Trial reportBMJ open2025
Comparison of complications and recovery after laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy for benign disease: the LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy (LAVA) randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contemporary Management of Uterine Fibroids.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Laparoscopic hysterectomy versus open abdominal hysterectomy for women with a benign gynaecological condition: the LAVA RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Article
- Article
- Age-related patterns in hysterectomy: indications and surgical route selection in a three-year tertiary-center cohort.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare recovery after laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and abdominal hysterectomy (AH).
designA parallel, open, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised controlled, expertise-based surgery trial.
setting10 NHS (National Health Service) hospitals within the UK.
participantsWomen undergoing hysterectomy for a benign gynaecological condition.
interventionsConsenting women of 18-55 years were randomised to LH or AH using a secure internet facility by a surgeon with self-declared expertise. Major complications were recorded by clinicians, and recovery was assessed by regular text messaging and postal questionnaires. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Major surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo≥level 3) up to six completed weeks postsurgery, time to resumption of normal activities measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function tool and quality of recovery at 24 hours (Quality of Recovery 15 score; 0-150).
results75 women were randomised before early curtailment of the trial; 32/39 (82%) and 30/36 (83%) women underwent LH and AH, respectively. Major complications occurred in 2/32 (6%) LH versus 4/30 (13%) AH groups. No difference in time to resumption of usual activities was found (median [IQR, n] 7.5 weeks (3.6-8.2, 25) LH vs 7.5 weeks (5.5-10.6, 26) AH groups or quality of recovery (mean [SD, n] 81.1 (13.4, 27) vs 72.3 (17.6, 22), respectively; adjusted mean difference 7.2, 95% CI -3.2 to 17.6).
conclusionsNo differences were found in complications or recovery between LH and AH. However, early cessation of the trial due to recruitment challenges limits clinical inferences. It is important that larger comparative trials are conducted now that LH, including robotics, is becoming adopted as standard practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14566195, IRAS ID 287988.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.