RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Since the introduction of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery, the percentage of advanced laparoscopic procedures has greatly increased worldwide. It seems therefore, timely to standardize laparoscopic gynecologic care according to the principles of evidence-based medicine. With this goal in mind-the Dutch Society of Gynecological Endoscopic Surgery initiated in The Netherlands the development of a national guideline for laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH). This present article provides a summary of the main recommendations of the guideline. METHODS: This guideline was developed following the Dutch guideline of medical specialists and in accordance with the AGREE II tool. Clinically important issues were firstly defined and translated into research questions. A literature search per topic was then conducted to identify relevant articles. The quality of the evidence of these articles was rated following the GRADE systematic. An expert panel consisting of 18 selected gynecologists was consulted to formulate best practice recommendations for each topic. RESULTS: Ten topics were considered in this guideline, including amongst others, the different approaches for hysterectomy, advice regarding tissue extraction, pre-operative medical treatment and prevention of ureter injury. This work resulted in the development of a clinical practical guideline of LH with evidence- and expert-based recommendations. The guideline is currently being implemented in The Netherlands. CONCLUSION: A guideline for LH was developed. It gives an overview of best clinical practice recommendations. It serves to standardize care, provides guidance for daily practice and aims to guarantee the quality of LH at an (inter)national level.
Asunto(s)
Histerectomía , Laparoscopía , Femenino , Humanos , Países Bajos , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Enfermedades Uterinas/cirugía , Útero/cirugíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Uterine contractions can be registered by external tocodynamometry (ET) or, after rupture of the membranes, by internal tocodynamometry (IT). Monitoring of the frequency of contractions is important especially when intravenous oxytocin is used as excessive uterine activity (hyperstimulation or tachysystole) can cause fetal distress. During induction of labour as well as during augmentation with intravenous oxytocin, some clinicians choose to monitor frequency and strength of contractions with IT rather than with ET as an intrauterine pressure catheter measures intrauterine activity more accurately than an extra-abdominal tocodynamometry device. However, insertion of an intrauterine catheter has higher costs and also potential risks for mother and child. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of IT compared with using ET when intravenous oxytocin is used for induction or augmentation of labour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2013) and PubMed (1966 to 6 April 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published randomised controlled trials with data from women in whom IT was compared with ET in induced or augmented labour with oxytocin. We excluded trials that employed quasi-randomised methods of treatment allocation. We found no unpublished or ongoing studies on this subject. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies involving a total of 1945 women were included. Overall, risk of bias across the three trials was mixed. No serious complications were reported in the trials and no neonatal or maternal deaths occurred. The neonatal outcome was not statistically different between groups: Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.83; three studies, n = 1945); umbilical artery pH less than 7.15 (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.79; one study, n = 1456); umbilical artery pH less than 7.16 (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.92; one study, n = 239); admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.67; two studies, n = 489); and more than 48 hours hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.20; one study, n = 1456). The pooled risk for instrumental delivery (including caesarean section, ventouse and forceps extraction) was not statistically significantly different (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.21; three studies, n = 1945). Hyperstimulation was reported in two studies (n = 489), but there was no statistically significant difference between groups (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.88). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no differences between the two types of monitoring (internal or external tocodynamometry) for any of the maternal or neonatal outcomes. Given that this review is based on three studies (N = 1945 women) of moderate quality, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of one form of tocodynamometry over another for women where intravenous oxytocin was administered for induction or augmentation of labour.
Asunto(s)
Trabajo de Parto Inducido/métodos , Oxitócicos/administración & dosificación , Oxitocina/administración & dosificación , Contracción Uterina/fisiología , Monitoreo Uterino/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Inyecciones Intravenosas , Embarazo , Resultado del Embarazo , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Monitoreo Uterino/instrumentaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Ureter injuries are the most dreaded complication in gynecological surgery. Some risk factors for the occurrence of urinary tract injuries are known, but clear guidelines to prevent ureter injuries during laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) are lacking. The aim of this study was to analyze all known ureter injuries that occurred during LH for a benign indication in the Netherlands, in order to identify patient- and surgeon-related risk factors. METHODS: Ninety-five LH-performing gynecologists were asked to recall all cases of known ureter injuries during LH in their hospital. After identification of ureter injuries, a structured interview was performed with a questionnaire that focused on the identification of predisposing factors which could account for the cause of the injury. RESULTS: Forty-one injuries were detected in 37 patients (4 bilateral ureter injuries) in a 20-year period. The questionnaire could be completed for 31 cases. Predisposing factors were retrospectively assessed and classified into categories: patient-related (i.e., deep infiltrating endometriosis, intraligamentary fibroids) (n = 18), surgeon-related (insufficient experience and/or technique) (n = 16), or both (insufficient experience and difficult case) (n = 8). According to earlier-mentioned recommendations in a Delphi study among experts, in 48.4 % of these ureter injury cases, more than one of the recommended techniques or predisposing conditions were not applied or available. Only one ureter injury was diagnosed during the LH; the mean time to diagnose the injury was 29 days. CONCLUSIONS: Incomplete learning curve, insufficient applied technique such as coagulation of the uterine artery without the use of a uterine manipulator, and/or from the contralateral side and/or without previously performed ureterolysis in case of distorted anatomy may be considered as the main predisposing factors.
Asunto(s)
Histerectomía/efectos adversos , Laparoscopía/efectos adversos , Uréter/lesiones , Competencia Clínica/normas , Femenino , Ginecología/normas , Ginecología/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Histerectomía/instrumentación , Histerectomía/estadística & datos numéricos , Complicaciones Intraoperatorias/diagnóstico , Complicaciones Intraoperatorias/etiología , Laparoscopía/instrumentación , Laparoscopía/estadística & datos numéricos , Curva de Aprendizaje , Persona de Mediana Edad , Países Bajos , Reoperación , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Instrumentos Quirúrgicos/estadística & datos numéricos , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Uterine contractions can be registered by external tocodynamometry (ET) or, after rupture of the membranes, by internal tocodynamometry (IT). Monitoring of the frequency of contractions is important especially when intravenous oxytocin is used as excessive uterine activity (hyperstimulation or tachysystole) can cause fetal distress. During induction of labour as well as during augmentation with intravenous oxytocin, some clinicians choose to monitor frequency and strength of contractions with IT rather than with ET as an intrauterine pressure catheter measures intrauterine activity more accurately than an extra-abdominal tocodynamometry device. However, insertion of an intrauterine catheter has higher costs and also potential risks for mother and child. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of IT compared with using ET when intravenous oxytocin is used for induction or augmentation of labour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 April 2012) and PubMed (1966 to 7 March 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published randomised controlled trials with data from women in whom IT was compared with ET in induced or augmented labour with oxytocin. We excluded trials that employed quasi-randomised methods of treatment allocation. We found no unpublished or ongoing studies on this subject. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies involving a total of 1945 women were included. Overall, risk of bias across the three trials was mixed. No serious complications were reported in the trials and no neonatal or maternal deaths occurred. The neonatal outcome was not statistically different between groups: Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.83; three studies, n = 1945); umbilical artery pH less than 7.15 (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.79; one study, n = 1456); umbilical artery pH less than 7.16 (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.92; one study, n = 239); admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.67; two studies, n = 489); and more than 48 hours hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.20; one study, n = 1456). The pooled risk for instrumental delivery (including caesarean section, ventouse and forceps extraction) was not statistically significantly different (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.21; three studies, n = 1945). Hyperstimulation was reported in two studies (n = 489), but there was no statistically significant difference between groups (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.88). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no differences between the two types of monitoring (internal or external tocodynamometry) for any of the maternal or neonatal outcomes. Given that this review is based on three studies (N = 1945 women) of moderate quality, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of one form of tocodynamometry over another for women where intravenous oxytocin was administered for induction or augmentation of labour.
