Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesTo compare total costs for hospital stay and post-operative recovery between robotic and abdominal hysterectomy in the treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer provided in an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) setting. Costs were evaluated in relation to health impact, taking a societal perspective.MethodsCost analysis was based on data from an open randomized controlled trial in an ERAS setting at a Swedish tertiary referral university hospital: 50 women with low-risk endometrial cancer scheduled for surgery between February 2012 and May 2016 were included; 25 women were allocated to robotic and 25 to abdominal hysterectomy. We compared the total time in the operating theater, procedure costs, post-operative care, length of hospital stay, readmissions, informal care, and sick leave as well as the health-related quality of life until 6 weeks after surgery. The comparison was made by using the EuroQoL group form with five dimensions and three levels (EQ-5D). The primary outcome measure was total cost; secondary outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost per QALY. The costs were calculated in Swedish Krona (SEK).ResultsAge (median (IQR) 68 (63–72) vs 67 (59–75) years), duration of hospital stay (ie, time to discharge criteria were met) (median (IQR) 36 (36–36) vs 36 (36–54) hours), and sick leave (median (IQR) 25 (17–30) vs 31 (36–54) days) did not differ between the robotic and abdominal group. Time of surgery was significantly longer in the robotic group than in the abdominal group (median (IQR) 70 (60–90) vs 56 (49–84) min; p<0.05). The robotic group recovered significantly faster as measured by the EQ-5D health index and gained 0.018 QALYs until 6 weeks after surgery. Total costs were 20% higher for the robotic procedure (SEK71 634 vs SEK59 319). The total cost per QALY gained for women in the robotic group was slightly under SEK700 000.ConclusionsRobotic hysterectomy used in an ERAS setting in the treatment of early endometrial cancer improved health within 6 weeks after the operation at a high cost for the health gained compared with abdominal hysterectomy. The productivity loss and informal care were lower for robotic hysterectomy, while healthcare had a higher procedure cost that could not be offset by the higher cost due to complications in the abdominal group.

Purpose The aim of the study was to evaluate the health economics of nurse-led telephone follow-up contacts (TFUs) within six weeks after benign hysterectomy in a societal perspective, using a cost minimization analysis model. Methods A randomized, single-blinded, controlled, Swedish multicenter study comprising 487 women undergoing benign hysterectomy. The women were allocated 1:1:1:1 to either Group A (no TFUs), Group B (one clinically structured TFU the day after discharge), Group C (as B, but with additional TFUs once weekly for six weeks, in total six TFUs), or Group D (as C, but by applying a coaching technique). Time consumption for planned TFUs, informal care, and the number of unplanned telephone contacts and visits were recorded. Costs were assessed using a cost-per-patient price list for Linköping University Hospital. Results The total cost per patient more than doubled in the groups with repeated TFUs (Groups C and D) compared with no TFUs (Group A). Group D demonstrated fewer unplanned telephone contacts and lower informal care costs. Group B, with only one TFU, exhibited the highest time consumption for TFU. The additional costs of six TFUs, with or without coaching, substantially increased the costs. The coaching TFU group (Group D) had the lowest cost for informal care. Conclusion TFUs appeared to be costly and an inefficient way of using healthcare resources after benign hysterectomy. The coaching TFU seemed to reduce unplanned telephone contacts and lower informal care costs. Careful consideration of the costs and the impact on clinical outcomes is important before implementing TFU after surgery. Trial registration This study is registered retrospectively in ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01526668 on January 27, 2012. Date of enrollment of first patient: October 11; 2011.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of an internet-based perioperative care programme compared with usual care for gynaecological patients.DesignEconomic evaluation from a societal perspective alongside a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up.SettingSecondary care, nine hospitals in the Netherlands, 2011–2014.Participants433 employed women aged 18–65 years scheduled for a hysterectomy and/or laparoscopic adnexal surgery.InterventionThe intervention comprised an internet-based care programme aimed at improving convalescence and preventing delayed return to work (RTW) following gynaecological surgery and was sequentially rolled out. Depending on the implementation phase of their hospital, patients were allocated to usual care (n=206) or to the intervention (n=227).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was duration until full sustainable RTW. Secondary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), health-related quality of life and recovery.ResultsAt 12 months, there were no statistically significant differences in total societal costs (€−647; 95% CI €−2116 to €753) and duration until RTW (−4.1; 95% CI −10.8 to 2.6) between groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for RTW was 56; each day earlier RTW in the intervention group was associated with cost savings of €56 compared with usual care. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.79 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of €0 per day earlier RTW, which increased to 0.97 at a WTP of €76 per day earlier RTW. The difference in QALYs gained over 12 months between the groups was clinically irrelevant resulting in a low probability of cost-effectiveness for QALYs.ConclusionsConsidering that on average the costs of a day of sickness absence are €230, the care programme is considered cost-effective in comparison with usual care for duration until sustainable RTW after gynaecological surgery for benign disease. Future research should indicate whether widespread implementation of this care programme has the potential to reduce societal costs associated with gynaecological surgery.Trial registration number NTR2933; Results.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare surgical outcome, patient recovery, and costs between robot-assisted laparoscopy and laparotomy in women undergoing hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSOE), and pelvic lymphadenectomy for endometrial carcinoma.MethodsWomen undergoing hysterectomy, BSOE, and pelvic lymphadenectomy for endometrial carcinoma, according to regional guidelines, were prospectively, concurrently, and consecutively included from September 2010 to December 2012. Surgical outcomes such as operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), number of lymph nodes retrieved, and complications were analyzed together with hospital stay, days until normal active daily living was retrieved, patient satisfaction with the length of the hospital stay, and cost per patient. Robot-assisted laparoscopy was performed on all cases at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital, and laparotomy was performed on all cases at 3 regional hospitals.ResultsForty women underwent robot-assisted laparoscopy, and 48 underwent laparotomy. There were no differences in age, body mass index, histology, or retrieved lymph nodes. Operative time was significantly shorter in the robot-assisted laparoscopy group (P < 0.0001). The EBL was lower and hospital stay was shorter in the robot-assisted laparoscopy group (P < 0.0001). There was no statistical difference in complications between the groups, and both groups found hospital stay duration satisfactory. In the robot-assisted laparoscopy group, active daily living was normal within 5 days postoperatively, compared with 14 days in the laparotomy group (P < 0.0001). Calculated costs per treated patient did not differ statistically between the groups.ConclusionsCompared with laparotomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy, BSOE pelvic lymphadenectomy for endometrial carcinoma was associated with significantly shorter operative time, hospital stay, and lower EBL. Patients recovered more quickly after robot-assisted laparoscopy, with equal costs number of retrieved lymph nodes, compared with laparotomy.

In this multicenter, randomized trial of outcomes of uterine-artery embolization versus surgery for symptomatic fibroids, there were no differences between groups in quality of life at 1 year. Women who underwent embolization had a shorter duration of hospitalization and a shorter interval until the resumption of normal activities but were more likely to require rehospitalization for adverse outcomes or to need reintervention owing to treatment failure. Women who underwent embolization had a shorter duration of hospitalization but were more likely to require rehospitalization for adverse outcomes or to need reintervention owing to treatment failure. Uterine fibroids are the most common type of tumor in the female reproductive system. The presence of these tumors may cause menstrual disorder and can be associated with subfertility, miscarriage, and pressure effects. 1 For women who no longer plan to give birth, the established treatment is hysterectomy. In the United Kingdom, approximately 42,500 hysterectomies are performed annually, with approximately 30% indicated for fibroids (the second-most-frequent indication). 2 For women wishing to maintain their fertility, myomectomy is the principal option. Uterine-artery embolization was introduced in 1995 as an alternative technique for treating fibroids. 3 Since then it has become increasingly accepted as a . . .

