scholarly journals Surgical volume and conversion rate in laparoscopic hysterectomy: does volume matter? A multicenter retrospective cohort study

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 1021-1026 ◽  
Author(s):  
José H. M. Keurentjes ◽  
Justine M. Briët ◽  
Geertruida H. de Bock ◽  
Marian J. E. Mourits
BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e045888
Author(s):  
Esther L Moss ◽  
George Morgan ◽  
Antony Martin ◽  
Panos Sarhanis ◽  
Thomas Ind

ObjectivesThe benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for endometrial carcinoma (EC) are well established although the financial impact of robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) is disputed.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingEnglish National Health Service hospitals 2011–2017/2018.Participants35 304 women having a hysterectomy for EC identified from Hospital Episode Statistics.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the association between route of surgery on cost at intervention, 30, 90 and 365 days for women undergoing an open hysterectomy (OH) or MIS (LH/RH) for EC in England. The average marginal effect was calculated to compare RH versus OH and RH versus LH which adjusted for any differences in the characteristics of the surgical approaches. Secondary outcomes were to analyse costing data for each surgical approach by age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and hospital MIS rate classification.ResultsA total of 35 304 procedures were performed, 20 405 (57.8%) were MIS (LH: 18 604 and RH: 1801), 14 291 (40.5%) OH. Mean cost for LH was significantly less than RH, whereas RH was significantly less than OH at intervention, 30, 90 and 365 days (p<0.001). Over time, patients who underwent RH had increasing CCI scores and by the 2015/2016 year had a higher average CCI than LH. Comparing the cost of LH and RH against CCI score identified that the costs closely reflected the patients’ CCI. Increasing disparity was also seen between the MIS and OH costs with rising age. When exploring the association between provider volume, MIS rate and surgical costs, there was an association with the higher the MIS rate the lower the average cost.ConclusionsFurther research is needed to investigate costs in matched patient cohorts to determine the optimum surgical modality in different populations.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine A. O’Hanlan ◽  
Pamela L. Emeney ◽  
Alfred Peters ◽  
Margaret S. Sten ◽  
Stacey P. McCutcheon ◽  
...  

Objective. To review the vaginal cuff complications from a large series of total laparoscopic hysterectomies in which the laparoscopic culdotomy closure was highly standardized.Methods. Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force Classification II-3) of consecutive total and radical laparoscopic hysterectomy patients with all culdotomy closures performed laparoscopically was conducted using three guidelines: placement of all sutures 5 mm deep from the vaginal edge with a 5 mm interval, incorporation of the uterosacral ligaments with the pubocervical fascia at each angle, and, whenever possible, suturing the bladder peritoneum over the vaginal cuff edge utilizing two suture types of comparable tensile strength. Four outcomes are reviewed: dehiscence, bleeding, infection, and adhesions.Results. Of 1924 patients undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy, 44 patients (2.29%) experienced a vaginal cuff complication, with 19 (0.99%) requiring reoperation. Five patients (0.26%) had dehiscence after sexual penetration on days 30–83, with 3 requiring reoperation. Thirteen patients (0.68%) developed bleeding, with 9 (0.47%) requiring reoperation. Twenty-three (1.20%) patients developed infections, with 4 (0.21%) requiring reoperation. Three patients (0.16%) developed obstructive small bowel adhesions to the cuff requiring laparoscopic lysis.Conclusion. A running 5 mm deep × 5 mm apart culdotomy closure that incorporates the uterosacral ligaments with the pubocervical fascia, with reperitonealization when possible, appears to be associated with few postoperative vaginal cuff complications.


2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-59
Author(s):  
Ryutaro Yamada ◽  
Yukiharu Todo ◽  
Hiroko Matsumiya ◽  
Kaoru Minowa ◽  
Tomohiko Tsuruta ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document