Asunto(s)
Trabajo de Parto Inducido/métodos , Oxitócicos/administración & dosificación , Oxitocina/administración & dosificación , Contracción Uterina/fisiología , Monitoreo Uterino/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Inyecciones Intravenosas , Embarazo , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Monitoreo Uterino/instrumentaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of LigaSure™ versus conventional bipolar techniques on operating time and blood loss during laparoscopic salpingo-oophorectomy in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: In three teaching hospitals, 100 women undergoing a laparoscopic salpingo-oophorectomy were randomized for LigaSure or conventional bipolar instruments. Primary outcome was operating time (from initial skin incision to removal of the specimen). Secondary outcome measures were total operating time (from initial skin incision to skin closure), time to dissect the ovarian and infundibulopelvic ligaments, intraoperative blood loss, and subjective judgment of the instrument used. RESULTS: There were no differences in operating time and total operating time using LigaSure versus conventional bipolar instruments: 41.0 vs. 39.2 min (p = 0.78; 95 % CI = -10.9 to 14.5) and 54.6 vs. 58.6 min (p = 0.46; 95 % CI = -14.8 to 6.8), respectively. The mean blood loss using LigaSure versus conventional bipolar instruments was 38 vs. 33 mL (p = 0.73; 95 % CI = -22.7 to 32.2). Various subjective efficacy and instrument handling parameters of the two instruments varied among participating centers. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in operating time and blood loss with the use of LigaSure compared to conventional bipolar instruments during laparoscopic salpingo-oophorectomy, even after correction for potential confounders.
Asunto(s)
Laparoscopía/instrumentación , Ovariectomía/instrumentación , Hemorragia Posoperatoria/prevención & control , Salpingectomía/instrumentación , Diseño de Equipo , Femenino , Hemostasis Quirúrgica/instrumentación , Humanos , Laparoscopía/métodos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Análisis de Regresión , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Adequate hemostatic techniques are essential for optimal intra- and postoperative results. A number of different hemostatic techniques and devices have been developed over the past few years, but which device should be preferred during laparoscopic and open abdominal procedures? METHODS: We conducted a systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness and costs of vessel-sealing devices with those of other electrothermal or ultrasonic devices in abdominal surgical procedures. RESULTS: Seven RCTs that included 554 patients met the inclusion criteria. Various procedures that used a vessel-sealing device (LigaSure™) (n = 264) were compared to ultrasonic devices (n = 139) and mono- (n = 20) or bipolar devices (n = 130). LigaSure was favored in two studies with respect to less blood loss, shorter operating time, and lower costs. However, no differences were observed in the other studies. Considering the relatively low number of complications, all hemostatic devices used may be considered relatively safe. None of the studies reported on quality of life or cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Vessel-sealing devices may be considered safe and their use may reduce costs due to reduced blood loss and shorter operating time in some abdominal surgical procedures compared to mono- or bipolar electrothermal devices. Wider-ranging RCTs of sufficient quality that assess (cost) effectiveness are required to make firm conclusions.
Asunto(s)
Electrocoagulación/instrumentación , Hemostasis Quirúrgica/instrumentación , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Seguridad de Equipos , Hemostasis Quirúrgica/economía , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Técnicas de Sutura , Ultrasonido/instrumentaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: It has been hypothesized that internal tocodynamometry, as compared with external monitoring, may provide a more accurate assessment of contractions and thus improve the ability to adjust the dose of oxytocin effectively, resulting in fewer operative deliveries and less fetal distress. However, few data are available to test this hypothesis. METHODS: We performed a randomized, controlled trial in six hospitals in The Netherlands to compare internal tocodynamometry with external monitoring of uterine activity in women for whom induced or augmented labor was required. The primary outcome was the rate of operative deliveries, including both cesarean sections and instrumented vaginal deliveries. Secondary outcomes included the use of antibiotics during labor, time from randomization to delivery, and adverse neonatal outcomes (defined as any of the following: an Apgar score at 5 minutes of less than 7, umbilical-artery pH of less than 7.05, and neonatal hospital stay of longer than 48 hours). RESULTS: We randomly assigned 1456 women to either internal tocodynamometry (734) or external monitoring (722). The operative-delivery rate was 31.3% in the internal-tocodynamometry group and 29.6% in the external-monitoring group (relative risk with internal monitoring, 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.2). Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. The rate of adverse neonatal outcomes was 14.3% with internal monitoring and 15.0% with external monitoring (relative risk, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.2). No serious adverse events associated with use of the intrauterine pressure catheter were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Internal tocodynamometry during induced or augmented labor, as compared with external monitoring, did not significantly reduce the rate of operative deliveries or of adverse neonatal outcomes. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN13667534; Netherlands Trial number, NTR285.)