IntroductionNatural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) uses natural body orifices to access the cavities of the human body to perform surgery. NOTES limits the magnitude of surgical trauma and has the potential to reduce postoperative pain. This is the first randomised study in women bound to undergo hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease comparing NOTES with classical laparoscopy.Methods and analysisAll women aged 18–70 years, regardless of parity, consulting at our practice with an indication for hysterectomy due to benign gynaecological disease will be eligible. After stratification according to uterine size on clinical examination, participants will be randomised to be treated by laparoscopy or by transvaginal NOTES. Participants will be evaluated on day 0, days 1–7 and at 3 and 6 months. The following data will be collected: the proportion of women successfully treated by removing the uterus by the intended approach as randomised; the proportion of women admitted to the inpatient hospital; postoperative pain scores measured twice daily by the women from day 1 to 7; the total amount of analgesics used from day 1 to 7; readmission during the first 6 weeks; presence and intensity of dyspareunia and sexual well-being at baseline, 3 and 6 months (Short Sexual Functioning Scale (SSFS) scale); duration of surgery; postoperative infection or other surgical complications; direct and indirect costs incurred up to 6 weeks following surgery. The primary outcome will be the proportion of women successfully treated by the intended technique; all other outcomes are secondary.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved on 1 December 2015 by the Ethics Committee of the Imelda Hospital, Bonheiden, Belgium. The first patient was randomised on 17 December 2015. The last participant randomised should be treated before 30 November 2017. The results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific meetings within 4 years after starting recruitment.Trial registration numberNCT02631837; Pre-results.

Background Hysterectomy is the commonest major gynaecological surgery. Although there are many approaches to hysterectomy, which depend on clinical criteria, certain patients may be eligible to be operated in any of the several available approaches. However, most comparative studies on hysterectomy are between two approaches. There is also a relative absence of data on long-term outcomes on quality of life and pelvic organ function. There is no single study which has considered quality of life, pelvic organ function and cost-effectiveness for the three main types of hysterectomy. Therefore, the objective of this study is to provide evidence on the optimal route of hysterectomy in terms of cost-effectiveness by way of a three-armed randomized control study between non-descent vaginal hysterectomy, total laparoscopic hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy. Methods A multicentre three-armed randomized control trial is being conducted at the professorial gynaecology unit of the North Colombo Teaching Hospital, Ragama, Sri Lanka and gynaecology unit of the District General Hospital, Mannar, Sri Lanka. The study population is women needing hysterectomy for non-malignant uterine causes. Patients with a uterus > 14 weeks, previous pelvic surgery, those requiring incontinence surgery or pelvic floor surgery, any medical illness which caution/contraindicate laparoscopic surgery and who cannot read and write will be excluded. The main exposure variable is non-descent vaginal hysterectomy and total laparoscopic hysterectomy. The control group will be patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy. The primary outcome is time to recover following surgery, which is the earliest time to resume all of the usual activities done prior to surgery. In total, 147 patients (49 per arm) are needed to have 80% power at α-0.01 considering a loss to follow-up of 20% to detect a 7-day difference between the three routes; TLH versus TAH versus NDVH. The economic evaluation will take a societal perspective and will include direct costs in relation to allocation of healthcare resources and indirect costs which are borne by the patient. A micro-costing approach will be adopted to calculate direct costs from the time of presentation to the gynaecology clinic up to 6 months after surgery. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) will be obtained by calculating the incremental costs divided by the incremental effects (time to recover and QALYs gained) for the intervention groups (NDVH and TLH) over the standard care (TAH) group. Discussion The cost of the procedure, quality of life and pelvic organ function following the three main routes of hysterectomy are important to clinicians and healthcare providers, both in developed and developing countries. Trial registration The study was registered in the Sri Lanka clinical trials registry (SLCTR/2016/020) and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( U1111-1194-8422 ) on 26 July 2016.

Heavy menstrual blood loss is a common reason for women to seek medical care. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (IUS) is an effective medical treatment for menorrhagia. We report a randomised comparison of this approach with hysterectomy in terms of the quality of life of women with menorrhagia and cost-effectiveness. Of 598 women referred with menorrhagia to five university hospitals in Finland, 236 were eligible and agreed to take part. They were randomly assigned treatment with the levonorgestrel-releasing IUS (n=119) or hysterectomy (n=117). The amount of menstrual blood loss was objectively measured. The primary outcome measure was health-related quality of life at 12-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. In the group assigned the levonorgestrel-releasing IUS, 24 (20%) women had had hysterectomy and 81 (68%) continued to use the system at 12 months. Of the women assigned to the hysterectomy group, 107 underwent the operation. Health-related quality of life improved significantly in both the IUS and hysterectomy groups (change 0·10 [95% CI 0·06–0·14] in both groups) as did other indices of psychological wellbeing. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups except that women with hysterectomy suffered less pain. Overall costs were about three times higher for the hysterectomy group than for the IUS group. The significant improvement in health-related quality of life highlights the importance of treating menorrhagia. During the first year the levonorgestrel-releasing IUS was a cost-effective alternative to hysterectomy in treatment of this disorder.

ObjectiveTo compare surgical outcomes, postoperative complications and costs between vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy in cases of large uteri.MethodsProspective randomized controlled trial done at Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital, where 50 patients were recruited and divided into two equal groups (each 25 patients). First group underwent vaginal hysterectomy, and the second underwent laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy.ResultsPatient characteristics were similar in both groups. As for surgical outcomes, estimated intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.90), operative time (P = 0.48), preoperative hemoglobin (P = 0.09), postoperative hemoglobin (P = 0.42), and operative complications (P = 1.0) did not differ between the two groups. The hospital costs (converted from Egyptian pound to U.S. dollars) were significantly higher in case of LAVH group [VH:$1060.86 ($ 180.09) versus LAVH:$1560.5 ($ 220.57), P value <0.001]. No significant difference exists in the duration of postoperative hospital stay between the two groups [VH: 49.92 h (28.50) versus LAVH: 58.56 (27.78), P = 0.28] or the actual uterine weight measured postoperatively [VH: 350.72 g (71.78) versus LAVH: 385.96 g (172.52), P = 0.35].ConclusionBoth vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy are safe procedures in cases of large uteri with no significant difference between them except in terms of costs as VH appears to be more cost effective.Clinical Trials.GovNCT02826304.

Abstract Objectives: To compare hospital at home care with inpatient hospital care in terms of patient outcomes. Design: Randomised controlled trial with three month follow up. Setting:District general hospital and catchment area of neighbouring community trust. Subjects: Patients recovering from hip replacement (n=86), knee replacement (n=86), and hysterectomy (n=238); elderly medical patients (n=96); and patients with chronic obstructive airways disease (n=32). Interventions: Hospital at home care or inpatient hospital care. Main outcome measures:Dartmouth COOP chart to measure patients' general health status; SF-36 to measure possible limitations in physical functioning of patients with hysterectomy; disease specific measures chronic respiratory disease questionnaire, Barthel index for elderly medical patients, Oxford hip score, and Bristol knee score; hospital readmission and mortality data; carer strain index to measure burden on carers; patients' and carers' preferred form of care. Results: At follow up, there were no major differences in outcome between hospital at home care and hospital care for any of the patient groups except that those recovering from hip replacement reported a significantly greater improvement in quality of life with hospital at home care (difference in change from baseline value 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.88). Hospital at home did not seem suitable for patients recovering from a knee replacement, as 14 (30%) of patients allocated to hospital at home remained in hospital. Patients in all groups preferred hospital at home care except those with chronic obstructive airways disease. No differences were detected for carer burden. Carers of patients recovering from knee replacement preferred hospital at home care, while carers of patients recovering from a hysterectomy preferred hospital care. Conclusions: Few differences in outcome were detected. Thus, the cost of hospital at home compared with hospital care becomes a primary concern. Key messages Hospital at home schemes are a popular alternative to standard hospital care, but there is uncertainty about their cost effectiveness In our randomised controlled trial we compared hospital at home care with inpatient hospital care for patients recovering from hip replacement, knee replacement, and hysterectomy; elderly medical patients; and those with chronic obstructive airways disease There were no major differences in patients' reported health outcomes between the two treatments, but, because of complications commonly needing hospitalisation, patients recovering from knee replacement did not seem suitable for hospital at home care All patient groups except those with chronic obstructive airways disease preferred hospital at home care Carers of patients recovering from a hysterectomy preferred hospital care, while those of patients recovering from a knee replacement preferred hospital at home care