Surgery

An analysis of four commonly performed surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence found that they all improved sexual dysfunction to a similar degree over the course of 24 months.

Juanmonino/E+/Getty Images

“There is a growing body of literature concerning female sexual function after treatment for urinary incontinence,” Stephanie M. Glass Clark, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. “Pelvic floor muscle therapy has been shown to improve sexual function as well as urinary incontinence symptoms. Surgical treatment, on the other hand, has had unclear effects on sexual function.”

Dr. Glass Clark and colleagues conducted a combined secondary analysis of the SISTEr (Stress Incontinence Surgical Treatment Efficacy Trial) and TOMUS (Trial of Mid-Urethral Slings) studies. Women in the original trials were randomized to receive surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence with an autologous fascial sling or Burch colposuspension (SISTEr), or a retropubic or transobturator midurethral sling (TOMUS). Sexual function as assessed by the short version of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/ Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) was compared between groups at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months.

Of the 924 women included, 249 (27%) had an autologous fascial sling, 239 (26%) underwent Burch colposuspension, 216 (23%) had a retropubic midurethral sling placed, and 220 (24%) had a transobturator midurethral sling placed. The researchers observed no significant differences in mean PISQ-12 scores between the four treatment groups at the time of baseline (P = .07) or at the 12- and 24-month visits (P = .42 and P = .50, respectively). Patients in the two studies showed an overall improvement in sexual function over the 24-month study period.

Specifically, PISQ-12 scores at baseline were 32.6 in the transobturator sling group, 33.1 in the retropubic sling group, 31.9 in the Burch procedure group, and 31.4 in the fascial sling group. At 12 months, the PISQ-12 scores rose to 37.7 in the transobturator sling group, 37.8 in the retropubic sling group, 36.9 in the Burch procedure group, and 37.1 in the fascial sling group. These scores were generally maintained at 24 months (37.7 in the transobturator sling group, 37.1 in the retropubic sling group, 36.7 in the Burch procedure group, and 37.4 in the fascial sling group), and were not statistically different than the scores tabulated at the 12-month follow-up visit (P = .97).

“This study and others demonstrate that sexual function improves with surgical improvement of stress incontinence which may suggest a possible association of urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction,” Dr. Glass Clark and colleagues concluded. “As we continue to explore the complex and multifaceted problem of sexual dysfunction, further evaluation of the effect of pelvic floor disorders – and their treatments – will be important and necessary research.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that there was a low degree of diversity among women in the studied trials, which limits the generalizability of the findings. They also pointed out that the PISQ-12 does not address sexual stimulation or nonpenetrative vaginal intercourse. “Additionally, it limits partner-related problems to erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation; some eligible participants may be excluded secondary to sexual preferences given the assumptions inherent to the questionnaire that the partner is male,” they wrote.

This secondary analysis had no outside sources of funding. Dr. Glass Clark reported that she received a travel stipend from the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, sponsored by OB-STATS. Her coauthors reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Glass Clark SM et al. Obstet Gynecol 2020;135(2):352-60.

An analysis of four commonly performed surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence found that they all improved sexual dysfunction to a similar degree over the course of 24 months.

Juanmonino/E+/Getty Images

“There is a growing body of literature concerning female sexual function after treatment for urinary incontinence,” Stephanie M. Glass Clark, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. “Pelvic floor muscle therapy has been shown to improve sexual function as well as urinary incontinence symptoms. Surgical treatment, on the other hand, has had unclear effects on sexual function.”

Dr. Glass Clark and colleagues conducted a combined secondary analysis of the SISTEr (Stress Incontinence Surgical Treatment Efficacy Trial) and TOMUS (Trial of Mid-Urethral Slings) studies. Women in the original trials were randomized to receive surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence with an autologous fascial sling or Burch colposuspension (SISTEr), or a retropubic or transobturator midurethral sling (TOMUS). Sexual function as assessed by the short version of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/ Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) was compared between groups at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months.

Of the 924 women included, 249 (27%) had an autologous fascial sling, 239 (26%) underwent Burch colposuspension, 216 (23%) had a retropubic midurethral sling placed, and 220 (24%) had a transobturator midurethral sling placed. The researchers observed no significant differences in mean PISQ-12 scores between the four treatment groups at the time of baseline (P = .07) or at the 12- and 24-month visits (P = .42 and P = .50, respectively). Patients in the two studies showed an overall improvement in sexual function over the 24-month study period.

Specifically, PISQ-12 scores at baseline were 32.6 in the transobturator sling group, 33.1 in the retropubic sling group, 31.9 in the Burch procedure group, and 31.4 in the fascial sling group. At 12 months, the PISQ-12 scores rose to 37.7 in the transobturator sling group, 37.8 in the retropubic sling group, 36.9 in the Burch procedure group, and 37.1 in the fascial sling group. These scores were generally maintained at 24 months (37.7 in the transobturator sling group, 37.1 in the retropubic sling group, 36.7 in the Burch procedure group, and 37.4 in the fascial sling group), and were not statistically different than the scores tabulated at the 12-month follow-up visit (P = .97).

“This study and others demonstrate that sexual function improves with surgical improvement of stress incontinence which may suggest a possible association of urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction,” Dr. Glass Clark and colleagues concluded. “As we continue to explore the complex and multifaceted problem of sexual dysfunction, further evaluation of the effect of pelvic floor disorders – and their treatments – will be important and necessary research.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that there was a low degree of diversity among women in the studied trials, which limits the generalizability of the findings. They also pointed out that the PISQ-12 does not address sexual stimulation or nonpenetrative vaginal intercourse. “Additionally, it limits partner-related problems to erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation; some eligible participants may be excluded secondary to sexual preferences given the assumptions inherent to the questionnaire that the partner is male,” they wrote.

This secondary analysis had no outside sources of funding. Dr. Glass Clark reported that she received a travel stipend from the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, sponsored by OB-STATS. Her coauthors reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Glass Clark SM et al. Obstet Gynecol 2020;135(2):352-60.

An analysis of four commonly performed surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence found that they all improved sexual dysfunction to a similar degree over the course of 24 months.

Juanmonino/E+/Getty Images

“There is a growing body of literature concerning female sexual function after treatment for urinary incontinence,” Stephanie M. Glass Clark, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. “Pelvic floor muscle therapy has been shown to improve sexual function as well as urinary incontinence symptoms. Surgical treatment, on the other hand, has had unclear effects on sexual function.”

Dr. Glass Clark and colleagues conducted a combined secondary analysis of the SISTEr (Stress Incontinence Surgical Treatment Efficacy Trial) and TOMUS (Trial of Mid-Urethral Slings) studies. Women in the original trials were randomized to receive surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence with an autologous fascial sling or Burch colposuspension (SISTEr), or a retropubic or transobturator midurethral sling (TOMUS). Sexual function as assessed by the short version of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/ Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) was compared between groups at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months.

Of the 924 women included, 249 (27%) had an autologous fascial sling, 239 (26%) underwent Burch colposuspension, 216 (23%) had a retropubic midurethral sling placed, and 220 (24%) had a transobturator midurethral sling placed. The researchers observed no significant differences in mean PISQ-12 scores between the four treatment groups at the time of baseline (P = .07) or at the 12- and 24-month visits (P = .42 and P = .50, respectively). Patients in the two studies showed an overall improvement in sexual function over the 24-month study period.

Specifically, PISQ-12 scores at baseline were 32.6 in the transobturator sling group, 33.1 in the retropubic sling group, 31.9 in the Burch procedure group, and 31.4 in the fascial sling group. At 12 months, the PISQ-12 scores rose to 37.7 in the transobturator sling group, 37.8 in the retropubic sling group, 36.9 in the Burch procedure group, and 37.1 in the fascial sling group. These scores were generally maintained at 24 months (37.7 in the transobturator sling group, 37.1 in the retropubic sling group, 36.7 in the Burch procedure group, and 37.4 in the fascial sling group), and were not statistically different than the scores tabulated at the 12-month follow-up visit (P = .97).

“This study and others demonstrate that sexual function improves with surgical improvement of stress incontinence which may suggest a possible association of urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction,” Dr. Glass Clark and colleagues concluded. “As we continue to explore the complex and multifaceted problem of sexual dysfunction, further evaluation of the effect of pelvic floor disorders – and their treatments – will be important and necessary research.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that there was a low degree of diversity among women in the studied trials, which limits the generalizability of the findings. They also pointed out that the PISQ-12 does not address sexual stimulation or nonpenetrative vaginal intercourse. “Additionally, it limits partner-related problems to erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation; some eligible participants may be excluded secondary to sexual preferences given the assumptions inherent to the questionnaire that the partner is male,” they wrote.

This secondary analysis had no outside sources of funding. Dr. Glass Clark reported that she received a travel stipend from the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, sponsored by OB-STATS. Her coauthors reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Glass Clark SM et al. Obstet Gynecol 2020;135(2):352-60.

An accelerated path to surgery after hip fracture did not improve mortality or major complications, according to a new international randomized trial. However, a fast track to surgery hastened mobilization, weight-bearing, and hospital discharge, and reduced the risk of urinary tract infection and delirium.

The HIP ATTACK (Hip Fracture Accelerated Surgical Treatment and Care Track) study enrolled 2,970 patients (median age, 79 years; 69% women) during March 2014-May 2019. The study excluded patients younger than 45 years, as well as those who were on nonreversible anticoagulation and who had high-energy or more complex hip fractures. In all, 1,487 patients were randomly assigned to the accelerated-surgery group, which received early medical evaluation with a goal of heading to surgery within 6 hours of a hip fracture diagnosis. The goal was achieved, with patients in the intervention arm receiving care at a median 6 hours after diagnosis. Patients in the 69 participating hospitals in 17 countries who were assigned to standard of care received surgery at a median 24 hours after diagnosis (P less than .001).

“Observational data, clinical experience, and biological rationale suggest that the longer a patient is immobile and lying in a bed, the higher the risk of poor outcomes,” wrote principal investigators Philip J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, and Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and their colleagues on the HIP ATTACK writing committee.

The study was the first large, randomized trial that directly compared accelerated surgery with standard of care, noted the authors. Previous observational studies had shown worse outcomes for those usual-care patients who waited longer for surgery.

In HIP ATTACK, there was no difference in the primary outcome measures of 90-day mortality and major complications for patients receiving surgery within 6 hours after hip fracture diagnosis, compared with those who received surgery within 24 hours. The coprimary outcome measures included serious complications, such as MI, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, and life-threatening or major bleeding.

In practice, the researchers found that patients in the accelerated-surgery group received medical clearance in a median time of 2 hours after a diagnosis of hip fracture, whereas the standard of care group was cleared in 4 hours.

At 90 days, 9% of patients in the accelerated-surgery group and 10% of those in the usual-care group had died, a nonsignificant difference between the two groups. In both groups, 22% of patients experienced a major complication. A post hoc analysis that looked for any site-clustering effects did not detect different outcomes, the investigators wrote.

Delirium occurred in 132 patients (9%) of the accelerated-surgery group and in 175 patients (12%) in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92). Infection without sepsis and urinary tract infection were both less common in the accelerated-surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.80 and 0.78, respectively).

The authors noted that the potential benefits of a speedy course to surgery, including reduced immobility and less pain, could be negated if physicians had less time to optimize medical care for older patients with multiple comorbidities and who make up a significant proportion of those who sustain low-energy hip fractures. However, medical complications, such as MI and new-onset atrial fibrillation, were not seen more frequently in the accelerated-surgery group.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla, MD, and Fernando Lopez-Prats, MD, of the Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain, observed that the 6-hour window for hip fracture surgery may be difficult to achieve given clinical practicalities and that, in some cases, the 6-hour window might be unavoidable if severe comorbidities and overall poor health make early surgery inadvisable.

They also expressed concern that, despite the lack of harm shown in the patients who underwent accelerated surgery, the surgery “might negatively affect patients’ outcomes by preventing or limiting the opportunity for optimization of patients’ medical conditions before surgery.” They called for further study to delineate how fitness for surgery affects outcomes in accelerated surgery and to further examine whether the better outcomes are associated with improved cost-effectiveness.

Multiple HIP ATTACK coinvestigators reported relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including companies that manufacture hip prosthesis and orthopedic surgical devices and implants. The study was sponsored by the Canadian Population Health Research Institute, the Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation, Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, Smith & Nephew (to recruit patients in Spain), and Indiegogo Crowdfunding.

SOURCE: Borges F et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb. 9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30058-1.


 

An accelerated path to surgery after hip fracture did not improve mortality or major complications, according to a new international randomized trial. However, a fast track to surgery hastened mobilization, weight-bearing, and hospital discharge, and reduced the risk of urinary tract infection and delirium.

The HIP ATTACK (Hip Fracture Accelerated Surgical Treatment and Care Track) study enrolled 2,970 patients (median age, 79 years; 69% women) during March 2014-May 2019. The study excluded patients younger than 45 years, as well as those who were on nonreversible anticoagulation and who had high-energy or more complex hip fractures. In all, 1,487 patients were randomly assigned to the accelerated-surgery group, which received early medical evaluation with a goal of heading to surgery within 6 hours of a hip fracture diagnosis. The goal was achieved, with patients in the intervention arm receiving care at a median 6 hours after diagnosis. Patients in the 69 participating hospitals in 17 countries who were assigned to standard of care received surgery at a median 24 hours after diagnosis (P less than .001).

