Results of eVALuate study of hysterectomy techniques
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
EDITOR—Given the pre-eminent role of gynaecologists in developing both operative laparoscopy and randomised trials, we were astonished that we might need a gastrointestinal surgeon in our team. Many of our team were, however, intuitively empathetic with Atkinson's concern that preoperative conversion should not be considered a major complication. To exclude patients who did not receive the planned treatment would alter the complication rates and represent a post-randomisation selection bias in favour of laparoscopic hysterectomy. We therefore classified such cases as failures of the approach and thus major complications. Like Atkinson, we consider conversion to laparotomy sometimes to be prudent and the best option.
Saunders has overlooked one of the virtues of randomisation. We could not insist on a single standard anaesthetic and analgesic regimen. We could, however, ensure that in each centre the same regimen was used for both arms of each trial. As the randomisation process was rigorous, the effect of confounding variables such as the anaesthetic used should be equally distributed in each group and any effect on results essentially eliminated. We are confident in the integrity of the data showing that laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with less pain than abdominal hysterectomy.
Canis et al and Donnez et al think that we undertook the study too early in our collective experience. However, the learning curve of Canis et al was 600 cases, and Donnez et al evaluated their results only after 1000 cases. Their definitive results represent the best in the world and are the gold standard to strive for. Our primary aim was not to collect the results of such "super surgeons" but to determine the role of laparoscopic hysterectomy in routine practice.
We asked, "Are the advantages of laparoscopic surgery so great that all gynaecologists should be encouraged to undertake this approach?" The answer seems to be no, or at least not yet. The benefits of laparoscopic hysterectomy over the abdominal approach are real but are of practical value only if they can be achieved with an acceptable complication rate. Canis et al and Donnez et al show that this can be achieved, but to match the best results may require the development of many centres of laparoscopic excellence similar to theirs.
