Findings: Analysis was performed on 2226 patients, of which 1013 (45.5%) in the LH group and 1213 (54.5%) in the AH group. Five studies scored >= 10 points (out of 19) for methodological quality. The reported total direct costs in the LH group ($63,997) were 6.1$60,114). The reported total indirect costs of the LH group ($1,609) were half of the total indirect in the AH group ($3,139). The estimated mean major complication rate in the LH group (14.3%) was lower than in the AH group (15.9%). The estimated total costs in the LH group were $3,884 versus$3,312 in the AH group. The incremental costs for reducing one patient with major complication(s) in the LH group compared to the AH group was $35,750. Conclusions: The shorter hospital stay in the LH group compensates for the increased procedure costs, with less morbidity. LH points in the direction of cost effectiveness, however further research is warranted with a broader costs perspective including long term effects as societal benefit, quality of life and survival

The VALUE national hysterectomy study: description of the patients and their surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To describe hysterectomies practised in 1994 and 1995: the patients, their surgery and short term outcomes. DESIGN: One of two large cohorts, with prospective follow up, recruited to compare the outcomes of endometrial destruction with those of hysterectomy. SETTING: England, Wales and Northern Ireland. POPULATION: All women who had hysterectomies for non-malignant indications carried out during a 12-month period. METHODS: Gynaecologists in NHS and independent hospitals were asked to report cases. Follow up data were obtained at outpatient follow up approximately six weeks post-surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Indication for surgery, method of hysterectomy, ovarian status post-surgery, surgical complications. RESULTS: 37,298 cases were reported which is estimated to reflect about 45% of hysterectomies performed during the period studied. The median age was 45 years, and the most common indication for surgery was dysfunctional uterine bleeding (46%). Most hysterectomies were carried out by consultants (55%). The proportions of women having abdominal, vaginal or laparoscopically-assisted hysterectomy were 67%, 30% and 3%, respectively. Forty-three percent of women had no ovaries conserved after surgery. The median length of stay was five days. The overall operative complication rate was 3.5%, and highest for the laparoscopic techniques. The overall post-operative complication rate was 9%. One percent of these was regarded as severe, with the highest rate for severe in the laparoscopic group (2%). There were no operative deaths; 14 deaths were reported within the six-week post-operative period: a crude mortality rate soon after surgery of 0.38 per thousand (95% CI 0.25-0.64). CONCLUSIONS: This large study describes women who undergo hysterectomy in the UK, and presents results on early complications associated with the surgery. Operative complications occurred in one in 30 women, and post-operative complications in at least one in 10. Laparoscopic techniques tend to be associated with higher complication rates than other methods