“Observational data, clinical experience, and biological rationale suggest that the longer a patient is immobile and lying in a bed, the higher the risk of poor outcomes,” wrote principal investigators Philip J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, and Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and their colleagues on the HIP ATTACK writing committee.

The study was the first large, randomized trial that directly compared accelerated surgery with standard of care, noted the authors. Previous observational studies had shown worse outcomes for those usual-care patients who waited longer for surgery.

In HIP ATTACK, there was no difference in the primary outcome measures of 90-day mortality and major complications for patients receiving surgery within 6 hours after hip fracture diagnosis, compared with those who received surgery within 24 hours. The coprimary outcome measures included serious complications, such as MI, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, and life-threatening or major bleeding.

In practice, the researchers found that patients in the accelerated-surgery group received medical clearance in a median time of 2 hours after a diagnosis of hip fracture, whereas the standard of care group was cleared in 4 hours.

At 90 days, 9% of patients in the accelerated-surgery group and 10% of those in the usual-care group had died, a nonsignificant difference between the two groups. In both groups, 22% of patients experienced a major complication. A post hoc analysis that looked for any site-clustering effects did not detect different outcomes, the investigators wrote.

Delirium occurred in 132 patients (9%) of the accelerated-surgery group and in 175 patients (12%) in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92). Infection without sepsis and urinary tract infection were both less common in the accelerated-surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.80 and 0.78, respectively).

The authors noted that the potential benefits of a speedy course to surgery, including reduced immobility and less pain, could be negated if physicians had less time to optimize medical care for older patients with multiple comorbidities and who make up a significant proportion of those who sustain low-energy hip fractures. However, medical complications, such as MI and new-onset atrial fibrillation, were not seen more frequently in the accelerated-surgery group.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla, MD, and Fernando Lopez-Prats, MD, of the Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain, observed that the 6-hour window for hip fracture surgery may be difficult to achieve given clinical practicalities and that, in some cases, the 6-hour window might be unavoidable if severe comorbidities and overall poor health make early surgery inadvisable.

They also expressed concern that, despite the lack of harm shown in the patients who underwent accelerated surgery, the surgery “might negatively affect patients’ outcomes by preventing or limiting the opportunity for optimization of patients’ medical conditions before surgery.” They called for further study to delineate how fitness for surgery affects outcomes in accelerated surgery and to further examine whether the better outcomes are associated with improved cost-effectiveness.

Multiple HIP ATTACK coinvestigators reported relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including companies that manufacture hip prosthesis and orthopedic surgical devices and implants. The study was sponsored by the Canadian Population Health Research Institute, the Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation, Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, Smith & Nephew (to recruit patients in Spain), and Indiegogo Crowdfunding.

SOURCE: Borges F et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb. 9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30058-1.


 

An accelerated path to surgery after hip fracture did not improve mortality or major complications, according to a new international randomized trial. However, a fast track to surgery hastened mobilization, weight-bearing, and hospital discharge, and reduced the risk of urinary tract infection and delirium.

The HIP ATTACK (Hip Fracture Accelerated Surgical Treatment and Care Track) study enrolled 2,970 patients (median age, 79 years; 69% women) during March 2014-May 2019. The study excluded patients younger than 45 years, as well as those who were on nonreversible anticoagulation and who had high-energy or more complex hip fractures. In all, 1,487 patients were randomly assigned to the accelerated-surgery group, which received early medical evaluation with a goal of heading to surgery within 6 hours of a hip fracture diagnosis. The goal was achieved, with patients in the intervention arm receiving care at a median 6 hours after diagnosis. Patients in the 69 participating hospitals in 17 countries who were assigned to standard of care received surgery at a median 24 hours after diagnosis (P less than .001).

“Observational data, clinical experience, and biological rationale suggest that the longer a patient is immobile and lying in a bed, the higher the risk of poor outcomes,” wrote principal investigators Philip J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, and Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and their colleagues on the HIP ATTACK writing committee.

The study was the first large, randomized trial that directly compared accelerated surgery with standard of care, noted the authors. Previous observational studies had shown worse outcomes for those usual-care patients who waited longer for surgery.

In HIP ATTACK, there was no difference in the primary outcome measures of 90-day mortality and major complications for patients receiving surgery within 6 hours after hip fracture diagnosis, compared with those who received surgery within 24 hours. The coprimary outcome measures included serious complications, such as MI, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, and life-threatening or major bleeding.

In practice, the researchers found that patients in the accelerated-surgery group received medical clearance in a median time of 2 hours after a diagnosis of hip fracture, whereas the standard of care group was cleared in 4 hours.

At 90 days, 9% of patients in the accelerated-surgery group and 10% of those in the usual-care group had died, a nonsignificant difference between the two groups. In both groups, 22% of patients experienced a major complication. A post hoc analysis that looked for any site-clustering effects did not detect different outcomes, the investigators wrote.

Delirium occurred in 132 patients (9%) of the accelerated-surgery group and in 175 patients (12%) in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92). Infection without sepsis and urinary tract infection were both less common in the accelerated-surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.80 and 0.78, respectively).

The authors noted that the potential benefits of a speedy course to surgery, including reduced immobility and less pain, could be negated if physicians had less time to optimize medical care for older patients with multiple comorbidities and who make up a significant proportion of those who sustain low-energy hip fractures. However, medical complications, such as MI and new-onset atrial fibrillation, were not seen more frequently in the accelerated-surgery group.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla, MD, and Fernando Lopez-Prats, MD, of the Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain, observed that the 6-hour window for hip fracture surgery may be difficult to achieve given clinical practicalities and that, in some cases, the 6-hour window might be unavoidable if severe comorbidities and overall poor health make early surgery inadvisable.

They also expressed concern that, despite the lack of harm shown in the patients who underwent accelerated surgery, the surgery “might negatively affect patients’ outcomes by preventing or limiting the opportunity for optimization of patients’ medical conditions before surgery.” They called for further study to delineate how fitness for surgery affects outcomes in accelerated surgery and to further examine whether the better outcomes are associated with improved cost-effectiveness.

Multiple HIP ATTACK coinvestigators reported relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including companies that manufacture hip prosthesis and orthopedic surgical devices and implants. The study was sponsored by the Canadian Population Health Research Institute, the Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation, Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, Smith & Nephew (to recruit patients in Spain), and Indiegogo Crowdfunding.

SOURCE: Borges F et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb. 9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30058-1.


 

LAS VEGAS – While it’s fading in popularity, ovary removal in hysterectomy is still far from uncommon. A gynecologic surgeon urged colleagues to give deeper consideration to whether the ovaries can stay in place.

“Gynecologists should truly familiarize themselves with the data on cardiovascular, endocrine, bone, and sexual health implications of removing the ovaries when there isn’t a medical indication to do so,” Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, director of the Kelly gynecologic oncology service and the director of the center for rare gynecologic cancers at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said in an interview following her presentation at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

“Until I started giving this talk, I thought I knew this data. However, once I took a deeper dive into the studies of how hormonally active the postmenopausal ovaries are, as well as the population-based studies demonstrating worse all-cause mortality outcomes in low-risk women who have their ovaries surgically removed prior to their 60s, I was stunned at how compelling this data is,” she said.

The conventional wisdom about ovary removal in hysterectomy has changed dramatically over the decades. As Dr. Nickles Fader explained in the interview, “in the ’80s and early ’90s, the mantra was ‘just take everything out’ at hysterectomy surgery – tubes and ovaries should be removed – without understanding the implications. Then in the late ’90s and early 2000s, it was a more selective strategy of ‘wait until menopause to remove the ovaries.’ ”

Now, “more contemporary data suggests that the ovaries appear to be hormonally active to some degree well into the seventh decade of life, and even women in their early 60s who have their ovaries removed without a medical indication may be harmed.”

Still, ovary removal occurs in about 50%-60% of the 450,000-500,000 hysterectomies performed each year in the United States, Dr. Nickles Fader said at the meeting, which was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

These findings seem to suggest that messages about the potential benefits of ovary preservation are not getting through to surgeons and patients.

Indeed, a 2017 study of 57,776 benign premenopausal hysterectomies with ovary removal in California from 2005 to 2011 found that 38% had no documented sign of an appropriate diagnosis signaling a need for oophorectomy. These included “ovarian cyst, breast cancer susceptibility gene carrier status, and other diagnoses,” the study authors wrote (Menopause. 2017 Aug;24[8]:947-53).

Dr. Nickles Fader emphasized that ovary removal is appropriate in cases of gynecologic malignancy, while patients at high genetic risk of ovarian cancer may consider salpingo-oophorectomy or salpingectomy.

What about other situations? She offered these pearls in the presentation:

• Don’t remove ovaries before age 60 “without a good reason” because the procedure may lower lifespan and increase cardiovascular risk.
• Ovary removal is linked to cognitive decline, Parkinson’s disease, depression and anxiety, glaucoma, sexual dysfunction, and bone fractures.
• Ovary preservation, in contrast, is linked to improvement of menopausal symptoms, sleep quality, urogenital atrophy, skin conditions, and metabolism.
• Fallopian tubes may be the true trouble area. “The prevailing theory amongst scientists and clinicians is that ‘ovarian cancer’ is in most cases a misnomer, and most of these malignancies start in the fallopian tube,” Dr. Nickles Fader said in the interview.

“It’s a better time than ever to be thoughtful about removing a woman’s ovaries in someone who is at low risk for ovarian cancer. The new, universal guideline is that instead of removing ovaries in most women undergoing hysterectomy, it’s quite important to consider removing just the fallopian tubes to best optimize cancer risk reduction and general health outcomes.”

Dr. Nickles Fader disclosed consulting work for Ethicon and Merck.

LAS VEGAS – While it’s fading in popularity, ovary removal in hysterectomy is still far from uncommon. A gynecologic surgeon urged colleagues to give deeper consideration to whether the ovaries can stay in place.

“Gynecologists should truly familiarize themselves with the data on cardiovascular, endocrine, bone, and sexual health implications of removing the ovaries when there isn’t a medical indication to do so,” Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, director of the Kelly gynecologic oncology service and the director of the center for rare gynecologic cancers at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said in an interview following her presentation at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

“Until I started giving this talk, I thought I knew this data. However, once I took a deeper dive into the studies of how hormonally active the postmenopausal ovaries are, as well as the population-based studies demonstrating worse all-cause mortality outcomes in low-risk women who have their ovaries surgically removed prior to their 60s, I was stunned at how compelling this data is,” she said.

The conventional wisdom about ovary removal in hysterectomy has changed dramatically over the decades. As Dr. Nickles Fader explained in the interview, “in the ’80s and early ’90s, the mantra was ‘just take everything out’ at hysterectomy surgery – tubes and ovaries should be removed – without understanding the implications. Then in the late ’90s and early 2000s, it was a more selective strategy of ‘wait until menopause to remove the ovaries.’ ”

Now, “more contemporary data suggests that the ovaries appear to be hormonally active to some degree well into the seventh decade of life, and even women in their early 60s who have their ovaries removed without a medical indication may be harmed.”

Still, ovary removal occurs in about 50%-60% of the 450,000-500,000 hysterectomies performed each year in the United States, Dr. Nickles Fader said at the meeting, which was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

These findings seem to suggest that messages about the potential benefits of ovary preservation are not getting through to surgeons and patients.

Indeed, a 2017 study of 57,776 benign premenopausal hysterectomies with ovary removal in California from 2005 to 2011 found that 38% had no documented sign of an appropriate diagnosis signaling a need for oophorectomy. These included “ovarian cyst, breast cancer susceptibility gene carrier status, and other diagnoses,” the study authors wrote (Menopause. 2017 Aug;24[8]:947-53).

Dr. Nickles Fader emphasized that ovary removal is appropriate in cases of gynecologic malignancy, while patients at high genetic risk of ovarian cancer may consider salpingo-oophorectomy or salpingectomy.

What about other situations? She offered these pearls in the presentation:

• Don’t remove ovaries before age 60 “without a good reason” because the procedure may lower lifespan and increase cardiovascular risk.
• Ovary removal is linked to cognitive decline, Parkinson’s disease, depression and anxiety, glaucoma, sexual dysfunction, and bone fractures.
• Ovary preservation, in contrast, is linked to improvement of menopausal symptoms, sleep quality, urogenital atrophy, skin conditions, and metabolism.
• Fallopian tubes may be the true trouble area. “The prevailing theory amongst scientists and clinicians is that ‘ovarian cancer’ is in most cases a misnomer, and most of these malignancies start in the fallopian tube,” Dr. Nickles Fader said in the interview.

“It’s a better time than ever to be thoughtful about removing a woman’s ovaries in someone who is at low risk for ovarian cancer. The new, universal guideline is that instead of removing ovaries in most women undergoing hysterectomy, it’s quite important to consider removing just the fallopian tubes to best optimize cancer risk reduction and general health outcomes.”

Dr. Nickles Fader disclosed consulting work for Ethicon and Merck.

LAS VEGAS – While it’s fading in popularity, ovary removal in hysterectomy is still far from uncommon. A gynecologic surgeon urged colleagues to give deeper consideration to whether the ovaries can stay in place.