婵犵數鍎戠徊钘壝洪悩璇茬婵犻潧娲ら閬嶆煕濞戝崬鏋ゆい鈺冨厴閺屾稑鈽夐崡鐐差潾闁哄鏅滃Λ鍐蓟濞戞ǚ鏋庨煫鍥ㄦ尨閸嬫挻绂掔€ｎ亞鍔﹀銈嗗坊閸嬫捇鏌涢悩宕囥€掓俊鍙夊姇閳规垿宕堕埞鐐亙闁诲骸绠嶉崕鍗炍涘☉銏犵劦妞ゆ帒顦悘锔筋殽閻愬樊鍎旀鐐叉喘椤㈡棃宕ㄩ鐐靛搸婵犵數鍋犻幓顏嗗緤閹灐娲箣閻樺吀绗夐梺鎸庣箓閹峰宕甸崼婢棃鏁傜粵瀣妼闂佸摜鍋為幐鎶藉蓟閺囥垹骞㈤柡鍥╁Т婵′粙鏌ｉ姀鈺佺仩缂傚秴锕獮濠囨晸閻樿尙鐤€濡炪倖鎸鹃崑鐔哥閹扮増鈷戦柛锔诲帎閻熸噴娲Χ閸ヮ煈娼熼梺鍐叉惈閹冲氦绻氶梻浣呵归張顒傜矙閹烘鍊垫い鏂垮⒔绾惧ジ鏌￠崘銊モ偓绋挎毄濠电姭鎷冮崟鍨杹閻庢鍠栭悥鐓庣暦濮椻偓婵℃瓕顦抽柛鎾村灦缁绘稓鈧稒岣块惌濠偽旈悩鍙夋喐闁轰緡鍣ｉ、鏇㈡晜閽樺鈧稑鈹戦敍鍕粶濠⒀呮櫕缁瑦绻濋崶銊у幐婵犮垼娉涢敃銈夊汲閺囩喐鍙忛柣鐔煎亰濡偓闂佽桨绀佺粔鎾偩濠靛绀冩い顓熷灣閹寸兘姊绘担绛嬪殐闁哥姵鎹囧畷婵婄疀濞戣鲸鏅ｇ紓鍌欑劍宀ｅ潡鍩㈤弮鍫熺厽闁瑰鍎戞笟娑㈡煕閺傚灝鏆ｉ柡宀嬬節瀹曟帒顫濋鐘靛幀缂傚倷鐒﹂〃鍛此囬柆宥呯劦妞ゆ帒鍠氬ḿ鎰磼椤旇偐绠婚柨婵堝仱閺佸啴宕掑鍗炴憢闂佽崵濞€缂傛艾鈻嶉敐鍥╃煋闁割煈鍠撻埀顒佸笒椤繈顢橀悩顐ｎ潔闂備線娼уú銈吤洪妸鈺佺劦妞ゆ帒鍋嗛弨鐗堢箾婢跺娲寸€规洏鍨芥俊鍫曞炊閵娿儺浼曢柣鐔哥矌婢ф鏁Δ鍜冪稏濠㈣埖鍔栭崑锝夋煕閵夘垰顩☉鎾瑰皺缁辨帗娼忛妸褏鐣奸梺褰掝棑婵炩偓闁诡喗绮撻幐濠冨緞婢跺瞼姊炬繝鐢靛仜椤曨厽鎱ㄦィ鍐ㄦ槬闁哄稁鍘奸崹鍌炴煏婵炵偓娅嗛柛瀣ㄥ妼闇夐柨婵嗘噹閺嗙喐淇婇姘卞ⅵ婵﹥妞介、鏇㈡晲閸℃瑦顓婚梻浣虹帛閹碱偆鎹㈠┑瀣祦閻庯綆鍠栫粻锝嗙節婵犲倸顏柟鏋姂濮婃椽骞愭惔锝傛闂佸搫鐗滈崜鐔风暦閻熸壋鍫柛鏇ㄥ弾濞村嫬顪冮妶鍡楃瑐闁绘帪绠撳鎶筋敂閸喓鍘遍梺鐟版惈缁夋潙鐣甸崱娑欑厓鐟滄粓宕滃顒夋僵闁靛ň鏅滈崑鍌炴煥閻斿搫孝閻熸瑱绠撻獮鏍箹椤撶偟浠紓浣插亾濠㈣泛鈯曡ぐ鎺戠闁稿繗鍋愬▓銈夋⒑缂佹ḿ绠栭柣鈺婂灠閻ｇ兘鏁撻悩鑼槰闂佽偐鈷堥崜姘额敊閹达附鈷戦悹鍥ｂ偓铏亖闂佸憡鏌ㄦ鎼佸煝閹捐绠ｉ柣鎰綑椤庢挸鈹戦悩璇у伐闁哥噥鍨堕獮鍡涘磼濮ｎ厼缍婇幃鈺呭箵閹烘繂濡锋繝鐢靛Л閸嬫捇鏌熷▓鍨灓缁鹃箖绠栭弻鐔衡偓鐢登瑰暩閻熸粎澧楅悡锟犲蓟濞戙垹绠抽柡鍌氱氨閺嬪懎鈹戦悙鍙夊櫣闂佸府绲炬穱濠囧箻椤旇姤娅㈤梺璺ㄥ櫐閹凤拷Saunders has overlooked one of the virtues of randomisation. We could not insist on a single standard anaesthetic and analgesic regimen. We could, however, ensure that in each centre the same regimen was used for both arms of each trial. As the randomisation process was rigorous, the effect of confounding variables such as the anaesthetic used should be equally distributed in each group and any effect on results essentially eliminated. We are confident in the integrity of the data showing that laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with less pain than abdominal hysterectomy.
Canis et al and Donnez et al think that we undertook the study too early in our collective experience. However, the learning curve of Canis et al was 600 cases, and Donnez et al evaluated their results only after 1000 cases. Their definitive results represent the best in the world and are the gold standard to strive for. Our primary aim was not to collect the results of such "super surgeons" but to determine the role of laparoscopic hysterectomy in routine practice.
We asked, "Are the advantages of laparoscopic surgery so great that all gynaecologists should be encouraged to undertake this approach?" The answer seems to be no, or at least not yet. The benefits of laparoscopic hysterectomy over the abdominal approach are real but are of practical value only if they can be achieved with an acceptable complication rate. Canis et al and Donnez et al show that this can be achieved, but to match the best results may require the development of many centres of laparoscopic excellence similar to theirs.