The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy
- PMID: 14711749
- PMCID: PMC314503
- DOI: 10.1136/bmj.37984.623889.F6
The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy
Erratum in
- BMJ. 2004 Feb 28;328(7438):494
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effects of laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy in the abdominal trial, and laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy in the vaginal trial.
Design: Two parallel, multicentre, randomised trials.
Setting: 28 UK centres and two South African centres.
Participants: 1380 women were recruited; 1346 had surgery; 937 were followed up at one year. Primary outcome Rate of major complications.
Results: In the abdominal trial laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a higher rate of major complications than abdominal hysterectomy (11.1% v 6.2%, P = 0.02; difference 4.9%, 95% confidence interval 0.9% to 9.1%) and the number needed to treat to harm was 20. Laparoscopic hysterectomy also took longer to perform (84 minutes v 50 minutes) but was less painful (visual analogue scale 3.51 v 3.88, P = 0.01) and resulted in a shorter stay in hospital after the operation (3 days v 4 days). Six weeks after the operation, laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with less pain and better quality of life than abdominal hysterectomy (SF-12, body image scale, and sexual activity questionnaires). In the vaginal trial we found no evidence of a difference in major complication rates between laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy (9.8% v 9.5%, P = 0.92; difference 0.3%, -5.2% to 5.8%), and the number needed to treat to harm was 333. We found no evidence of other differences between laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy except that laparoscopic hysterectomy took longer to perform (72 minutes v 39 minutes) and was associated with a higher rate of detecting unexpected pathology (16.4% v 4.8%, P = < 0.01). However, this trial was underpowered.
Conclusions: Laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a significantly higher rate of major complications than abdominal hysterectomy. It also took longer to perform but was associated with less pain, quicker recovery, and better short term quality of life. The trial comparing vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy was underpowered and is inconclusive on the rate of major complications; however, vaginal hysterectomy took less time.
Figures
Comment in
-
Results of eVALuate study of hysterectomy techniques: laparoscopic hysterectomy may yet have a bright future.BMJ. 2004 Mar 13;328(7440):642-3; author reply 643. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7440.642-c. BMJ. 2004. PMID: 15016702 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Results of eVALuate study of hysterectomy techniques: degree of pain cannot be commented on.BMJ. 2004 Mar 13;328(7440):642; author reply 643. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7440.642-b. BMJ. 2004. PMID: 15016703 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Results of eVALuate study of hysterectomy techniques: conversion to open surgery should not be regarded as major complication.BMJ. 2004 Mar 13;328(7440):642; author reply 643. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7440.642-a. BMJ. 2004. PMID: 15016704 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Results of eVALuate study of hysterectomy techniques: high rate of complications needs explanation.BMJ. 2004 Mar 13;328(7440):643; author reply 643. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7440.643. BMJ. 2004. PMID: 15016706 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
What the gynaecologist fears most in the pelvis?BJOG. 2016 Dec;123(13):2189. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13620. Epub 2015 Sep 28. BJOG. 2016. PMID: 26411295 No abstract available.
-
Re-evaluating the eVALuate study and the NICE guidelines: a personal review.BJOG. 2016 Oct;123(11):1796. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13892. BJOG. 2016. PMID: 27653329 No abstract available.
References
-
- Stoval TG, Summitt RL. Laparoscopic hysterectomy—is there a benefit? N Engl J Med 1996;335: 512-3. - PubMed
-
- Summitt RL, Stovall TG, Steege JF, Lipscomb GH. A multicentre randomized comparison of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy in abdominal hysterectomy candidates. Obstet Gynaecol 1998;92: 321-6. - PubMed
-
- Lumsden MA, Twaddle S, Hawthorn R, Traynor I, Gilmore D, Davis J, et al. A randomised comparison and economic evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2000;107: 1386-91. - PubMed
-
- Perino A, Cucinella G, Venezia R, Castelli A, Cittadini E. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy: an assessment of the learning curve in a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod 1999;14: 2996-9. - PubMed
-
- Falcone TMD, Paraiso MFR, Mascha EMS. Prospective randomized trial of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180: 955-62. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical