Comparing benign laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy outcomes by time
- 67 Downloads
While laparoscopic hysterectomy has benefits compared to abdominal hysterectomy, the operative times are longer. Longer operative times have been associated with negative outcomes. This study’s purpose was to elucidate if there is an operative time at which 30-day outcomes for laparoscopic hysterectomy become inferior to a more expeditiously completed abdominal hysterectomy.
This was a retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2) using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to identify women undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications from 2010 to 2016 by current procedural terminology code. Hysterectomy cases were stratified by approach and 60-min intervals. 30-day post-operative outcomes were analyzed by operative time and approach.
109,821 hysterectomies were included in our analysis, of which 66,560 (61%) were laparoscopic, and 43,261 (39%) were abdominal. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis comparing outcomes by surgical approach and operative time, there was no time combination in which patients who had a abdominal hysterectomy had significantly lower odds of the composite complications variable. This was true even in laparoscopic hysterectomies greater than 240 min compared to abdominal hysterectomies completed between 20 and 60 min. When compared to laparoscopic hysterectomies greater than 240 min, abdominal hysterectomies between 20 and 60 min had lower odds of sepsis and abdominal hysterectomies less than 180 min had lower odds of urinary tract infection.
Given that benefits persist even in prolonged cases, a laparoscopic approach should be offered to most patients undergoing benign hysterectomy. Surgical efficiency should be prioritized for any surgical approach.
KeywordsHysterectomy Laparoscopy Morbidity Operative time Surgical approach Minimally invasive surgery
We would like to acknowledge The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology for supporting our research. Financial support from The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology was obtained for statistical analysis.
Compliance with ethical standards
Dr. Samantha Margulies, Dr. Maria Victoria Vargas, Dr. Kathryn Denny, Andrew Sparks, Dr. Cherie Marfori, and Dr. Richard Amdur have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Dr. Gaby Moawad is a speaker for Intuitive Surgical. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the hospitals participating in the ACS NSQIP are the source of the data used herein; they have not verified and are not responsible for the statistical validity of the data analysis or the conclusions derived by the authors.
- 9.Barnett JC, Havrilesky LJ, Bondurant AE, Fleming ND, Lee PS, Secord AA, Berchuck A, Valea FA (2011) Adverse events associated with laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the treatment of endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205(143):e141–e146Google Scholar
- 11.Barber EL, Neubauer NL, Gossett DR (2015) Risk of venous thromboembolism in abdominal versus minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign conditions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 212(609):e601–e607Google Scholar
- 13.Procter LD, Davenport DL, Bernard AC, Zwischenberger JB (2010) General surgical operative duration is associated with increased risk-adjusted infectious complication rates and length of hospital stay. J Am Coll Surg 210(60–65):e61–e62Google Scholar
- 16.(2015) User Guide for the 2014 ACS NSQIP Participant Use Data File (PUF). American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement ProgramGoogle Scholar
- 17.(2017) ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program® (ACS NSQIP®). American College of SurgeonsGoogle Scholar
- 20.Cohen ME, Ko CY, Bilimoria KY, Zhou L, Huffman K, Wang X, Liu Y, Kraemer K, Meng X, Merkow R, Chow W, Matel B, Richards K, Hart AJ, Dimick JB, Hall BL (2013) Optimizing ACS NSQIP modeling for evaluation of surgical quality and risk: patient risk adjustment, procedure mix adjustment, shrinkage adjustment, and surgical focus. J Am Coll Surg 217(2):336–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar