Objectives: To compare uterine-sparing treatment options for fibroids in terms of reintervention risk and quality of life. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. Setting: Not applicable. Patient(s): Women with uterine fibroids undergoing a uterine-sparing intervention. Interventions(s): Not applicable. Main Outcome Measure(s): 1) Reintervention risk after uterine-sparing treatment for fibroids after 12, 36, and 60 months; and 2) quality of life outcomes, based on validated questionnaires. Two separate analyses were performed for the procedures that used an abdominal approach (myomectomy, uterine artery embolization [UAE], artery ligation, high-intensity focused ultrasound [HIFU], laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation [RFA]) and for the procedures managing intracavitary fibroids (hysteroscopic approach, including hysteroscopic myomectomy and hysteroscopic RFA). Result(s): There were 85 articles included for analysis, representing 17,789 women. Stratified by treatment options, reintervention risk after 60 months was 12.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.2%–21.2%) for myomectomy, 14.4% (95% CI 9.8%–19.6%) for UAE, 53.9% (95% CI 47.2%–60.4%) for HIFU, and 7% (95% CI 4.8%–9.5%) for hysteroscopy. For the other treatment options, no studies were available at 60 months. For quality of life outcomes, symptoms improved after treatment for all options. The HIFU procedure had the least favorable outcomes. Conclusion(s): Despite the substantial heterogeneity of the study population, this meta-analysis provides valuable information on relative treatment efficacy of various uterine-sparing interventions for fibroids, which is relevant when counseling patients in daily practice. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that long-term data, particularly for the newest uterine-sparing interventions, are urgently needed.

@en

Purpose: To compare hospital versus individual surgeon’s perioperative outcomes for laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), and to assess the relationship between surgeon experience and perioperative outcomes. Methods: A retrospective analysis of all prospective collected LHs performed from 2003 to 2010 at one medical center was performed. Perioperative outcomes (operative time, blood loss, complication rate) were assessed on both a hospital level and surgeon level using Cumulative Observed minus Expected performance graphs. Results: A total of 1618 LHs were performed, 16 % total laparoscopic hysterectomies and 84 % laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomies. Overall outcomes included mean (SD±) blood loss 108.9 ± 69.2 mL, mean operative time 95.4 ± 39.7 min and a complication occurred in 76 (4.7 %) of cases. Suboptimal perioperative outcomes of an individual surgeon were not always detected on a hospital level. However, collective suboptimal outcomes were faster detected on a hospital level compared to individual surgeon’s level. Evidence of a learning curve is seen; for the first 100 procedures, a decrease in operative time is observed as individual surgeon experience increases. Similarly, the risk of conversion decreases up to the first 50 procedures. Conclusion: An individual outlier (i.e., surgeon with consistently suboptimal performance) will not always be detected when monitoring outcome measures only on a hospital level. However, monitoring outcome measures on a hospital level will detect suboptimal performance earlier compared to monitoring only on an individual surgeon’s level. To detect performance outliers timely, insight into an individual surgeon’s outcome and skills is recommended. Furthermore, an experienced surgeon is no guarantee for acceptable surgical outcomes.@en