Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32322826›Full record

ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2020

Laparoscopic vs percutaneous hysterectomy in obese patients: a prospective evaluation.

E Perrone, F Fanfani, C Rossitto, S Cianci, A Fagotti, S Restaino, C Fedele, G Scambia, S Gueli Alletti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Postoperative pain after MiniLap percutaneous versus standard laparoscopic salpingo-oophorectomy: A propensity-matched study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

E PerroneDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
F FanfaniDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
C RossittoDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
S CianciDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
A FagottiDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
S RestainoDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
C FedeleUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Istituto di Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologia, Rome, Italy.
G ScambiaDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
S Gueli AllettiDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment of obese female patients represents a real challenge. Indeed, obesity among women has reached epidemic levels not only elevating the cardiovascular and endocrinological risks, but also increasing the incidence of various gynecological pathologies (e.g. endometrial cancer and hyperplasia, uterine fibroids, genital prolapse) which commonly require hysterectomy as a surgical solution. In the last decade, minimally invasive surgery has emerged as an approach reducing the invasiveness of the standard laparoscopic surgical procedures while maintaining efficacy and feasibility. As such, in this study we aimed to evaluate the feasibility of percutaneous hysterectomy (PSS-H) approach in obese patients by reporting the first prospective comparison between the PSS-H to laparoscopic hysterectomy (LPS-H).

methodsIn this multicentric comparative prospective study, 45 patients affected by benign and malignant gynecological conditions were considered eligible for minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Fifteen patients received PSS-H and 30 LPS-H. All patients enrolled received a total hysterectomy ± bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, with or without lymph nodal staging.

resultsNo statistically significant differences were noted in operative time and estimated blood loss between the two groups. Four patients in PSS-H group and 3 in LPS-H group received lymph node staging. A multifunctional energy device was used in all PSS-H and 73.3% of LPS-H procedures (p=0.038). There were no conversions to laparotomy in either group and similarly there were no conversions to conventional laparoscopy in the PSS-H group. In the LPS-H group, there was one (3.3%) case of major bleeding( ≥ 500 mls). We recorded one vaginal cuff bleeding in PSS-H, whereas for LPS-H we reported 4 (13.3%) 30-days complications (p=0.651). No differences in visual analogue scale (VAS) score were recorded. A significant disparity was noted in cosmetic outcome at discharge (p=0.001), but not after 30 days.

conclusionWe demonstrated for the first time, in a prospective comparison between PSS and LPS approaches, that PSS-H may represent a valid alternative to performing total hysterectomy in obese patients.

Indexed as

gynecological surgeryhysterectomyMinimally invasive surgerynew technologypercutaneous approachpersonalized surgical treatment

Identifiers

PMID32322826
PMCPMC7162661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.