- •Compare same-day discharge (SDD) vs. traditional admission to the hospital following minimally invasive hysterectomy (MIS)
- •Six studies met eligibility criteria.
- •Results suggest that SDD post hysterectomy for gynecologic malignancies with or without staging is safe & feasible.
- •Low complication & readmissions rates, few/low rates of unscheduled visits within follow up period of 2–6 weeks after surgery
To compare same-day discharge (SDD) versus traditional admission to the hospital following minimally invasive hysterectomy (conventional laparoscopy and robotic assisted laparoscopy) for the treatment of gynecologic malignancies.
A systematic review was conducted in which MEDLINE and Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials were searched using terms related to same-day discharge, outpatient, and hysterectomy. We reviewed published English language trials and studies that compared safety, feasibility, readmission rate, emergency department (ED) visits, complication rate, and associated risk factors for admission. Studies of any design that included at least 20 patients who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy (conventional laparoscopy and robotic laparoscopy) for gynecologic oncology indications were included.
The literature review yielded 421 citations, of which 27 full-text articles were reviewed. Six comparative studies met eligibility criteria. Study data were abstracted and inputted into structural electronic forms.
Our results suggest that in comparison to admission post minimally invasive hysterectomy with or without full staging, SDD in gynecologic oncology procedures is safe, and feasible. It is associated with low complication and readmissions rates, few visits, and low rates of unscheduled visits within the follow up period of two to six weeks after surgery.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Gynecologic Oncology
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a metaanalysis.J. Am. Coll. Surg. 1998; 186: 545-553
- A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer.N. Engl. J. Med. 2004; 350: 2050-2059
- Total abdominal hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a meta-analysis.Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2009; 144: 3-7
- Radical hysterectomy: a comparison of surgical approaches after adoption of robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology.Gynecol. Oncol. 2011; 123: 333-336
- Hysterectomy Surveillance in the United States, 1994, 1999.2002 (Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5105a1.htm. Accessed November 15, 2014))
- Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: gynecologic oncology group study LAP2.J. Clin. Oncol. 2009; 27: 5331-5336
- Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: gynecologic oncology group LAP2 study.J. Clin. Oncol. 2012; 30: 695-700
- Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes.JSLS. 2006; 10: 473-478
- Daysurgery laparoscopic cholecystectomy: factors influencing same-day discharge.World J. Surg. 2008; 32: 76-81
- Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Br. J. Surg. 2008; 95: 161-168
- Vaginal hysterectomy. Its success as an outpatient procedure.AORN J. 1988; 48: 1114-1120
- Outpatient vaginal hysterectomy: a pilot study.Obstet. Gynecol. 1992; 80: 145-149
- Randomized comparison of laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy with standard vaginal hysterectomy in an outpatient setting.Obstet. Gynecol. 1992; 80: 895-901
- Outpatient vaginal hysterectomy as a new trend in gynecology.AORN J. 1995; 62: 810-814
- Comparison of perioperative outcomes in outpatient and inpatient laparoscopic hysterectomy.J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2013; 20: 604-610
- Outpatient vaginal hysterectomy is safe for patients and reduces institutional cost.J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2005; 12: 494-501
- Outpatient vaginal hysterectomy: optimizing perioperative management for same-day discharge.Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 120: 1355-1361
- Vaginal hysterectomy, an outpatient procedure.Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2012; 91: 1293-1299
- Same-day discharge after laparoscopic hysterectomy.Obstet. Gynecol. 2011; 117: 1136-1141
- Outpatient laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uteri.J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2012; : 19689-19694
- Feasibility and economic impact of same-day discharge for women who undergo laparoscopic hysterectomy.Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 207: 382
- Feasibility of same-day discharge after laparoscopic surgery in gynecologic oncology.Gynecol. Oncol. 2011; 121: 339-343
- Same-day discharge in clinical stage I endometrial cancer patients treated with total laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy.Oncology. 2012; 82: 321-326
- The feasibility and safety of same-day discharge after robotic-assisted hysterectomy alone or with other procedures for benign and malignant indications.Gynecol. Oncol. 2014; 133: 552-555
- Factors influencing same-day hospital discharge and risk factors for readmission after robotic surgery in the gynecologic oncology patient population.J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22: 219-226
- Same-day discharge is feasible and safe in patients undergoing minimally invasive staging for gynecologic malignancies.Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 212: e1-e8
- Same-day discharge after laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015; 5: 1-8
- Reducing readmissions after robotic surgical management of endometrial cancer: a potential for improved quality care.Gynecol. Oncol. 2013; 131: 508-511
Published online: July 27, 2016
Accepted: July 23, 2016
Received in revised form: July 12, 2016
Received: March 26, 2016
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.