Comparison of complications and recovery after laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy for benign disease: the LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy (LAVA) randomised controlled trial
Lina Antoun, Rebecca Woolley, Lee Middleton, Paul D. Smith, Ertan Sarıdoğan, Kevin Cooper, William McKinnon, Sheriden Bevan, Kamila Ziomek, Zeyah Sairally, Laura Jones, Jayne Fullard, Monique Morgan, T. Justin Clark
- Year
- 2025
- Citations
- 3
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare recovery after laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and abdominal hysterectomy (AH). DESIGN: A parallel, open, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised controlled, expertise-based surgery trial. SETTING: 10 NHS (National Health Service) hospitals within the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women undergoing hysterectomy for a benign gynaecological condition. INTERVENTIONS: Consenting 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). RESULTS: 75 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). CONCLUSIONS: No 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.
Keywords
Related papers
Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets
Daron Acemoğlu, Pascual Restrepo
2019
Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm
Leigh R. Hochberg, Daniel Bacher, Beata Jarosiewicz +8 more
2012
Campbell-Walsh urology
Alan J. Wein editor-in-chief
2012
Stroke rehabilitation
Peter Langhorne, Julie Bernhardt, Gert Kwakkel
2011