S'abonner

Longitudinal perioperative patient-reported outcomes in open compared with minimally invasive hysterectomy - 24/01/24

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.10.012 
Sarah P. Huepenbecker, MD, MPH a, Maria D. Iniesta, MD, PhD a, Xin S. Wang, MD, MPH b, Katherine E. Cain, PharmD c, Andres Zorrilla-Vaca, MD d, Shu-En Shen, MS b, M. Sol Basabe, MD a, Tina Suki, BS a, Juan E. Garcia Lopez, MD a, Gabriel E. Mena, MD d, Javier D. Lasala, MD d, Loretta A. Williams, PhD b, Pedro T. Ramirez, MD a, Larissa A. Meyer, MD, MPH a,
a Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 
b Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 
c Division of Pharmacy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 
d Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 

Corresponding author: Larissa A. Meyer, MD, MPH.

Abstract

Background

There are few prospective studies in the gynecologic surgical literature that compared patient-reported outcomes between open and minimally invasive hysterectomies within enhanced recovery after surgery pathways.

Objective

This study aimed to compare prospectively collected perioperative patient-reported symptom burden and interference measures in open compared with minimally invasive hysterectomy cohorts within enhanced recovery after surgery pathways.

Study Design

We compared patient-reported symptom burden and functional interference in 646 patients who underwent a hysterectomy (254 underwent open surgery and 392 underwent minimally invasive surgery) for benign and malignant indications under enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. Outcomes were prospectively measured using the validated MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, which was administered perioperatively up to 8 weeks after surgery. Cohorts were compared using Fisher exact and chi-squared tests, adjusted longitudinal generalized linear mixed modeling, and Kaplan Meier curves to model return to no or mild symptoms.

Results

The open cohort had significantly worse preoperative physical functional interference (P=.001). At the time of hospital discharge postoperatively, the open cohort reported significantly higher mean symptom severity scores and more moderate or severe scores for overall (P<.001) and abdominal pain (P<.001), fatigue (P=.001), lack of appetite (P<.001), bloating (P=.041), and constipation (P<.001) when compared with the minimally invasive cohort. The open cohort also had significantly higher interference in physical functioning (score 5.0 vs 2.7; P<.001) than the minimally invasive cohort at the time of discharge with no differences in affective interference between the 2 groups. In mixed modeling analysis of the first 7 postoperative days, both cohorts reported improved symptom burden and functional interference over time with generally slower recovery in the open cohort. From 1 to 8 postoperative weeks, the open cohort had worse mean scores for all evaluated symptoms and interference measures except for pain with urination, although scores indicated mild symptomatic burden and interference in both cohorts. The time to return to no or mild symptoms was significantly longer in the open cohort for overall pain (14 vs 4 days; P<.001), fatigue (8 vs 4 days; P<.001), disturbed sleep (2 vs 2 days; P<.001), and appetite (1.5 vs 1 days; P<.001) but was significantly longer in the minimally invasive cohort for abdominal pain (42 vs 28 days; P<.001) and bloating (42 vs 8 days; P<.001). The median time to return to no or mild functional interference was longer in the open than in the minimally invasive hysterectomy cohort for physical functioning (36 vs 32 days; P<.001) with no difference in compositive affective functioning (5 vs 5 days; P=.07) between the groups.

Conclusion

Open hysterectomy was associated with increased symptom burden in the immediate postoperative period and longer time to return to no or mild symptom burden and interference with physical functioning. However, all patient-reported measures improved within days to weeks of both open and minimally invasive surgery and differences were not always clinically significant.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words : gynecologic surgery, minimally invasive surgery, open gynecologic surgery, patient-reported outcomes


Plan


 L.A.M. reports receiving research funding from AstraZeneca for unrelated work, consulting for Glaxo-Smith-Kline, and owning stocks in Crispr, Denali, Johnson & Johnson, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. L.A.W. reports receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Genentech, Merck, and Eli Lily. G.E.M. reports receiving a research/academic grant from Pacira Pharmaceutical. The remaining authors report no conflict of interest related to the subject matter of this manuscript.
 This study was supported, in part, by the MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under grant number P30 CA016672 and a T32 training grant under award number CA101642. L.A.M. received support from the NIH-NCI under grant number K07-CA201013. X.S.W. and S.E.S. were partially supported by NCI/NIH grant funding under award number R01CA205146.
 The NIH/NCI Cancer Core Support Grant (CA016672) supports the Biostatistics Resource Group at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. The T32 training grant (CA101642) supports research training of postdoctoral gynecologic oncology fellows. None of the funding sources were involved in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or decision to submit the article for publication.
 Cite this article as: Huepenbecker SP, Iniesta MD, Wang XS, et al. Longitudinal perioperative patient-reported outcomes in open compared with minimally invasive hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024;230:241.e1-18.


© 2023  Elsevier Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 230 - N° 2

P. 241.e1-241.e18 - février 2024 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • The impact of increasing body mass index on in vitro fertilization treatment, obstetrical, and neonatal outcomes
  • Jenny S. George, Serene S. Srouji, Sarah E. Little, Elizabeth S. Ginsburg, Andrea Lanes
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Comparing the performance of 2 human papillomavirus assays for a new use indication: a real-world evidence-based evaluation in the United States
  • Cosette M. Wheeler, Norah E. Torrez-Martinez, Edith Torres-Chavolla, Valentin Parvu, Jeffrey C. Andrews, Ruofei Du, Michael Robertson, Nancy E. Joste, Jack Cuzick, New Mexico HPV Pap Registry Steering Committee, Nancy E. Joste, Walter Kinney, Cosette M. Wheeler, Charles L. Wiggins, Michael Robertson, Ruth M. McDonald, Alan Waxman, Steven Jenison, Jean Howe, Vicki Benard, Stephanie Melkonian, Debbie Saslow, Jane J. Kim, Mark H. Stoler, Jack Cuzick, Rebecca B. Perkins, Janice L. Gonzales, Salina Torres, Giovanna Rossi, Kevin English

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Elsevier s'engage à rendre ses eBooks accessibles et à se conformer aux lois applicables. Compte tenu de notre vaste bibliothèque de titres, il existe des cas où rendre un livre électronique entièrement accessible présente des défis uniques et l'inclusion de fonctionnalités complètes pourrait transformer sa nature au point de ne plus servir son objectif principal ou d'entraîner un fardeau disproportionné pour l'éditeur. Par conséquent, l'accessibilité de cet eBook peut être limitée. Voir plus

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.