Background There are various surgical approaches of hysterectomy for benign indications. This study aimed to compare vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) with respect to their complications and operative outcomes. Methods We selected randomised controlled trials that compared VH with LH for benign gynaecological indications. We included studies published after January 2000 in the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library). The primary outcome was comparison of the complication rate. The secondary outcomes were comparisons of operating time, blood loss, intraoperative conversion, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay and duration of recuperation. We used Review Manager 5.3 software to perform the meta-analysis. Results Eighteen studies of 1618 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed no differences in overall complications, intraoperative conversion, postoperative pain on the day of surgery and at 48 h, length of hospital stay and recuperation time between VH and LH. VH was associated with a shorter operating time and lower postoperative pain at 24 h than LH. Conclusions When both surgical approaches are feasible, VH should remain the surgery of choice for benign hysterectomy. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12905-019-0784-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), a peptide growth factor of the transforming growth factor-β family, is a reliable marker of ovarian reserve. Regarding assisted reproductive technology, AMH has been efficiently used as a marker to predict ovarian response to stimulation. The clinical use of AMH has recently been extended and emphasized. The uses of AMH as a predictive marker of menopause onset, diagnostic tool for polycystic ovary syndrome, and assessment of ovarian function before and after gynecologic surgeries or gonadotoxic agents such as chemotherapy have been investigated. Serum AMH levels can also be affected by environmental and genetic factors; thus, the effects of factors that may alter AMH test results should be considered. This review summarizes the findings of recent studies focusing on the clinical application of AMH and factors that influence the AMH level and opinions on the use of the AMH level to assess the probability of conception before reproductive life planning as a "fertility test. "
Background Deaf women encounter barriers to accessing cancer information. In this study, we evaluated whether deaf women's knowledge could be increased by viewing a graphically enriched, American Sign Language (ASL) cervical cancer education video. Methods A blind, randomized trial evaluated knowledge gain and retention. Deaf women (n = 130) completed questionnaires before, after, and 2 months after viewing the video. Results With only a single viewing of the in-depth video, the experimental group gained and retained significantly more cancer knowledge than the control group. Conclusions Giving deaf women access to the ASL cervical cancer education video (http://cancer.ucsd.edu/deafinfo) significantly increased their knowledge of cervical cancer.
This study assessed the relationship between Deaf women's internal health locus of control (IHLC) and their cervical cancer knowledge acquisition and retention. A blind, randomized trial evaluated Deaf women's (N = 130) baseline cancer knowledge and knowledge gained and retained from an educational intervention, in relation to their IHLC. The Multidimensional Health Locus of Control scales measured baseline IHLC, and a cervical cancer knowledge survey evaluated baseline to post-intervention knowledge change. Women's IHLC did not significantly predict greater cervical cancer knowledge at baseline or over time. IHLC does not appear to be a characteristic that must be considered when creating Deaf women's cancer education programs.
The aim of the present study was to compare the oncological outcome of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) and conventional radical hysterectomy (CRH) for early-stage cervical cancer using a meta-analysis. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, including 4 randomized controlled trials (RCT), 8 case-control and 11 comparative cohort studies comparing the morbidity, pelvic dysfunctions and oncological outcome between the two surgical methods. A total of 23 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The studies reported data of patients affected by cervical cancer; were written in English; included ≥20 patients; and reported data of patients with a comparison of clinical outcomes between NSRH and CRH. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by four independent reviewers. A total of 1,796 patients were included: 884 patients (49.2%) undergoing NSRH and 912 (50.8%) undergoing CRH. The meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager version 5.3 software, which is designed for conducting Cochrane reviews. As regards perioperative parameters, NSRH was found to be associated with a lower intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay in comparison with CRH. Patients undergoing NSRH experienced lower incidence of urinary, colorectal and sexual dysfunction compared with patients undergoing CRH. However, the resected parametrial width was favorable in patients with CRH, suggesting that NSRH was inferior to CRH in terms of radicality. The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates were similar between the two groups. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the collected data to date demonstrated that the nerve-sparing approach guarantees minimized surgical-related pelvic dysfunction, with similar oncological outcomes as CRH. However, further RCTs should be conducted to confirm the superiority and safety of NSRH.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.