“Gynecologists should truly familiarize themselves with the data on cardiovascular, endocrine, bone, and sexual health implications of removing the ovaries when there isn’t a medical indication to do so,” Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, director of the Kelly gynecologic oncology service and the director of the center for rare gynecologic cancers at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said in an interview following her presentation at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

“Until I started giving this talk, I thought I knew this data. However, once I took a deeper dive into the studies of how hormonally active the postmenopausal ovaries are, as well as the population-based studies demonstrating worse all-cause mortality outcomes in low-risk women who have their ovaries surgically removed prior to their 60s, I was stunned at how compelling this data is,” she said.

The conventional wisdom about ovary removal in hysterectomy has changed dramatically over the decades. As Dr. Nickles Fader explained in the interview, “in the ’80s and early ’90s, the mantra was ‘just take everything out’ at hysterectomy surgery – tubes and ovaries should be removed – without understanding the implications. Then in the late ’90s and early 2000s, it was a more selective strategy of ‘wait until menopause to remove the ovaries.’ ”

Now, “more contemporary data suggests that the ovaries appear to be hormonally active to some degree well into the seventh decade of life, and even women in their early 60s who have their ovaries removed without a medical indication may be harmed.”

Still, ovary removal occurs in about 50%-60% of the 450,000-500,000 hysterectomies performed each year in the United States, Dr. Nickles Fader said at the meeting, which was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

These findings seem to suggest that messages about the potential benefits of ovary preservation are not getting through to surgeons and patients.

Indeed, a 2017 study of 57,776 benign premenopausal hysterectomies with ovary removal in California from 2005 to 2011 found that 38% had no documented sign of an appropriate diagnosis signaling a need for oophorectomy. These included “ovarian cyst, breast cancer susceptibility gene carrier status, and other diagnoses,” the study authors wrote (Menopause. 2017 Aug;24[8]:947-53).

Dr. Nickles Fader emphasized that ovary removal is appropriate in cases of gynecologic malignancy, while patients at high genetic risk of ovarian cancer may consider salpingo-oophorectomy or salpingectomy.

What about other situations? She offered these pearls in the presentation:

• Don’t remove ovaries before age 60 “without a good reason” because the procedure may lower lifespan and increase cardiovascular risk.
• Ovary removal is linked to cognitive decline, Parkinson’s disease, depression and anxiety, glaucoma, sexual dysfunction, and bone fractures.
• Ovary preservation, in contrast, is linked to improvement of menopausal symptoms, sleep quality, urogenital atrophy, skin conditions, and metabolism.
• Fallopian tubes may be the true trouble area. “The prevailing theory amongst scientists and clinicians is that ‘ovarian cancer’ is in most cases a misnomer, and most of these malignancies start in the fallopian tube,” Dr. Nickles Fader said in the interview.

“It’s a better time than ever to be thoughtful about removing a woman’s ovaries in someone who is at low risk for ovarian cancer. The new, universal guideline is that instead of removing ovaries in most women undergoing hysterectomy, it’s quite important to consider removing just the fallopian tubes to best optimize cancer risk reduction and general health outcomes.”

Dr. Nickles Fader disclosed consulting work for Ethicon and Merck.

Cuzick J, Sestak I, Forbes JF, et al; IBIS-II Investigators. Use of anastrozole for breast cancer prevention (IBIS-II): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2020;395;117-122.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

A manufacturer-sponsored trial initiated in 2003, IBIS-II (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study II) included 3,864 menopausal women (mean age at baseline, 59.4 years) at elevated risk for breast cancer. The women were randomly assigned to 5-year treatment with either placebo (N = 1,944) or the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole 1 mg daily (N = 1,920).¹

Reporting on the long-term follow-up results of the trial, Cuzick and colleagues found that anastrozole use substantially reduced the incidence of all breast cancer, including invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. Key adverse events associated with anastrozole were fractures, arthralgias, and menopausal symptoms (vasomotor symptoms and vaginal dryness).

To determine whether anastrozole had any persistent impact, the investigators continued to follow participants for all breast cancers and other outcomes.²

Details of the study

This randomized controlled trial that included 3,864 postmenopausal women had a median overall follow-up of 131 months; the primary outcome was all breast cancer. Random assignment to anastrozole use (1,920 women) was associated with a 49% reduction in all breast cancer (85 cases vs 165 cases in the placebo group [N = 1,944]; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39–0.66; P<.0001).

In the first 5 years, risk reduction was 61% with anastrozole (P<.0001 for overall and the first 5 years of follow-up). Subsequently, the magnitude of the risk reduction attenuated to 37% (P = .014). With 12 years of follow-up, the estimated risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer was 8.8% and 5.3% in the placebo and anastrozole groups, respectively. The number needed to treat for 5 years to prevent 1 breast cancer was 29.

With anastrozole, prevention of estrogen–receptor positive tumors was substantially more robust at 54% (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33–0.65; P<.0001) than for estrogen–receptor negative tumors at 27% (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.41–1.44; P = .41).

Over the course of the long-term study, the incidence of fractures and cardiovascular events was similar in the placebo and anastrozole groups. Arthralgias and menopausal symptoms were not assessed after the trial’s initial 5 years. Overall, the number of deaths (all cause as well as breast cancer related) were similar in the placebo and anastrozole groups.

Continue to: Study strengths and limitations...

Study strengths and limitations

The authors noted that this updated analysis of the IBIS-II trial data offers further support for the use of anastrozole in breast cancer prevention for high-risk postmenopausal women. The extended posttreatment follow-up showed a significant continuing reduction in breast cancer, and there was no evidence of new late adverse effects. A limitation of the analysis, however, is that very few deaths from breast cancer occurred during the study timeframe. Thus, additional follow-up would be needed to assess anastrozole’s effect on breast cancer mortality.

Cuzick J, Sestak I, Forbes JF, et al; IBIS-II Investigators. Use of anastrozole for breast cancer prevention (IBIS-II): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2020;395;117-122.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

A manufacturer-sponsored trial initiated in 2003, IBIS-II (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study II) included 3,864 menopausal women (mean age at baseline, 59.4 years) at elevated risk for breast cancer. The women were randomly assigned to 5-year treatment with either placebo (N = 1,944) or the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole 1 mg daily (N = 1,920).¹

Reporting on the long-term follow-up results of the trial, Cuzick and colleagues found that anastrozole use substantially reduced the incidence of all breast cancer, including invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. Key adverse events associated with anastrozole were fractures, arthralgias, and menopausal symptoms (vasomotor symptoms and vaginal dryness).

To determine whether anastrozole had any persistent impact, the investigators continued to follow participants for all breast cancers and other outcomes.²

Details of the study

This randomized controlled trial that included 3,864 postmenopausal women had a median overall follow-up of 131 months; the primary outcome was all breast cancer. Random assignment to anastrozole use (1,920 women) was associated with a 49% reduction in all breast cancer (85 cases vs 165 cases in the placebo group [N = 1,944]; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39–0.66; P<.0001).

In the first 5 years, risk reduction was 61% with anastrozole (P<.0001 for overall and the first 5 years of follow-up). Subsequently, the magnitude of the risk reduction attenuated to 37% (P = .014). With 12 years of follow-up, the estimated risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer was 8.8% and 5.3% in the placebo and anastrozole groups, respectively. The number needed to treat for 5 years to prevent 1 breast cancer was 29.

With anastrozole, prevention of estrogen–receptor positive tumors was substantially more robust at 54% (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33–0.65; P<.0001) than for estrogen–receptor negative tumors at 27% (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.41–1.44; P = .41).

Over the course of the long-term study, the incidence of fractures and cardiovascular events was similar in the placebo and anastrozole groups. Arthralgias and menopausal symptoms were not assessed after the trial’s initial 5 years. Overall, the number of deaths (all cause as well as breast cancer related) were similar in the placebo and anastrozole groups.

Continue to: Study strengths and limitations...

Study strengths and limitations

The authors noted that this updated analysis of the IBIS-II trial data offers further support for the use of anastrozole in breast cancer prevention for high-risk postmenopausal women. The extended posttreatment follow-up showed a significant continuing reduction in breast cancer, and there was no evidence of new late adverse effects. A limitation of the analysis, however, is that very few deaths from breast cancer occurred during the study timeframe. Thus, additional follow-up would be needed to assess anastrozole’s effect on breast cancer mortality.

Cuzick J, Sestak I, Forbes JF, et al; IBIS-II Investigators. Use of anastrozole for breast cancer prevention (IBIS-II): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2020;395;117-122.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

A manufacturer-sponsored trial initiated in 2003, IBIS-II (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study II) included 3,864 menopausal women (mean age at baseline, 59.4 years) at elevated risk for breast cancer. The women were randomly assigned to 5-year treatment with either placebo (N = 1,944) or the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole 1 mg daily (N = 1,920).¹

Reporting on the long-term follow-up results of the trial, Cuzick and colleagues found that anastrozole use substantially reduced the incidence of all breast cancer, including invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. Key adverse events associated with anastrozole were fractures, arthralgias, and menopausal symptoms (vasomotor symptoms and vaginal dryness).

To determine whether anastrozole had any persistent impact, the investigators continued to follow participants for all breast cancers and other outcomes.²

Details of the study

This randomized controlled trial that included 3,864 postmenopausal women had a median overall follow-up of 131 months; the primary outcome was all breast cancer. Random assignment to anastrozole use (1,920 women) was associated with a 49% reduction in all breast cancer (85 cases vs 165 cases in the placebo group [N = 1,944]; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39–0.66; P<.0001).

In the first 5 years, risk reduction was 61% with anastrozole (P<.0001 for overall and the first 5 years of follow-up). Subsequently, the magnitude of the risk reduction attenuated to 37% (P = .014). With 12 years of follow-up, the estimated risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer was 8.8% and 5.3% in the placebo and anastrozole groups, respectively. The number needed to treat for 5 years to prevent 1 breast cancer was 29.

With anastrozole, prevention of estrogen–receptor positive tumors was substantially more robust at 54% (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33–0.65; P<.0001) than for estrogen–receptor negative tumors at 27% (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.41–1.44; P = .41).

Over the course of the long-term study, the incidence of fractures and cardiovascular events was similar in the placebo and anastrozole groups. Arthralgias and menopausal symptoms were not assessed after the trial’s initial 5 years. Overall, the number of deaths (all cause as well as breast cancer related) were similar in the placebo and anastrozole groups.

Continue to: Study strengths and limitations...

Study strengths and limitations

The authors noted that this updated analysis of the IBIS-II trial data offers further support for the use of anastrozole in breast cancer prevention for high-risk postmenopausal women. The extended posttreatment follow-up showed a significant continuing reduction in breast cancer, and there was no evidence of new late adverse effects. A limitation of the analysis, however, is that very few deaths from breast cancer occurred during the study timeframe. Thus, additional follow-up would be needed to assess anastrozole’s effect on breast cancer mortality.

There were fewer complications with outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center than in the hospital, according to a review from the University of Tennessee Campbell Clinic, Memphis.

“In carefully selected patients, the ASC [ambulatory surgery center] seems to be a safe alternative to the inpatient hospital setting,” concluded investigators led by led by Marcus Ford, MD, a Campbell Clinic orthopedic surgeon.

He and his colleagues have been doing outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) since 2009, and “based on the subjective success,” recently increased the number of total knee, hip, and shoulder arthroplasties performed in their ASC.

They wanted to make sure, however, that their impression of good outpatient UKA results was supported by the data, so they compared outcomes in 48 UKA patients treated at their ASC with 48 treated in the hospital. The operations were done by two surgeons using the same technique and same medial UKA implant.

“Naturally, surgeons select those patients who are deemed physically and mentally capable of succeeding with an accelerated discharge plan” for outpatient service, the investigators wrote. To address that potential selection bias, the team matched their subjects by age and comorbidities.

There was only one minor complication in the outpatient group, a superficial stitch abscess. No patient needed a second operation, and all went home the same day.

It was different on the inpatient side. The average length of stay was 2.9 days, and there were four major complications: a deep venous thrombosis, a pulmonary embolus, an acute postoperative infection, and a periprosthetic fracture. All four required hospital readmission, and two patients needed a second operation.

The report didn’t directly address the reasons for the differences, but Dr. Ford and colleagues did note that they “believe that the ASC allows the surgeon greater direct control of perioperative variables that can impact patient outcome.”

Patients were in their late 50s, on average, and there were more women than men in both groups. The mean American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification score was 1.94 and mean body mass index was 34.3 kg/m² in the outpatient group, compared with a mean physical status classification score of 2.08 and mean body mass index of 32.9 kg/m² in the inpatient group. The differences were not statistically significant.

No funding source was reported. The investigators did not report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ford M et al. Orthop Clin North Am. 2020 Jan;51[1]:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2019.08.001

There were fewer complications with outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center than in the hospital, according to a review from the University of Tennessee Campbell Clinic, Memphis.

“In carefully selected patients, the ASC [ambulatory surgery center] seems to be a safe alternative to the inpatient hospital setting,” concluded investigators led by led by Marcus Ford, MD, a Campbell Clinic orthopedic surgeon.

He and his colleagues have been doing outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) since 2009, and “based on the subjective success,” recently increased the number of total knee, hip, and shoulder arthroplasties performed in their ASC.

They wanted to make sure, however, that their impression of good outpatient UKA results was supported by the data, so they compared outcomes in 48 UKA patients treated at their ASC with 48 treated in the hospital. The operations were done by two surgeons using the same technique and same medial UKA implant.

“Naturally, surgeons select those patients who are deemed physically and mentally capable of succeeding with an accelerated discharge plan” for outpatient service, the investigators wrote. To address that potential selection bias, the team matched their subjects by age and comorbidities.

There was only one minor complication in the outpatient group, a superficial stitch abscess. No patient needed a second operation, and all went home the same day.

It was different on the inpatient side. The average length of stay was 2.9 days, and there were four major complications: a deep venous thrombosis, a pulmonary embolus, an acute postoperative infection, and a periprosthetic fracture. All four required hospital readmission, and two patients needed a second operation.

The report didn’t directly address the reasons for the differences, but Dr. Ford and colleagues did note that they “believe that the ASC allows the surgeon greater direct control of perioperative variables that can impact patient outcome.”

Patients were in their late 50s, on average, and there were more women than men in both groups. The mean American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification score was 1.94 and mean body mass index was 34.3 kg/m² in the outpatient group, compared with a mean physical status classification score of 2.08 and mean body mass index of 32.9 kg/m² in the inpatient group. The differences were not statistically significant.

No funding source was reported. The investigators did not report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ford M et al. Orthop Clin North Am. 2020 Jan;51[1]:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2019.08.001

There were fewer complications with outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center than in the hospital, according to a review from the University of Tennessee Campbell Clinic, Memphis.

“In carefully selected patients, the ASC [ambulatory surgery center] seems to be a safe alternative to the inpatient hospital setting,” concluded investigators led by led by Marcus Ford, MD, a Campbell Clinic orthopedic surgeon.

He and his colleagues have been doing outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) since 2009, and “based on the subjective success,” recently increased the number of total knee, hip, and shoulder arthroplasties performed in their ASC.

They wanted to make sure, however, that their impression of good outpatient UKA results was supported by the data, so they compared outcomes in 48 UKA patients treated at their ASC with 48 treated in the hospital. The operations were done by two surgeons using the same technique and same medial UKA implant.

“Naturally, surgeons select those patients who are deemed physically and mentally capable of succeeding with an accelerated discharge plan” for outpatient service, the investigators wrote. To address that potential selection bias, the team matched their subjects by age and comorbidities.

There was only one minor complication in the outpatient group, a superficial stitch abscess. No patient needed a second operation, and all went home the same day.

It was different on the inpatient side. The average length of stay was 2.9 days, and there were four major complications: a deep venous thrombosis, a pulmonary embolus, an acute postoperative infection, and a periprosthetic fracture. All four required hospital readmission, and two patients needed a second operation.

The report didn’t directly address the reasons for the differences, but Dr. Ford and colleagues did note that they “believe that the ASC allows the surgeon greater direct control of perioperative variables that can impact patient outcome.”

Patients were in their late 50s, on average, and there were more women than men in both groups. The mean American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification score was 1.94 and mean body mass index was 34.3 kg/m² in the outpatient group, compared with a mean physical status classification score of 2.08 and mean body mass index of 32.9 kg/m² in the inpatient group. The differences were not statistically significant.

No funding source was reported. The investigators did not report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ford M et al. Orthop Clin North Am. 2020 Jan;51[1]:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2019.08.001

It has now been 30 years since the first total laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed. The benefits of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) – and of minimally invasive hysterectomy specifically – are now well documented. Since this milestone procedure, both instrumentation and technique have improved significantly.

Physician experience is the most important determinant for which minimally invasive approach is used to perform hysterectomy. This includes traditional laparoscopy, as well as the robotically assisted laparoscopic approach. However, certain patient characteristics also may influence the choice. A uterus that is undescended, combined with a narrow introitus, for instance, can be a contributory factor in choosing to perform laparoscopic hysterectomy. Additionally, so can an extremely large uterus and an extremely high body mass index (BMI).

These latter two factors – a very large uterus (which we define as more than 15-16 weeks’ gestational size) and a BMI over 60 kg/m² – historically were considered to be contraindications to laparoscopic hysterectomy. But as the proficiency, comfort, and skill of a new generation of laparoscopic surgeons increases, the tide is shifting with respect to both morbid obesity and the very large uterus.

With growing experience and improved instrumentation, the majority of gynecologists who are fellowship-trained in MIGS are able to routinely and safely perform laparoscopic hysterectomy for uteri weighing 1-2 kg and in patients who have extreme morbid obesity. The literature, moreover, increasingly features case reports of laparoscopic removal of very large uteri and reviews/discussions of total laparoscopic hysterectomy being feasible.

In our own experience, total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) of the very large uterus can be safely and advantageously performed using key instruments and refinements in technique, as well as thorough patient counseling regarding the risk of unexpected sarcomas. Recently, we safely performed total laparoscopic hysterectomy for a patient with a uterus that – somewhat unexpectedly – weighed 7.4 kg.
 

Surgical pearls

Performing safe and effective total laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uteri – and for morbidly obese patients – hinges largely on modifications in entry and port placement, patient positioning, and choice of instrumentation. With these modifications, we can achieve adequate visualization of critical anatomy and can minimize bleeding. Otherwise, the surgery itself is largely the same. Here are the principles we find most helpful.

Entry and port placement

Traditionally, for TLHs, a camera port is placed at the umbilicus to provide a full view of the pelvis. For the larger uterus – and in women who are extremely obese – we aim to introduce the laparoscope higher. A reliable landmark is the Palmer’s point in the left upper quadrant. From here, we can identify areas for the placement of additional trocars.

In general, we place ancillary 5-mm ports more cephalad and lateral to the uterus than we otherwise would. Such placement facilitates effective visualization while accommodating manipulation of the uterus and allows us to avoid bleeding around the vascular upper pedicles. Overall, we have much better control through all parts of the surgery when we operate lateral to the uterus.
 

Patient positioning

In addition to the Trendelenburg position, we have adopted an “airplaning” technique for patients with a very large uterus in which the bed is tilted from side to side so that the left and right sides of the body are rotated upward as needed. This allows for gravitational-assisted retraction when it otherwise is not possible.

Instrumentation

For morbidly obese patients, we use Kii Fios advanced fixation trocars. These come in 5- and 10-mm sizes and are equipped with an intraperitoneal balloon that can be inflated to prevent sliding of the trocar out of the abdominal wall.

By far the most valuable instrument for the morbidly obese and the very large uterus is a 30-degree laparoscope. With our higher port placement as described, the 30-degree scope provides visualization of critical structures that wouldn’t be possible with a 0-degree scope.

The Rumi uterine manipulator comes with cups that come in different sizes and can fit around the cervix and help delineate the cervicouterine junction. We use this manipulator for all laparoscopic hysterectomies, but it is a must for the very large uterus.

Extensive desiccation of the utero-ovarian pedicles and uterine arteries is critical, and for this we advise using the rotating bipolar RoBi instrument. Use of the conventional bipolar instrument allows us to use targeted and anatomically guided application of energy. This ensures certainty that vessels whose limits exceed the diameter for advanced bipolar devices (typically 7 mm) are completely sealed. In-depth knowledge of pelvic anatomy and advanced laparoscopic dissection is paramount during these steps to ensure that vital structures are not damaged by the wider thermal spread of the traditional bipolar device. For cutting, the use of ultrasonic energy is important to prevent energy from spreading laterally.

Lastly, we recommend a good suction irrigator because, if bleeding occurs, it tends to be heavy because of the enlarged nature of feeding vasculature. When placed through an umbilical or suprapubic port, the suction irrigator also may be used to help with the rotational vectors and traction for further uterine manipulation.
 

Technique

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

We usually operate from top to bottom, transecting the upper pedicles such as the infundibulopelvic (IP) ligaments or utero-ovarian ligaments first, rather than the round ligaments. This helps us achieve additional mobility of the uterus. Some surgeons believe that retroperitoneal dissection and ligation of the uterine arteries at their origin is essential, but we find that, with good uterine manipulation and the use of a 30-degree scope, we achieve adequate visualization for identifying the ureter and uterine artery on the sidewall and consequently do not need to dissect retroperitoneally.

When using the uterine manipulator with the colpotomy cup, the uterus is pushed upward, increasing the distance between the vaginal fornix and the ureters. Uterine arteries can easily be identified and desiccated using conventional bipolar energy. When the colpotomy cup is pushed cephalad, the application of the bipolar energy within the limits of the cup is safe. The thermal spread does not pose a threat to the ureters, which are displaced 1.5-2 cm laterally. Large fibroids often contribute to distorted anatomical planes, and a colpotomy cup provides a firm palpable surface between the cervix and vagina during dissection.

When dealing with large uteri, one must sometimes think outside the box and deviate from standard technique. For instance, in patients with distorted anatomy because of large fibroids, it helps to first control the pedicles that are most easily accessible. Sometimes it is acceptable to perform oophorectomy if the IP ligament is more accessible and the utero-ovarian pedicle is distorted by dilated veins and adherent to the uterus. After transection of each pedicle, we gain more mobility of the uterus and better visualization for the next step.

Inserting the camera through ancillary ports – a technique known as “port hopping” – helps to visualize and take down adhesions much better and more safely than using the camera from the umbilical port only. Port hopping with a 30-degree laparoscope helps to obtain a 360-degree view of adhesions and anatomy, which is exceedingly helpful in cases in which crucial anatomical structures are within close proximity of one another.

In general it is more challenging to perform TLH on a patient with a broad uterus or a patient with low posterior fibroids that are occupying the pelvis than on a patient with fibroids in the upper abdomen. The main challenge for the surgeon is to safely secure the uterine arteries and control the blood supply to the uterus.

Access to the pelvic sidewall is obtained with the combination of 30-degree scope, uterine manipulator, and the suction irrigator introduced through the midline port; the cervix and uterus are deviated upward. Instead of the suction irrigator or blunt dissector used for internal uterine manipulation, some surgeons use myoma screws or a 5-mm single-tooth tenaculum to manipulate a large uterus. Both of those instruments are valuable and work well, but often a large uterus requires extensive manipulation. Repositioning of any sharp instruments that pierce the serosa can often lead to additional blood loss. It is preferable to avoid this blood loss on a large uterus at all costs because it can be brisk and stains the surgical pedicles, making the remainder of the procedure unnecessarily difficult.

Once the uterine arteries are desiccated, if fibroids are obscuring the view, the corpus of the uterus can be detached from the cervix as in supracervical hysterectomy fashion. From there, the uterus can be placed in the upper abdomen while colpotomy can be performed.

In patients with multiple fibroids, we do not recommend performing myomectomy first, unless the fibroid is pedunculated and on a very small stalk. Improved uterine manipulation and retroperitoneal dissection are preferred over myomectomy to safely complete hysterectomy for the broad uterus. In our opinion, any attempt at myomectomy would lead to unnecessary blood loss and additional operative time with minimal benefit.

In patients with fibroids that grow into the broad ligament and pelvic sidewall, the natural course of the ureter becomes displaced laterally. This is contrary to the popular misconception that the ureter is more medially located in the setting of broad-ligament fibroids. To ensure safe access to the uterine arteries, the vesicouterine peritoneum can be incised and extended cephalad along the broad ligament and, then, using the above-mentioned technique, by pushing the uterus and the fibroid to the contralateral side via the suction irrigator, the uterine arteries can be easily accessed.

Another useful technique is to use diluted vasopressin injected into the lower pole of the uterus to cause vasoconstriction and minimize the bleeding. The concentration is 1 cc of 20 units of vasopressin in 100-400 cc of saline. This technique is very useful for myomectomies, and some surgeons find it also helpful for hysterectomy. The plasma half-life of vasopressin is 10-20 minutes, and a large quantity is needed to help with vasoconstriction in a big uterus. The safe upper limits of vasopressin dosing are not firmly established. A fibroid uterus with aberrant vasculature may require a greater-than-acceptable dose to control bleeding.

It is important to ensure that patients have an optimized hemoglobin level preoperatively. We use a hemoglobin level of 8 g/dL as a lowest cutoff value for performing TLH without preoperative transfusion. Regarding bowel preparation, neither the literature nor our own experience support its value, so we typically do not use it.
 

Morcellation and patient counseling

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

Uteri up to 12 weeks’ gestational size usually can be extracted transvaginally, and most uteri regardless of size can be morcellated and extracted through the vagina, providing that the vaginal fornix is accessible from below. In some cases, such as when the apex is too high, a minilaparotomic incision is needed to extract the uterus, or when available, power morcellation can be performed.

A major challenge, given our growing ability to laparoscopically remove very larger uteri, is that uteri heavier than about 2.5 kg in weight cannot be morcellated inside a morcellation bag. The risk of upstaging a known or suspected uterine malignancy, or of spreading an unknown malignant sarcoma (presumed benign myoma), should be incorporated in each patient’s decision making.

Thorough counseling about surgical options and on the risks of morcellating a very large uterus without containment in a bag is essential. Each patient must understand the risks and decide whether the benefits of minimally invasive surgery outweigh these risks. While MRI can sometimes provide increased suspicion of a leiomyosarcoma, malignancy can never be completed excluded preoperatively.
 

Removal of a 7.4-kg uterus

Our patient was a 44-year-old with a markedly enlarged fibroid uterus. Having been told by other providers that she was not a candidate for minimally invasive hysterectomy, she had delayed surgical management for a number of years, allowing for such a generous uterine size to develop.

The patient was knowledgeable about her condition and, given her comorbid obesity, she requested a minimally invasive approach. Preoperative imaging included an ultrasound, which had to be completed abdominally because of the size of her uterus, and an additional MRI was needed to further characterize the extent and nature of her uterus. A very detailed discussion regarding risk of leiomyosarcoma, operative complications, and conversion to laparotomy ensued.

Intraoperatively, we placed the first 5 mm port in the left upper quadrant initially to survey the anatomy for feasibility of laparoscopic hysterectomy. The left utero-ovarian pedicle was easily viewed by airplaning the bed alone. While the right utero-ovarian pedicle was much more skewed and enlarged, the right IP was easily accessible and the ureter well visualized.

The decision was made to place additional ports and proceed with laparoscopic hysterectomy. The 5-mm assistant ports were placed lateral and directly above the upper vascular pedicles. Operative time was 4 hours and 12 minutes, and blood loss was only 700 cc. Her preoperative hemoglobin was optimized at 13.3 g/dL and dropped to 11.3 g/dL postoperatively. The patient was discharged home the next morning and had a normal recovery with no complications.
 

Dr. Pasic is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director of the section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy; and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery as well as an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Louisville. Dr. Pasic disclosed he is a consultant for Ethicon Endo, Medtronic, and Olympus and is a speaker for Cooper Surgical, which manufactures some of the instruments mentioned in this article. Dr. Cesta had no relevant financial disclosures.

It has now been 30 years since the first total laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed. The benefits of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) – and of minimally invasive hysterectomy specifically – are now well documented. Since this milestone procedure, both instrumentation and technique have improved significantly.

Physician experience is the most important determinant for which minimally invasive approach is used to perform hysterectomy. This includes traditional laparoscopy, as well as the robotically assisted laparoscopic approach. However, certain patient characteristics also may influence the choice. A uterus that is undescended, combined with a narrow introitus, for instance, can be a contributory factor in choosing to perform laparoscopic hysterectomy. Additionally, so can an extremely large uterus and an extremely high body mass index (BMI).

These latter two factors – a very large uterus (which we define as more than 15-16 weeks’ gestational size) and a BMI over 60 kg/m² – historically were considered to be contraindications to laparoscopic hysterectomy. But as the proficiency, comfort, and skill of a new generation of laparoscopic surgeons increases, the tide is shifting with respect to both morbid obesity and the very large uterus.

With growing experience and improved instrumentation, the majority of gynecologists who are fellowship-trained in MIGS are able to routinely and safely perform laparoscopic hysterectomy for uteri weighing 1-2 kg and in patients who have extreme morbid obesity. The literature, moreover, increasingly features case reports of laparoscopic removal of very large uteri and reviews/discussions of total laparoscopic hysterectomy being feasible.

In our own experience, total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) of the very large uterus can be safely and advantageously performed using key instruments and refinements in technique, as well as thorough patient counseling regarding the risk of unexpected sarcomas. Recently, we safely performed total laparoscopic hysterectomy for a patient with a uterus that – somewhat unexpectedly – weighed 7.4 kg.
 

Surgical pearls

Performing safe and effective total laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uteri – and for morbidly obese patients – hinges largely on modifications in entry and port placement, patient positioning, and choice of instrumentation. With these modifications, we can achieve adequate visualization of critical anatomy and can minimize bleeding. Otherwise, the surgery itself is largely the same. Here are the principles we find most helpful.

Entry and port placement

Traditionally, for TLHs, a camera port is placed at the umbilicus to provide a full view of the pelvis. For the larger uterus – and in women who are extremely obese – we aim to introduce the laparoscope higher. A reliable landmark is the Palmer’s point in the left upper quadrant. From here, we can identify areas for the placement of additional trocars.

In general, we place ancillary 5-mm ports more cephalad and lateral to the uterus than we otherwise would. Such placement facilitates effective visualization while accommodating manipulation of the uterus and allows us to avoid bleeding around the vascular upper pedicles. Overall, we have much better control through all parts of the surgery when we operate lateral to the uterus.
 

Patient positioning

In addition to the Trendelenburg position, we have adopted an “airplaning” technique for patients with a very large uterus in which the bed is tilted from side to side so that the left and right sides of the body are rotated upward as needed. This allows for gravitational-assisted retraction when it otherwise is not possible.

Instrumentation

For morbidly obese patients, we use Kii Fios advanced fixation trocars. These come in 5- and 10-mm sizes and are equipped with an intraperitoneal balloon that can be inflated to prevent sliding of the trocar out of the abdominal wall.

By far the most valuable instrument for the morbidly obese and the very large uterus is a 30-degree laparoscope. With our higher port placement as described, the 30-degree scope provides visualization of critical structures that wouldn’t be possible with a 0-degree scope.

The Rumi uterine manipulator comes with cups that come in different sizes and can fit around the cervix and help delineate the cervicouterine junction. We use this manipulator for all laparoscopic hysterectomies, but it is a must for the very large uterus.

Extensive desiccation of the utero-ovarian pedicles and uterine arteries is critical, and for this we advise using the rotating bipolar RoBi instrument. Use of the conventional bipolar instrument allows us to use targeted and anatomically guided application of energy. This ensures certainty that vessels whose limits exceed the diameter for advanced bipolar devices (typically 7 mm) are completely sealed. In-depth knowledge of pelvic anatomy and advanced laparoscopic dissection is paramount during these steps to ensure that vital structures are not damaged by the wider thermal spread of the traditional bipolar device. For cutting, the use of ultrasonic energy is important to prevent energy from spreading laterally.

Lastly, we recommend a good suction irrigator because, if bleeding occurs, it tends to be heavy because of the enlarged nature of feeding vasculature. When placed through an umbilical or suprapubic port, the suction irrigator also may be used to help with the rotational vectors and traction for further uterine manipulation.
 

Technique

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

We usually operate from top to bottom, transecting the upper pedicles such as the infundibulopelvic (IP) ligaments or utero-ovarian ligaments first, rather than the round ligaments. This helps us achieve additional mobility of the uterus. Some surgeons believe that retroperitoneal dissection and ligation of the uterine arteries at their origin is essential, but we find that, with good uterine manipulation and the use of a 30-degree scope, we achieve adequate visualization for identifying the ureter and uterine artery on the sidewall and consequently do not need to dissect retroperitoneally.

When using the uterine manipulator with the colpotomy cup, the uterus is pushed upward, increasing the distance between the vaginal fornix and the ureters. Uterine arteries can easily be identified and desiccated using conventional bipolar energy. When the colpotomy cup is pushed cephalad, the application of the bipolar energy within the limits of the cup is safe. The thermal spread does not pose a threat to the ureters, which are displaced 1.5-2 cm laterally. Large fibroids often contribute to distorted anatomical planes, and a colpotomy cup provides a firm palpable surface between the cervix and vagina during dissection.

When dealing with large uteri, one must sometimes think outside the box and deviate from standard technique. For instance, in patients with distorted anatomy because of large fibroids, it helps to first control the pedicles that are most easily accessible. Sometimes it is acceptable to perform oophorectomy if the IP ligament is more accessible and the utero-ovarian pedicle is distorted by dilated veins and adherent to the uterus. After transection of each pedicle, we gain more mobility of the uterus and better visualization for the next step.

Inserting the camera through ancillary ports – a technique known as “port hopping” – helps to visualize and take down adhesions much better and more safely than using the camera from the umbilical port only. Port hopping with a 30-degree laparoscope helps to obtain a 360-degree view of adhesions and anatomy, which is exceedingly helpful in cases in which crucial anatomical structures are within close proximity of one another.

In general it is more challenging to perform TLH on a patient with a broad uterus or a patient with low posterior fibroids that are occupying the pelvis than on a patient with fibroids in the upper abdomen. The main challenge for the surgeon is to safely secure the uterine arteries and control the blood supply to the uterus.

Access to the pelvic sidewall is obtained with the combination of 30-degree scope, uterine manipulator, and the suction irrigator introduced through the midline port; the cervix and uterus are deviated upward. Instead of the suction irrigator or blunt dissector used for internal uterine manipulation, some surgeons use myoma screws or a 5-mm single-tooth tenaculum to manipulate a large uterus. Both of those instruments are valuable and work well, but often a large uterus requires extensive manipulation. Repositioning of any sharp instruments that pierce the serosa can often lead to additional blood loss. It is preferable to avoid this blood loss on a large uterus at all costs because it can be brisk and stains the surgical pedicles, making the remainder of the procedure unnecessarily difficult.

Once the uterine arteries are desiccated, if fibroids are obscuring the view, the corpus of the uterus can be detached from the cervix as in supracervical hysterectomy fashion. From there, the uterus can be placed in the upper abdomen while colpotomy can be performed.

In patients with multiple fibroids, we do not recommend performing myomectomy first, unless the fibroid is pedunculated and on a very small stalk. Improved uterine manipulation and retroperitoneal dissection are preferred over myomectomy to safely complete hysterectomy for the broad uterus. In our opinion, any attempt at myomectomy would lead to unnecessary blood loss and additional operative time with minimal benefit.

In patients with fibroids that grow into the broad ligament and pelvic sidewall, the natural course of the ureter becomes displaced laterally. This is contrary to the popular misconception that the ureter is more medially located in the setting of broad-ligament fibroids. To ensure safe access to the uterine arteries, the vesicouterine peritoneum can be incised and extended cephalad along the broad ligament and, then, using the above-mentioned technique, by pushing the uterus and the fibroid to the contralateral side via the suction irrigator, the uterine arteries can be easily accessed.

Another useful technique is to use diluted vasopressin injected into the lower pole of the uterus to cause vasoconstriction and minimize the bleeding. The concentration is 1 cc of 20 units of vasopressin in 100-400 cc of saline. This technique is very useful for myomectomies, and some surgeons find it also helpful for hysterectomy. The plasma half-life of vasopressin is 10-20 minutes, and a large quantity is needed to help with vasoconstriction in a big uterus. The safe upper limits of vasopressin dosing are not firmly established. A fibroid uterus with aberrant vasculature may require a greater-than-acceptable dose to control bleeding.

It is important to ensure that patients have an optimized hemoglobin level preoperatively. We use a hemoglobin level of 8 g/dL as a lowest cutoff value for performing TLH without preoperative transfusion. Regarding bowel preparation, neither the literature nor our own experience support its value, so we typically do not use it.
 

Morcellation and patient counseling

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

Uteri up to 12 weeks’ gestational size usually can be extracted transvaginally, and most uteri regardless of size can be morcellated and extracted through the vagina, providing that the vaginal fornix is accessible from below. In some cases, such as when the apex is too high, a minilaparotomic incision is needed to extract the uterus, or when available, power morcellation can be performed.

A major challenge, given our growing ability to laparoscopically remove very larger uteri, is that uteri heavier than about 2.5 kg in weight cannot be morcellated inside a morcellation bag. The risk of upstaging a known or suspected uterine malignancy, or of spreading an unknown malignant sarcoma (presumed benign myoma), should be incorporated in each patient’s decision making.

Thorough counseling about surgical options and on the risks of morcellating a very large uterus without containment in a bag is essential. Each patient must understand the risks and decide whether the benefits of minimally invasive surgery outweigh these risks. While MRI can sometimes provide increased suspicion of a leiomyosarcoma, malignancy can never be completed excluded preoperatively.
 

Removal of a 7.4-kg uterus

Our patient was a 44-year-old with a markedly enlarged fibroid uterus. Having been told by other providers that she was not a candidate for minimally invasive hysterectomy, she had delayed surgical management for a number of years, allowing for such a generous uterine size to develop.

The patient was knowledgeable about her condition and, given her comorbid obesity, she requested a minimally invasive approach. Preoperative imaging included an ultrasound, which had to be completed abdominally because of the size of her uterus, and an additional MRI was needed to further characterize the extent and nature of her uterus. A very detailed discussion regarding risk of leiomyosarcoma, operative complications, and conversion to laparotomy ensued.

Intraoperatively, we placed the first 5 mm port in the left upper quadrant initially to survey the anatomy for feasibility of laparoscopic hysterectomy. The left utero-ovarian pedicle was easily viewed by airplaning the bed alone. While the right utero-ovarian pedicle was much more skewed and enlarged, the right IP was easily accessible and the ureter well visualized.

The decision was made to place additional ports and proceed with laparoscopic hysterectomy. The 5-mm assistant ports were placed lateral and directly above the upper vascular pedicles. Operative time was 4 hours and 12 minutes, and blood loss was only 700 cc. Her preoperative hemoglobin was optimized at 13.3 g/dL and dropped to 11.3 g/dL postoperatively. The patient was discharged home the next morning and had a normal recovery with no complications.
 

Dr. Pasic is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director of the section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy; and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery as well as an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Louisville. Dr. Pasic disclosed he is a consultant for Ethicon Endo, Medtronic, and Olympus and is a speaker for Cooper Surgical, which manufactures some of the instruments mentioned in this article. Dr. Cesta had no relevant financial disclosures.

It has now been 30 years since the first total laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed. The benefits of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) – and of minimally invasive hysterectomy specifically – are now well documented. Since this milestone procedure, both instrumentation and technique have improved significantly.

Physician experience is the most important determinant for which minimally invasive approach is used to perform hysterectomy. This includes traditional laparoscopy, as well as the robotically assisted laparoscopic approach. However, certain patient characteristics also may influence the choice. A uterus that is undescended, combined with a narrow introitus, for instance, can be a contributory factor in choosing to perform laparoscopic hysterectomy. Additionally, so can an extremely large uterus and an extremely high body mass index (BMI).

These latter two factors – a very large uterus (which we define as more than 15-16 weeks’ gestational size) and a BMI over 60 kg/m² – historically were considered to be contraindications to laparoscopic hysterectomy. But as the proficiency, comfort, and skill of a new generation of laparoscopic surgeons increases, the tide is shifting with respect to both morbid obesity and the very large uterus.

With growing experience and improved instrumentation, the majority of gynecologists who are fellowship-trained in MIGS are able to routinely and safely perform laparoscopic hysterectomy for uteri weighing 1-2 kg and in patients who have extreme morbid obesity. The literature, moreover, increasingly features case reports of laparoscopic removal of very large uteri and reviews/discussions of total laparoscopic hysterectomy being feasible.

In our own experience, total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) of the very large uterus can be safely and advantageously performed using key instruments and refinements in technique, as well as thorough patient counseling regarding the risk of unexpected sarcomas. Recently, we safely performed total laparoscopic hysterectomy for a patient with a uterus that – somewhat unexpectedly – weighed 7.4 kg.
 

Surgical pearls

Performing safe and effective total laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uteri – and for morbidly obese patients – hinges largely on modifications in entry and port placement, patient positioning, and choice of instrumentation. With these modifications, we can achieve adequate visualization of critical anatomy and can minimize bleeding. Otherwise, the surgery itself is largely the same. Here are the principles we find most helpful.

Entry and port placement

Traditionally, for TLHs, a camera port is placed at the umbilicus to provide a full view of the pelvis. For the larger uterus – and in women who are extremely obese – we aim to introduce the laparoscope higher. A reliable landmark is the Palmer’s point in the left upper quadrant. From here, we can identify areas for the placement of additional trocars.

In general, we place ancillary 5-mm ports more cephalad and lateral to the uterus than we otherwise would. Such placement facilitates effective visualization while accommodating manipulation of the uterus and allows us to avoid bleeding around the vascular upper pedicles. Overall, we have much better control through all parts of the surgery when we operate lateral to the uterus.
 

Patient positioning

In addition to the Trendelenburg position, we have adopted an “airplaning” technique for patients with a very large uterus in which the bed is tilted from side to side so that the left and right sides of the body are rotated upward as needed. This allows for gravitational-assisted retraction when it otherwise is not possible.

Instrumentation

For morbidly obese patients, we use Kii Fios advanced fixation trocars. These come in 5- and 10-mm sizes and are equipped with an intraperitoneal balloon that can be inflated to prevent sliding of the trocar out of the abdominal wall.

By far the most valuable instrument for the morbidly obese and the very large uterus is a 30-degree laparoscope. With our higher port placement as described, the 30-degree scope provides visualization of critical structures that wouldn’t be possible with a 0-degree scope.

The Rumi uterine manipulator comes with cups that come in different sizes and can fit around the cervix and help delineate the cervicouterine junction. We use this manipulator for all laparoscopic hysterectomies, but it is a must for the very large uterus.

Extensive desiccation of the utero-ovarian pedicles and uterine arteries is critical, and for this we advise using the rotating bipolar RoBi instrument. Use of the conventional bipolar instrument allows us to use targeted and anatomically guided application of energy. This ensures certainty that vessels whose limits exceed the diameter for advanced bipolar devices (typically 7 mm) are completely sealed. In-depth knowledge of pelvic anatomy and advanced laparoscopic dissection is paramount during these steps to ensure that vital structures are not damaged by the wider thermal spread of the traditional bipolar device. For cutting, the use of ultrasonic energy is important to prevent energy from spreading laterally.

Lastly, we recommend a good suction irrigator because, if bleeding occurs, it tends to be heavy because of the enlarged nature of feeding vasculature. When placed through an umbilical or suprapubic port, the suction irrigator also may be used to help with the rotational vectors and traction for further uterine manipulation.
 

Technique

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

We usually operate from top to bottom, transecting the upper pedicles such as the infundibulopelvic (IP) ligaments or utero-ovarian ligaments first, rather than the round ligaments. This helps us achieve additional mobility of the uterus. Some surgeons believe that retroperitoneal dissection and ligation of the uterine arteries at their origin is essential, but we find that, with good uterine manipulation and the use of a 30-degree scope, we achieve adequate visualization for identifying the ureter and uterine artery on the sidewall and consequently do not need to dissect retroperitoneally.

When using the uterine manipulator with the colpotomy cup, the uterus is pushed upward, increasing the distance between the vaginal fornix and the ureters. Uterine arteries can easily be identified and desiccated using conventional bipolar energy. When the colpotomy cup is pushed cephalad, the application of the bipolar energy within the limits of the cup is safe. The thermal spread does not pose a threat to the ureters, which are displaced 1.5-2 cm laterally. Large fibroids often contribute to distorted anatomical planes, and a colpotomy cup provides a firm palpable surface between the cervix and vagina during dissection.

When dealing with large uteri, one must sometimes think outside the box and deviate from standard technique. For instance, in patients with distorted anatomy because of large fibroids, it helps to first control the pedicles that are most easily accessible. Sometimes it is acceptable to perform oophorectomy if the IP ligament is more accessible and the utero-ovarian pedicle is distorted by dilated veins and adherent to the uterus. After transection of each pedicle, we gain more mobility of the uterus and better visualization for the next step.

Inserting the camera through ancillary ports – a technique known as “port hopping” – helps to visualize and take down adhesions much better and more safely than using the camera from the umbilical port only. Port hopping with a 30-degree laparoscope helps to obtain a 360-degree view of adhesions and anatomy, which is exceedingly helpful in cases in which crucial anatomical structures are within close proximity of one another.

In general it is more challenging to perform TLH on a patient with a broad uterus or a patient with low posterior fibroids that are occupying the pelvis than on a patient with fibroids in the upper abdomen. The main challenge for the surgeon is to safely secure the uterine arteries and control the blood supply to the uterus.

Access to the pelvic sidewall is obtained with the combination of 30-degree scope, uterine manipulator, and the suction irrigator introduced through the midline port; the cervix and uterus are deviated upward. Instead of the suction irrigator or blunt dissector used for internal uterine manipulation, some surgeons use myoma screws or a 5-mm single-tooth tenaculum to manipulate a large uterus. Both of those instruments are valuable and work well, but often a large uterus requires extensive manipulation. Repositioning of any sharp instruments that pierce the serosa can often lead to additional blood loss. It is preferable to avoid this blood loss on a large uterus at all costs because it can be brisk and stains the surgical pedicles, making the remainder of the procedure unnecessarily difficult.

Once the uterine arteries are desiccated, if fibroids are obscuring the view, the corpus of the uterus can be detached from the cervix as in supracervical hysterectomy fashion. From there, the uterus can be placed in the upper abdomen while colpotomy can be performed.

In patients with multiple fibroids, we do not recommend performing myomectomy first, unless the fibroid is pedunculated and on a very small stalk. Improved uterine manipulation and retroperitoneal dissection are preferred over myomectomy to safely complete hysterectomy for the broad uterus. In our opinion, any attempt at myomectomy would lead to unnecessary blood loss and additional operative time with minimal benefit.

In patients with fibroids that grow into the broad ligament and pelvic sidewall, the natural course of the ureter becomes displaced laterally. This is contrary to the popular misconception that the ureter is more medially located in the setting of broad-ligament fibroids. To ensure safe access to the uterine arteries, the vesicouterine peritoneum can be incised and extended cephalad along the broad ligament and, then, using the above-mentioned technique, by pushing the uterus and the fibroid to the contralateral side via the suction irrigator, the uterine arteries can be easily accessed.

Another useful technique is to use diluted vasopressin injected into the lower pole of the uterus to cause vasoconstriction and minimize the bleeding. The concentration is 1 cc of 20 units of vasopressin in 100-400 cc of saline. This technique is very useful for myomectomies, and some surgeons find it also helpful for hysterectomy. The plasma half-life of vasopressin is 10-20 minutes, and a large quantity is needed to help with vasoconstriction in a big uterus. The safe upper limits of vasopressin dosing are not firmly established. A fibroid uterus with aberrant vasculature may require a greater-than-acceptable dose to control bleeding.

It is important to ensure that patients have an optimized hemoglobin level preoperatively. We use a hemoglobin level of 8 g/dL as a lowest cutoff value for performing TLH without preoperative transfusion. Regarding bowel preparation, neither the literature nor our own experience support its value, so we typically do not use it.
 

Morcellation and patient counseling

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

Uteri up to 12 weeks’ gestational size usually can be extracted transvaginally, and most uteri regardless of size can be morcellated and extracted through the vagina, providing that the vaginal fornix is accessible from below. In some cases, such as when the apex is too high, a minilaparotomic incision is needed to extract the uterus, or when available, power morcellation can be performed.

A major challenge, given our growing ability to laparoscopically remove very larger uteri, is that uteri heavier than about 2.5 kg in weight cannot be morcellated inside a morcellation bag. The risk of upstaging a known or suspected uterine malignancy, or of spreading an unknown malignant sarcoma (presumed benign myoma), should be incorporated in each patient’s decision making.

Thorough counseling about surgical options and on the risks of morcellating a very large uterus without containment in a bag is essential. Each patient must understand the risks and decide whether the benefits of minimally invasive surgery outweigh these risks. While MRI can sometimes provide increased suspicion of a leiomyosarcoma, malignancy can never be completed excluded preoperatively.
 

Removal of a 7.4-kg uterus

Our patient was a 44-year-old with a markedly enlarged fibroid uterus. Having been told by other providers that she was not a candidate for minimally invasive hysterectomy, she had delayed surgical management for a number of years, allowing for such a generous uterine size to develop.

The patient was knowledgeable about her condition and, given her comorbid obesity, she requested a minimally invasive approach. Preoperative imaging included an ultrasound, which had to be completed abdominally because of the size of her uterus, and an additional MRI was needed to further characterize the extent and nature of her uterus. A very detailed discussion regarding risk of leiomyosarcoma, operative complications, and conversion to laparotomy ensued.

Intraoperatively, we placed the first 5 mm port in the left upper quadrant initially to survey the anatomy for feasibility of laparoscopic hysterectomy. The left utero-ovarian pedicle was easily viewed by airplaning the bed alone. While the right utero-ovarian pedicle was much more skewed and enlarged, the right IP was easily accessible and the ureter well visualized.

The decision was made to place additional ports and proceed with laparoscopic hysterectomy. The 5-mm assistant ports were placed lateral and directly above the upper vascular pedicles. Operative time was 4 hours and 12 minutes, and blood loss was only 700 cc. Her preoperative hemoglobin was optimized at 13.3 g/dL and dropped to 11.3 g/dL postoperatively. The patient was discharged home the next morning and had a normal recovery with no complications.
 

Dr. Pasic is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director of the section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy; and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery as well as an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Louisville. Dr. Pasic disclosed he is a consultant for Ethicon Endo, Medtronic, and Olympus and is a speaker for Cooper Surgical, which manufactures some of the instruments mentioned in this article. Dr. Cesta had no relevant financial disclosures.

In his excellent treatise on the history of hysterectomy, Chris Sutton, MBBch, noted that, while Themison of Athens in 50 bc and Soranus of Ephesus in 120 ad were reported to have performed vaginal hysterectomy, these cases essentially were emergency amputation of severely prolapsed uteri, which usually involved cutting both ureters and the bladder (J Minim Invas Gynecol. 2010 Jul;17[4]:421–35). It was not until 1801 that the first planned elective vaginal hysterectomy was performed, and it was not until the mid 19th century, in 1853, that Walter Burnham, MD, in Lowell, Mass., performed the first abdominal hysterectomy resulting in patient survival.

Seemingly incredible, it was only 125 years later, in autumn of 1988 at William Nesbitt Memorial Hospital in Kingston, Pa., that Harry Reich, MD, performed the first total laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy.

Since Dr. Reich’s groundbreaking procedure, the performance of laparoscopic hysterectomy has advanced at a feverish pace. In my own practice, I have not performed an abdominal hysterectomy since 1998. My two partners, who are both fellowship-trained in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh, MD, who joined my practice in 2007, and Kristen Sasaki, MD, who joined my practice in 2014, have never performed an open hysterectomy since starting practice. Despite these advances, a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is not without challenge. One of the most difficult situations is the truly large uterus – greater than 2,500 grams.

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Paya Pasic, MD, and Megan Cesta, MD, to discuss the next frontier: the removal of the multiple kilogram uterus.

Dr. Pasic is an internationally recognized leader in laparoscopic MIGS. He is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director, section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy, and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in MIGS at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Pasic is published in the field of MIGS, having authored many publications, book chapters, monographs, and textbooks.

Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in MIGS and an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the university.

It is truly a pleasure to welcome Dr. Pasic and Dr. Cesta to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at [email protected].

In his excellent treatise on the history of hysterectomy, Chris Sutton, MBBch, noted that, while Themison of Athens in 50 bc and Soranus of Ephesus in 120 ad were reported to have performed vaginal hysterectomy, these cases essentially were emergency amputation of severely prolapsed uteri, which usually involved cutting both ureters and the bladder (J Minim Invas Gynecol. 2010 Jul;17[4]:421–35). It was not until 1801 that the first planned elective vaginal hysterectomy was performed, and it was not until the mid 19th century, in 1853, that Walter Burnham, MD, in Lowell, Mass., performed the first abdominal hysterectomy resulting in patient survival.

Seemingly incredible, it was only 125 years later, in autumn of 1988 at William Nesbitt Memorial Hospital in Kingston, Pa., that Harry Reich, MD, performed the first total laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy.

Since Dr. Reich’s groundbreaking procedure, the performance of laparoscopic hysterectomy has advanced at a feverish pace. In my own practice, I have not performed an abdominal hysterectomy since 1998. My two partners, who are both fellowship-trained in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh, MD, who joined my practice in 2007, and Kristen Sasaki, MD, who joined my practice in 2014, have never performed an open hysterectomy since starting practice. Despite these advances, a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is not without challenge. One of the most difficult situations is the truly large uterus – greater than 2,500 grams.

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Paya Pasic, MD, and Megan Cesta, MD, to discuss the next frontier: the removal of the multiple kilogram uterus.

Dr. Pasic is an internationally recognized leader in laparoscopic MIGS. He is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director, section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy, and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in MIGS at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Pasic is published in the field of MIGS, having authored many publications, book chapters, monographs, and textbooks.

Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in MIGS and an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the university.

It is truly a pleasure to welcome Dr. Pasic and Dr. Cesta to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at [email protected].

In his excellent treatise on the history of hysterectomy, Chris Sutton, MBBch, noted that, while Themison of Athens in 50 bc and Soranus of Ephesus in 120 ad were reported to have performed vaginal hysterectomy, these cases essentially were emergency amputation of severely prolapsed uteri, which usually involved cutting both ureters and the bladder (J Minim Invas Gynecol. 2010 Jul;17[4]:421–35). It was not until 1801 that the first planned elective vaginal hysterectomy was performed, and it was not until the mid 19th century, in 1853, that Walter Burnham, MD, in Lowell, Mass., performed the first abdominal hysterectomy resulting in patient survival.

Seemingly incredible, it was only 125 years later, in autumn of 1988 at William Nesbitt Memorial Hospital in Kingston, Pa., that Harry Reich, MD, performed the first total laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy.

Since Dr. Reich’s groundbreaking procedure, the performance of laparoscopic hysterectomy has advanced at a feverish pace. In my own practice, I have not performed an abdominal hysterectomy since 1998. My two partners, who are both fellowship-trained in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh, MD, who joined my practice in 2007, and Kristen Sasaki, MD, who joined my practice in 2014, have never performed an open hysterectomy since starting practice. Despite these advances, a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is not without challenge. One of the most difficult situations is the truly large uterus – greater than 2,500 grams.

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Paya Pasic, MD, and Megan Cesta, MD, to discuss the next frontier: the removal of the multiple kilogram uterus.

Dr. Pasic is an internationally recognized leader in laparoscopic MIGS. He is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director, section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy, and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in MIGS at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Pasic is published in the field of MIGS, having authored many publications, book chapters, monographs, and textbooks.

Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in MIGS and an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the university.

It is truly a pleasure to welcome Dr. Pasic and Dr. Cesta to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at [email protected].

SNOWMASS, COLO. – The number of transcatheter aortic valve replacements (TAVRs) performed annually in the United States is forecast to rocket up from 75,000 in 2019 to 100,000 in 2020 in response to the procedure’s recent approval in low-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, Michael J. Mack, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2020, TAVR seems like a tsunami that’s totally overwhelming SAVR [surgical aortic valve replacement]. And the question is, after the wave hits shore, is there going to be anything left in the surgical arena?” asked Dr. Mack, who is medical director of cardiothoracic surgery and chairman of the Baylor Scott & White The Heart Hospital – Plano (Tex.) Research Center.

He answered his own question with a quote from Mark Twain: “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

The trend is clear: TAVR will take over the market for isolated aortic valve replacement in much the same way that endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has come to dominate open surgical repair by an 80:20 margin. And with the recent expansion of TAVR indications to include low-risk patients, the pool of potential candidates for TAVR has grown staggeringly large. By one estimate, it could include some 270,000 individuals per year in North America and the European Union (Eur Heart J. 2018 Jul 21;39[28]:2635-42).

But there’s no need to shed a tear at the prospect of SAVR surgeons standing in unemployment lines. They will continue to have their hands full performing combined SAVR plus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures, SAVR plus mitral or tricuspid valve operations, and Bentall procedures, Dr. Mack predicted.

Who should get SAVR for aortic stenosis in 2020? For starters, he said, the sorts of patients who were excluded from the major TAVR-versus-SAVR randomized trials. The low-surgical-risk trials were restricted to patients who had symptomatic aortic stenosis involving a tricuspid valve, no left ventricular outflow tract calcium, no or minimal coronary artery disease (CAD), a relatively normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and an aortic valve anatomy suitable for TAVR. And, 92% of study participants were over age 65 years.

Dr. Mack called the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of TAVR “the most robust evidence base in the history of medical devices,” backed by nine U.S. trials and 8,000 randomized patients during the last dozen years. He has played a major role in developing that evidence base, having served most recently as cochair of the landmark PARTNER 3 trial, which demonstrated superiority for TAVR over SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients. But the evidence base doesn’t apply to patients not enrolled in the trials. So for the foreseeable future, patients younger than age 65 years should probably stick with SAVR, mainly because of the still-open question of tissue valve durability and TAVR’s high rate of associated conduction system impairment and need for new pacemaker implantation. Younger patients find permanent pacemakers particularly problematic, he noted.

Others who should stick with surgery include patients with bicuspid valves, especially when aortopathy is present, individuals with low-lying coronary arteries, patients with heavy calcium deposits at the left ventricular outflow tract, those with infective endocarditis or rheumatic valve disease, and patients with structural valve deterioration after a valve-in-valve TAVR.

“Once you get beyond the first valve-in-valve, the outcomes are not going to be good. Those patients should preferentially be considered for surgery. The results for valve-in-valve have been very disappointing, with a 33% all-cause mortality at 3 years in the PARTNER Aortic Valve-in-Valve Registry,” according to the surgeon.

In patients with aortic stenosis and CAD, the clinical decision making should be based on the coronary disease. In a patient with triple-vessel disease, diabetes, and/or a high Syntax score for whom the collaborative multidisciplinary heart team would recommend surgical revascularization if aortic stenosis wasn’t present, the most appropriate option is SAVR plus CABG. On the other hand, if the CAD is amenable to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and the Syntax score is low, TAVR plus PCI is a safe and solid strategy, he continued.

In addition to the unresolved issue of tissue valve durability, another unanswered question pushing against universal adoption of TAVR involves the clinical implications of bioprosthetic valve leaflet thrombosis and the optimal antithrombotic therapy, both early and late. Leaflet thrombosis post-TAVR is common – as well as post-SAVR with bioprosthetic valves, albeit less so – but the lesions often come and go. Although there is a theoretical concern that they might be a precursor to leaflet destruction, at this point, their clinical significance remains unclear. In the recent GALILEO trial, TAVR patients randomized to low-dose rivaroxaban (Xarelto) plus aspirin showed fewer leaflet motion abnormalities and less leaflet thickening than did those on dual-antiplatelet therapy, but a significantly higher all-cause mortality (N Engl J Med 2020 Jan 9;382:120-9).

“I know that nowhere else in the body is thrombus a good thing, so thrombus in the valve can’t be a good thing. The only question is, how bad is it? And right now all we know is, some of our treatments for it are worse than the disease,” the surgeon commented.

Dr. Mack indicated that, at this time, clinical decision making in aortic stenosis should begin on the basis of patient age, which influences the key decision of whether to opt for a mechanical versus tissue replacement valve. For patients aged 50-70 years, shared decision making between the heart team and patient is appropriate. The evidence suggests SAVR with a mechanical valve is the better option, but many patients in this intermediate age group loathe the ideal of lifelong oral anticoagulation and favor a tissue valve.

For patients under age 50 years, the best evidence indicates that SAVR with a mechanical valve is clearly the best option; however, most young patients are instead opting for a tissue valve, even after being cautioned about the lingering uncertainty surrounding tissue valve durability, be it SAVR or TAVR. For patients over age 70 years, a tissue valve is the best choice based on the outcomes in PARTNER 3 and other low-surgical-risk trials. If the patient is younger than 65 years and wants a tissue valve, Dr. Mack thinks the best evidence-based option is SAVR. Above age 80 years, TAVR is the clear choice. Age 65-80 years is shared–decision making territory regarding TAVR versus SAVR.

Dr. Mack reported serving as a consultant to Gore and receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – The number of transcatheter aortic valve replacements (TAVRs) performed annually in the United States is forecast to rocket up from 75,000 in 2019 to 100,000 in 2020 in response to the procedure’s recent approval in low-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, Michael J. Mack, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2020, TAVR seems like a tsunami that’s totally overwhelming SAVR [surgical aortic valve replacement]. And the question is, after the wave hits shore, is there going to be anything left in the surgical arena?” asked Dr. Mack, who is medical director of cardiothoracic surgery and chairman of the Baylor Scott & White The Heart Hospital – Plano (Tex.) Research Center.

He answered his own question with a quote from Mark Twain: “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

The trend is clear: TAVR will take over the market for isolated aortic valve replacement in much the same way that endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has come to dominate open surgical repair by an 80:20 margin. And with the recent expansion of TAVR indications to include low-risk patients, the pool of potential candidates for TAVR has grown staggeringly large. By one estimate, it could include some 270,000 individuals per year in North America and the European Union (Eur Heart J. 2018 Jul 21;39[28]:2635-42).

But there’s no need to shed a tear at the prospect of SAVR surgeons standing in unemployment lines. They will continue to have their hands full performing combined SAVR plus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures, SAVR plus mitral or tricuspid valve operations, and Bentall procedures, Dr. Mack predicted.

Who should get SAVR for aortic stenosis in 2020? For starters, he said, the sorts of patients who were excluded from the major TAVR-versus-SAVR randomized trials. The low-surgical-risk trials were restricted to patients who had symptomatic aortic stenosis involving a tricuspid valve, no left ventricular outflow tract calcium, no or minimal coronary artery disease (CAD), a relatively normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and an aortic valve anatomy suitable for TAVR. And, 92% of study participants were over age 65 years.

Dr. Mack called the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of TAVR “the most robust evidence base in the history of medical devices,” backed by nine U.S. trials and 8,000 randomized patients during the last dozen years. He has played a major role in developing that evidence base, having served most recently as cochair of the landmark PARTNER 3 trial, which demonstrated superiority for TAVR over SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients. But the evidence base doesn’t apply to patients not enrolled in the trials. So for the foreseeable future, patients younger than age 65 years should probably stick with SAVR, mainly because of the still-open question of tissue valve durability and TAVR’s high rate of associated conduction system impairment and need for new pacemaker implantation. Younger patients find permanent pacemakers particularly problematic, he noted.

Others who should stick with surgery include patients with bicuspid valves, especially when aortopathy is present, individuals with low-lying coronary arteries, patients with heavy calcium deposits at the left ventricular outflow tract, those with infective endocarditis or rheumatic valve disease, and patients with structural valve deterioration after a valve-in-valve TAVR.

“Once you get beyond the first valve-in-valve, the outcomes are not going to be good. Those patients should preferentially be considered for surgery. The results for valve-in-valve have been very disappointing, with a 33% all-cause mortality at 3 years in the PARTNER Aortic Valve-in-Valve Registry,” according to the surgeon.

In patients with aortic stenosis and CAD, the clinical decision making should be based on the coronary disease. In a patient with triple-vessel disease, diabetes, and/or a high Syntax score for whom the collaborative multidisciplinary heart team would recommend surgical revascularization if aortic stenosis wasn’t present, the most appropriate option is SAVR plus CABG. On the other hand, if the CAD is amenable to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and the Syntax score is low, TAVR plus PCI is a safe and solid strategy, he continued.

In addition to the unresolved issue of tissue valve durability, another unanswered question pushing against universal adoption of TAVR involves the clinical implications of bioprosthetic valve leaflet thrombosis and the optimal antithrombotic therapy, both early and late. Leaflet thrombosis post-TAVR is common – as well as post-SAVR with bioprosthetic valves, albeit less so – but the lesions often come and go. Although there is a theoretical concern that they might be a precursor to leaflet destruction, at this point, their clinical significance remains unclear. In the recent GALILEO trial, TAVR patients randomized to low-dose rivaroxaban (Xarelto) plus aspirin showed fewer leaflet motion abnormalities and less leaflet thickening than did those on dual-antiplatelet therapy, but a significantly higher all-cause mortality (N Engl J Med 2020 Jan 9;382:120-9).

“I know that nowhere else in the body is thrombus a good thing, so thrombus in the valve can’t be a good thing. The only question is, how bad is it? And right now all we know is, some of our treatments for it are worse than the disease,” the surgeon commented.

Dr. Mack indicated that, at this time, clinical decision making in aortic stenosis should begin on the basis of patient age, which influences the key decision of whether to opt for a mechanical versus tissue replacement valve. For patients aged 50-70 years, shared decision making between the heart team and patient is appropriate. The evidence suggests SAVR with a mechanical valve is the better option, but many patients in this intermediate age group loathe the ideal of lifelong oral anticoagulation and favor a tissue valve.

