Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are five major approaches to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease: abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) and vaginal natural orifice hysterectomy (V-NOTES). Within the LH category we further differentiate the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) from the total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (from their inception to December 2022): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the trial registries and relevant reference lists, and communicated with experts in the field for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction and quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvic-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction). MAIN RESULTS: We included 63 studies with 6811 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate certainty. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (12 RCTs, 1046 women) Return to normal activities was probably faster in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -10.91 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.95 to -3.87; 4 RCTs, 274 women; I2 = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after AH is assumed to be 42 days, then after VH it would be between 24 and 38 days. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (28 RCTs, 3431 women) Return to normal activities may be sooner in the LH group (MD -13.01 days, 95% CI -16.47 to -9.56; 7 RCTs, 618 women; I2 = 68%, low-certainty evidence), but there may be more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.16, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.93; 18 RCTs, 2594 women; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 37 days, then after laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 22 and 25 days. It also suggests that if the rate of ureter injury during abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 0.2%, then during laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 0.2% and 2%. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (22 RCTs, 2135 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for any of our primary outcomes. Both short- and long-term complications were rare in both groups. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (three RCTs, 296 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for our other primary outcomes. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH) versus LH (seven RCTs, 621 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates, quality of life or major long-term complications. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) versus laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) (three RCTs, 233 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury or major long-term complications. Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (V-NOTES) versus LH (two RCTs, 96 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of bladder injury. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. Overall, adverse events were rare in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to AH. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because it is associated with faster return to normal activities, fewer wound/abdominal wall infections and shorter hospital stay. Where VH is not possible, LH has advantages over AH including faster return to normal activities, shorter hospital stay, and decreased risk of wound/abdominal wall infection, febrile episodes or unspecified infection, and transfusion. These advantages must be balanced against the increased risk of ureteric injury and longer operative time. When compared to LH, VH was associated with no difference in time to return to normal activities but shorter operative time and shorter hospital stay. RH and V-NOTES require further evaluation since there is a lack of evidence of any patient benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed with the patient and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. Surgical expertise is difficult to quantify and poorly reported in the available studies and this may influence outcomes in ways that cannot be accounted for in this review. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH has multiple advantages over AH, but at the cost of more ureteric injuries. Evidence is limited for RH and V-NOTES.

Unravelling clinicians' shared decision-making adoption: a qualitative exploration through the lens of diffusion of innovations theory.

OBJECTIVES: This study uses the diffusion of innovations (DOI) theory to comprehensively understand the adoption of shared decision-making (SDM) in clinical practice, specifically focusing on the 'knowledge' and 'persuasion' stages within DOI. We aim to understand the challenges and dynamics associated with SDM adoption, offering insights for more patient-centred decision-making in healthcare. DESIGN: This qualitative study employs a modified framework analysis approach, integrating ethnographic and interview data from prior research, along with additional interviews. The framework used is based on the DOI theory. STUDY SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study was conducted in the obstetrics and gynaecology department of a tertiary teaching hospital in the Eastern region of the Netherlands. It included interviews with 20 participants, including gynaecologists, obstetrics registrars and junior doctors currently practising in the department. Additionally, data from prior research conducted within the same department were incorporated, ensuring the maintenance of contextual consistency. RESULTS: Findings reveal a complex interplay between SDM's benefits and challenges. Clinicians value SDM for upholding patient autonomy and enhancing medical practice, viewing it as valuable for medical decision-making. Decision aids are seen as advantageous in supporting treatment decisions. Challenges include compatibility issues between patient and clinician preferences, perceptions of SDM as time-consuming and difficult and limitations imposed by the rapid pace of healthcare and its swift decisions. Additionally, perceived complexity varies by situation, influenced by colleagues' attitudes, with limited trialability and sparsely observed instances of SDM. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians' decision to adopt or reject SDM is multifaceted, shaped by beliefs, cognitive processes and contextual challenges. Cognitive dissonance is critical as clinicians reconcile their existing practices with the adoption of SDM. Practical strategies such as practice assessments, open discussions about SDM's utility and reflective practice through professional development initiatives empower clinicians to make the best informed decision to adopt or reject SDM.

Multidisciplinary management of patients with pubic osteomyelitis, a rare but serious complication after surgery and radiation therapy for advanced gynaecological cancer.

Pubic osteomyelitis is a rare and often late-onset complication of radiation therapy and surgery for vulvar and vaginal carcinoma. It typically presents with vulvar pain, fever, vaginal discharge and/or gait disorders. Pubic osteomyelitis is often accompanied by fistulas or wound dehiscence in the pelvic area. Its accurate diagnosis and treatment are challenging and require a multidisciplinary team effort. In our patients, multiple combined surgical procedures, long-term antibiotic treatment and days to weeks of hospital admission were necessary to treat pubic osteomyelitis. We emphasise the importance of timely and adequate diagnosis and multidisciplinary approach resulting in a course of treatment that is as effective as possible, limiting the impact on quality of life, which is generally high in this group of patients.