The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy

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.

[1]  John E. Ware,et al.  SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales : a user's manual , 1994 .

[2]  J. Cuzick,et al.  The Sexual Activity Questionnaire: A measure of women's sexual functioning , 1996, Quality of Life Research.

[3]  F. Ling,et al.  Randomized Comparison of Laparoscopy- Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy With Standard Vaginal Hysterectomy in an Outpatient Setting , 1992, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[4]  C. Steiner,et al.  Hysterectomy Rates in the United States 1990–1997 , 2002, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  K. McPherson,et al.  The VALUE national hysterectomy study: description of the patients and their surgery. , 2002, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[6]  G. Lingman,et al.  Three methods for hysterectomy: a randomised, prospective study of short term outcome , 2000, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[7]  M. Lumsden,et al.  A randomised comparison and economic evaluation of laparoscopic‐assisted hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy , 2000, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[8]  K. Raju,et al.  A randomised prospective study of laparoscopic vaginal hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy each with bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy , 1994, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[9]  M. Seckl,et al.  Etoposide and cisplatin/etoposide, methotrexate, and actinomycin D (EMA) chemotherapy for patients with high-risk gestational trophoblastic tumors refractory to EMA/cyclophosphamide and vincristine chemotherapy and patients presenting with metastatic placental site trophoblastic tumors. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  J. Phipps,et al.  Comparison of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo‐ophorectomy with conventional abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo‐ophorectomy , 1993, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[11]  R. E Richardson,et al.  Is laparoscopic hysterectomy a waste of time? , 1995, The Lancet.

[12]  Y. Nakajima,et al.  A Prospective, Randomized Study , 2006 .

[13]  A Multicenter Randomized Comparison of Laparoscopically Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy and Abdominal Hysterectomy in Abdominal Hysterectomy Candidates , 1998, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  M. Pelosi Randomized comparison of laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy with standard vaginal hysterectomy in an outpatient setting. , 1993, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[15]  E. Daraï,et al.  Recovery from vaginal hysterectomy compared with laparoscopy‐assisted vaginal hysterectomy: , 2001 .

[16]  R. Summitt,et al.  Laparoscopic hysterectomy--is there a benefit? , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  Penny Hopwood,et al.  A body image scale for use with cancer patients. , 2001, European journal of cancer.

[18]  A. Smith,et al.  Contamination of drinking-water by arsenic in Bangladesh: a public health emergency. , 2000, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[19]  M. Busacca,et al.  Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. , 1999, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[20]  N. Osborne,et al.  A critical analysis of laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomies compared with vaginal hysterectomies unassisted by laparoscopy and transabdominal hysterectomies. , 1994, Journal of gynecologic surgery.

[21]  J. Olsson,et al.  A randomised prospective trial comparing laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy , 1996, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[22]  E Mascha,et al.  Prospective randomized clinical trial of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy. , 1999, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[23]  R. Garry A randomised comparison and economic evaluation of laparoscopic‐assisted hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy , 2002, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[24]  R. Macdonald Providing clean water: lessons from Bangladesh , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[25]  G. Cucinella,et al.  Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy: an assessment of the learning curve in a prospective randomized study. , 1999, Human Reproduction.

[26]  B. Nesheim,et al.  Abdominal hysterectomy should not be considered as a primary method for uterine removal: A prospective randomised study of 100 patients referred to hysterectomy , 1996, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[27]  F. Nezhat,et al.  Laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy. , 1992, The Journal of reproductive medicine.