For patients under age 50 years, the best evidence indicates that SAVR with a mechanical valve is clearly the best option; however, most young patients are instead opting for a tissue valve, even after being cautioned about the lingering uncertainty surrounding tissue valve durability, be it SAVR or TAVR. For patients over age 70 years, a tissue valve is the best choice based on the outcomes in PARTNER 3 and other low-surgical-risk trials. If the patient is younger than 65 years and wants a tissue valve, Dr. Mack thinks the best evidence-based option is SAVR. Above age 80 years, TAVR is the clear choice. Age 65-80 years is shared–decision making territory regarding TAVR versus SAVR.

Dr. Mack reported serving as a consultant to Gore and receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – The number of transcatheter aortic valve replacements (TAVRs) performed annually in the United States is forecast to rocket up from 75,000 in 2019 to 100,000 in 2020 in response to the procedure’s recent approval in low-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, Michael J. Mack, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2020, TAVR seems like a tsunami that’s totally overwhelming SAVR [surgical aortic valve replacement]. And the question is, after the wave hits shore, is there going to be anything left in the surgical arena?” asked Dr. Mack, who is medical director of cardiothoracic surgery and chairman of the Baylor Scott & White The Heart Hospital – Plano (Tex.) Research Center.

He answered his own question with a quote from Mark Twain: “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

The trend is clear: TAVR will take over the market for isolated aortic valve replacement in much the same way that endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has come to dominate open surgical repair by an 80:20 margin. And with the recent expansion of TAVR indications to include low-risk patients, the pool of potential candidates for TAVR has grown staggeringly large. By one estimate, it could include some 270,000 individuals per year in North America and the European Union (Eur Heart J. 2018 Jul 21;39[28]:2635-42).

But there’s no need to shed a tear at the prospect of SAVR surgeons standing in unemployment lines. They will continue to have their hands full performing combined SAVR plus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures, SAVR plus mitral or tricuspid valve operations, and Bentall procedures, Dr. Mack predicted.

Who should get SAVR for aortic stenosis in 2020? For starters, he said, the sorts of patients who were excluded from the major TAVR-versus-SAVR randomized trials. The low-surgical-risk trials were restricted to patients who had symptomatic aortic stenosis involving a tricuspid valve, no left ventricular outflow tract calcium, no or minimal coronary artery disease (CAD), a relatively normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and an aortic valve anatomy suitable for TAVR. And, 92% of study participants were over age 65 years.

Dr. Mack called the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of TAVR “the most robust evidence base in the history of medical devices,” backed by nine U.S. trials and 8,000 randomized patients during the last dozen years. He has played a major role in developing that evidence base, having served most recently as cochair of the landmark PARTNER 3 trial, which demonstrated superiority for TAVR over SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients. But the evidence base doesn’t apply to patients not enrolled in the trials. So for the foreseeable future, patients younger than age 65 years should probably stick with SAVR, mainly because of the still-open question of tissue valve durability and TAVR’s high rate of associated conduction system impairment and need for new pacemaker implantation. Younger patients find permanent pacemakers particularly problematic, he noted.

Others who should stick with surgery include patients with bicuspid valves, especially when aortopathy is present, individuals with low-lying coronary arteries, patients with heavy calcium deposits at the left ventricular outflow tract, those with infective endocarditis or rheumatic valve disease, and patients with structural valve deterioration after a valve-in-valve TAVR.

“Once you get beyond the first valve-in-valve, the outcomes are not going to be good. Those patients should preferentially be considered for surgery. The results for valve-in-valve have been very disappointing, with a 33% all-cause mortality at 3 years in the PARTNER Aortic Valve-in-Valve Registry,” according to the surgeon.

In patients with aortic stenosis and CAD, the clinical decision making should be based on the coronary disease. In a patient with triple-vessel disease, diabetes, and/or a high Syntax score for whom the collaborative multidisciplinary heart team would recommend surgical revascularization if aortic stenosis wasn’t present, the most appropriate option is SAVR plus CABG. On the other hand, if the CAD is amenable to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and the Syntax score is low, TAVR plus PCI is a safe and solid strategy, he continued.

In addition to the unresolved issue of tissue valve durability, another unanswered question pushing against universal adoption of TAVR involves the clinical implications of bioprosthetic valve leaflet thrombosis and the optimal antithrombotic therapy, both early and late. Leaflet thrombosis post-TAVR is common – as well as post-SAVR with bioprosthetic valves, albeit less so – but the lesions often come and go. Although there is a theoretical concern that they might be a precursor to leaflet destruction, at this point, their clinical significance remains unclear. In the recent GALILEO trial, TAVR patients randomized to low-dose rivaroxaban (Xarelto) plus aspirin showed fewer leaflet motion abnormalities and less leaflet thickening than did those on dual-antiplatelet therapy, but a significantly higher all-cause mortality (N Engl J Med 2020 Jan 9;382:120-9).

“I know that nowhere else in the body is thrombus a good thing, so thrombus in the valve can’t be a good thing. The only question is, how bad is it? And right now all we know is, some of our treatments for it are worse than the disease,” the surgeon commented.

Dr. Mack indicated that, at this time, clinical decision making in aortic stenosis should begin on the basis of patient age, which influences the key decision of whether to opt for a mechanical versus tissue replacement valve. For patients aged 50-70 years, shared decision making between the heart team and patient is appropriate. The evidence suggests SAVR with a mechanical valve is the better option, but many patients in this intermediate age group loathe the ideal of lifelong oral anticoagulation and favor a tissue valve.

For patients under age 50 years, the best evidence indicates that SAVR with a mechanical valve is clearly the best option; however, most young patients are instead opting for a tissue valve, even after being cautioned about the lingering uncertainty surrounding tissue valve durability, be it SAVR or TAVR. For patients over age 70 years, a tissue valve is the best choice based on the outcomes in PARTNER 3 and other low-surgical-risk trials. If the patient is younger than 65 years and wants a tissue valve, Dr. Mack thinks the best evidence-based option is SAVR. Above age 80 years, TAVR is the clear choice. Age 65-80 years is shared–decision making territory regarding TAVR versus SAVR.

Dr. Mack reported serving as a consultant to Gore and receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

Assessing appendicitis in children with initial ultrasound followed by computed tomography in the absence of appendix visualization and presence of secondary signs was the most cost-effective approach, according to data from a modeling study of 10 strategies.

Ultrasound is safer and less expensive than computed tomography and avoids radiation exposure; however, cost-effectiveness models of various approaches to imaging have not been well studied, wrote Rebecca Jennings, MD, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, Washington, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers simulated a hypothetical patient population using a Markov cohort model and compared 10 different strategies including CT only, MRI only, and ultrasound followed by CT or MRI after ultrasounds that are negative or fail to visualize the appendix.

Overall, the most cost-effective strategy for moderate-risk patients was the use of ultrasound followed by CT or MRI if the ultrasound failed to visualize the appendix and secondary signs of inflammation were present in the right lower quadrant. The cost of this strategy was $4,815, with effectiveness of 0.99694 quality-adjusted life-years. “The most cost-effective strategy is highly dependent on a patient’s risk stratification,” the researchers noted. Based on their model, imaging was not cost effective for patients with a prevalence less than 16% or greater than 95%. However, those with appendicitis risk between 16% and 95% and no secondary signs of inflammation can forgo further imaging, even without visualization of the appendix for maximum cost-effectiveness, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, including the inability to account for all potential costs related to imaging and outcomes, lack of accounting for the use of sedation when assessing costs, and inability to separate imaging costs from total hospital costs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that tailored imaging approaches based on patient risk are the most cost-effective strategies to assess appendicitis, they said.

“The diagnosis and exclusion of appendicitis continues to be one of the primary concerns of providers who care for children with abdominal pain,” wrote Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, and Charles L. Snyder, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital Kansas City, Mo., in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Feb;145:e20193349).

“The best diagnostic and imaging approach to appendicitis has been a topic of interest for some time, and improvements such as appendicitis scoring systems, decreased use of ionized radiation, and adoption of clinical algorithms have been incremental but steady,” they said. Despite the potential of missed appendicitis, the use of an algorithm based on an initial ultrasound and previous possibility of appendicitis described in the study was the most cost effective, they said. In addition, “the ability to visualize the appendix did not alter the most cost-effective approach in those with a moderate risk of appendicitis (most patients),” they concluded.

The study was supported by the University of Washington and Seattle Children’s Hospital Quality Improvement Scholars Program. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Rentea and Dr. Snyder had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Jennings R et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1352.

Assessing appendicitis in children with initial ultrasound followed by computed tomography in the absence of appendix visualization and presence of secondary signs was the most cost-effective approach, according to data from a modeling study of 10 strategies.

Ultrasound is safer and less expensive than computed tomography and avoids radiation exposure; however, cost-effectiveness models of various approaches to imaging have not been well studied, wrote Rebecca Jennings, MD, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, Washington, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers simulated a hypothetical patient population using a Markov cohort model and compared 10 different strategies including CT only, MRI only, and ultrasound followed by CT or MRI after ultrasounds that are negative or fail to visualize the appendix.

Overall, the most cost-effective strategy for moderate-risk patients was the use of ultrasound followed by CT or MRI if the ultrasound failed to visualize the appendix and secondary signs of inflammation were present in the right lower quadrant. The cost of this strategy was $4,815, with effectiveness of 0.99694 quality-adjusted life-years. “The most cost-effective strategy is highly dependent on a patient’s risk stratification,” the researchers noted. Based on their model, imaging was not cost effective for patients with a prevalence less than 16% or greater than 95%. However, those with appendicitis risk between 16% and 95% and no secondary signs of inflammation can forgo further imaging, even without visualization of the appendix for maximum cost-effectiveness, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, including the inability to account for all potential costs related to imaging and outcomes, lack of accounting for the use of sedation when assessing costs, and inability to separate imaging costs from total hospital costs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that tailored imaging approaches based on patient risk are the most cost-effective strategies to assess appendicitis, they said.

“The diagnosis and exclusion of appendicitis continues to be one of the primary concerns of providers who care for children with abdominal pain,” wrote Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, and Charles L. Snyder, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital Kansas City, Mo., in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Feb;145:e20193349).

“The best diagnostic and imaging approach to appendicitis has been a topic of interest for some time, and improvements such as appendicitis scoring systems, decreased use of ionized radiation, and adoption of clinical algorithms have been incremental but steady,” they said. Despite the potential of missed appendicitis, the use of an algorithm based on an initial ultrasound and previous possibility of appendicitis described in the study was the most cost effective, they said. In addition, “the ability to visualize the appendix did not alter the most cost-effective approach in those with a moderate risk of appendicitis (most patients),” they concluded.

The study was supported by the University of Washington and Seattle Children’s Hospital Quality Improvement Scholars Program. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Rentea and Dr. Snyder had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Jennings R et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1352.

Assessing appendicitis in children with initial ultrasound followed by computed tomography in the absence of appendix visualization and presence of secondary signs was the most cost-effective approach, according to data from a modeling study of 10 strategies.

Ultrasound is safer and less expensive than computed tomography and avoids radiation exposure; however, cost-effectiveness models of various approaches to imaging have not been well studied, wrote Rebecca Jennings, MD, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, Washington, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers simulated a hypothetical patient population using a Markov cohort model and compared 10 different strategies including CT only, MRI only, and ultrasound followed by CT or MRI after ultrasounds that are negative or fail to visualize the appendix.

Overall, the most cost-effective strategy for moderate-risk patients was the use of ultrasound followed by CT or MRI if the ultrasound failed to visualize the appendix and secondary signs of inflammation were present in the right lower quadrant. The cost of this strategy was $4,815, with effectiveness of 0.99694 quality-adjusted life-years. “The most cost-effective strategy is highly dependent on a patient’s risk stratification,” the researchers noted. Based on their model, imaging was not cost effective for patients with a prevalence less than 16% or greater than 95%. However, those with appendicitis risk between 16% and 95% and no secondary signs of inflammation can forgo further imaging, even without visualization of the appendix for maximum cost-effectiveness, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, including the inability to account for all potential costs related to imaging and outcomes, lack of accounting for the use of sedation when assessing costs, and inability to separate imaging costs from total hospital costs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that tailored imaging approaches based on patient risk are the most cost-effective strategies to assess appendicitis, they said.

“The diagnosis and exclusion of appendicitis continues to be one of the primary concerns of providers who care for children with abdominal pain,” wrote Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, and Charles L. Snyder, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital Kansas City, Mo., in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Feb;145:e20193349).

“The best diagnostic and imaging approach to appendicitis has been a topic of interest for some time, and improvements such as appendicitis scoring systems, decreased use of ionized radiation, and adoption of clinical algorithms have been incremental but steady,” they said. Despite the potential of missed appendicitis, the use of an algorithm based on an initial ultrasound and previous possibility of appendicitis described in the study was the most cost effective, they said. In addition, “the ability to visualize the appendix did not alter the most cost-effective approach in those with a moderate risk of appendicitis (most patients),” they concluded.

The study was supported by the University of Washington and Seattle Children’s Hospital Quality Improvement Scholars Program. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Rentea and Dr. Snyder had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Jennings R et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1352.