Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38153958›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2023

Procedural sedation and analgesia versus general anesthesia for hysteroscopic myomectomy (PROSECCO trial): A multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Julia F van der Meulen, Marlies Y Bongers, Lisa G van der Zee, Jaklien C Leemans, Ruben G Duijnhoven, Robert A de Leeuw, Lucilla E Overdijk, Celine M Radder, Lucet F van der Voet, Nicol A C Smeets and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
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

20 authors at 12 institutions in 2 countries.

Julia F van der MeulenDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9483-146X
Marlies Y BongersDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, the Netherlands.
Lisa G van der ZeeFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Jaklien C LeemansDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, the Netherlands.
Ruben G DuijnhovenDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4784-4396
Robert A de LeeuwDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9344-7754
Lucilla E OverdijkDepartment of Anesthesiology, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Celine M RadderDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7555-4073
Lucet F van der VoetDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Deventer Ziekenhuis, Deventer, the Netherlands.
Nicol A C SmeetsDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Huib A A M van VlietDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Wouter J K HehenkampDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3678-7899
Arentje P MangerDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Arianne C LimDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5688-965X
Louisette W PetersDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Nicole HorreeDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Flevoziekenhuis, Almere, the Netherlands.
Justine M BriëtDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands.
Jan Willem van der SteegDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Sjors F P J CoppusDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6786-5824
Helen S KokDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Alrijne Ziekenhuis, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0724-6340
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLOLVG · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NLAlrijne Ziekenhuis · NLDeventer Ziekenhuis · NLDiakonessenhuis hospital · NLFlevoziekenhuis · NLJeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis · NLMaastricht University · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLZiekenhuis Groep Twente · NLZuyderland Medisch Centrum · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHysteroscopic resection is the first-choice treatment for symptomatic type 0 and 1 fibroids. Traditionally, this was performed under general anesthesia. Over the last decade, surgical procedures are increasingly being performed in an outpatient setting under procedural sedation and analgesia. However, studies evaluating safety and effectiveness of hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation are lacking. This study aims to investigate whether hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol is noninferior to hysteroscopic myomectomy under general anesthesia. METHODS AND

findingsThis was a multicenter, randomized controlled noninferiority trial conducted in 14 university and teaching hospitals in the Netherlands between 2016 and 2021. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, maximum number of 3 type 0 or 1 fibroids, maximum fibroid diameter 3.5 cm, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 or 2, and having sufficient knowledge of the Dutch or English language. Women with clotting disorders or with severe anemia (Hb < 5.0 mmol/L) were excluded. Women were randomized using block randomization with variable block sizes of 2, 4, and 6, between hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) with propofol or under general anesthesia (GA). Primary outcome was the percentage of complete resections, assessed on transvaginal ultrasonography 6 weeks postoperatively by a sonographer blinded for the treatment arm and surgical outcome. Secondary outcomes were the surgeon's judgment of completeness of procedure, menstrual blood loss, uterine fibroid related and general quality of life, pain, recovery, hospitalization, complications, and surgical reinterventions. Follow-up period was 1 year. The risk difference between both treatment arms was estimated, and a Farrington-Manning test was used to determine the p-value for noninferiority (noninferiority margin 7.5% of incomplete resections). Data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle, including a per-protocol analysis for the primary outcome. A total of 209 women participated in the study and underwent hysteroscopic myomectomy with PSA (n = 106) or GA (n = 103). Mean age was 45.1 [SD 6.4] years in the PSA group versus 45.0 [7.7] years in the GA group. For 98/106 women in the PSA group and 89/103 women in the GA group, data were available for analysis of the primary outcome. Hysteroscopic resection was complete in 86/98 women (87.8%) in the PSA group and 79/89 women (88.8%) in the GA group (risk difference -1.01%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.36 to 8.34; noninferiority, P = 0.09). No serious anesthesiologic complications occurred, and conversion from PSA to GA was not required. During the follow-up period, 15 serious adverse events occurred (overnight admissions). All were unrelated to the intervention studied. Main limitations were the choice of primary outcome and the fact that our study proved to be underpowered.

conclusionsNoninferiority of PSA for completeness of resection was not shown, though there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes and quality of life. In this study, hysteroscopic myomectomy for type 0 and 1 fibroids with PSA compared to GA was safe and led to shorter hospitalization. These results can be used for counseling patients by gynecologists and anesthesiologists. Based on these findings, we suggest that hysteroscopic myomectomies can be performed under PSA in an outpatient setting.

trial registrationThe study was registered prospectively in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR 5357; registration date: 11 August 2015; Date of initial participant enrollment: 18 February 2016).

Indexed as

AnalgesiaLeiomyomaPropofolUterine MyomectomyUterine NeoplasmsAdolescentAnesthesia, GeneralFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPainQuality of LifePropofol

Identifiers

PMID38153958
PMCPMC10754450
OpenAlexW4390331945

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.