Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
1.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol ; 208: 6-15, 2017 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27880893

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise studies comparing benefits and harms in women with benign disease without prolapse undergoing hysterectomy by natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) versus laparoscopy. STUDY DESIGN: We followed the PRISMA guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and cohort studies comparing NOTES with laparoscopy assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) or total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) in women bound to undergo removal of a non-prolapsed uterus for benign disease. Two authors searched and selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias independently. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion or arbitration. RESULTS: We did not find RCTs but retrieved two retrospective cohort studies comparing NOTES with LAVH. The study quality as assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was acceptable. Both studies reported no conversions. The operative time in women treated by NOTES was shorter compared to LAVH: the mean difference (MD) was -22.04min (95% CI -28.00min to -16.08min; 342 women; 2 studies). There were no differences for complications in women treated by NOTES compared to LAVH: the risk ratio (RR) was 0.57 (95% CI 0.17-1.91; 342 women; 2 studies). The length of stay was shorter in women treated by NOTES versus LAVH: the MD was -0.42days (95% CI -0.59days to -0.25days; 342 women; 2 studies). There were no differences for the median VAS scores at 12h between women treated by NOTES (median 2, range 0-6) or by LAVH (median 2, range 0-6) (48 women, 1 study). There were no differences in the median additional analgesic dose request in women treated by NOTES (median 0, range 0-6) or by LAVH (median 1, range 0-5) (48 women, 1 study). The hospital charges for treatment by NOTES were higher compared to LAVH: the mean difference was 137.00 € (95% CI 88.95-185.05 €; 294 women; 1 study). CONCLUSIONS: At the present NOTES should be considered as a technique under evaluation for use in gynaecological surgery. RCTs are needed to demonstrate its effectiveness.


Assuntos
Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Doenças dos Genitais Femininos/cirurgia , Histerectomia/efeitos adversos , Cirurgia Endoscópica por Orifício Natural/efeitos adversos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/prevenção & controle , Qualidade de Vida , Doenças Uterinas/cirurgia , Adulto , Perda Sanguínea Cirúrgica/prevenção & controle , Feminino , Doenças dos Genitais Femininos/economia , Preços Hospitalares , Humanos , Histerectomia/economia , Laparoscopia/efeitos adversos , Laparoscopia/economia , Tempo de Internação , Cirurgia Endoscópica por Orifício Natural/economia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/economia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/terapia , Hemorragia Pós-Operatória/economia , Hemorragia Pós-Operatória/etiologia , Hemorragia Pós-Operatória/prevenção & controle , Hemorragia Pós-Operatória/terapia , Doenças Uterinas/economia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA