The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 15 January 2004
- Vol. 328 (7432), 129
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.37984.623889.f6
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.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Hysterectomy rates in the United States 1990–1997Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2002
- Recovery from vaginal hysterectomy compared with laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study.2001
- A body image scale for use with cancer patientsEuropean Journal Of Cancer, 2001
- A randomised comparison and economic evaluation of laparoscopic‐assisted hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomyBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2000
- Three methods for hysterectomy: a randomised, prospective study of short term outcomeBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2000
- Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy: an assessment of the learning curve in a prospective randomized studyHuman Reproduction, 1999
- Prospective randomized clinical trial of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomyAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1999
- A Multicenter Randomized Comparison of Laparoscopically Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy and Abdominal Hysterectomy in Abdominal Hysterectomy CandidatesObstetrics & Gynecology, 1998
- Is laparoscopic hysterectomy a waste of time?The Lancet, 1995
- A Critical Analysis of Laparoscopic Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomies Compared with Vaginal Hysterectomies Unassisted by Laparoscopy and Transabdominal Hysterectomies*Journal of Gynecologic Surgery, 1994