Clinical outcomes and health care utilization pre- and post-laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of symptomatic fibroids and laparoscopic myomectomy: a randomized trial of uterine-sparing techniques (TRUST) in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Darrien D Rattray,1 Laura Weins,2 Lexy C Regush,2 James M Bowen,3,4 Daria O’Reilly,3,4 John A Thiel1,2 1Department of Gynecology, Regina General Hospital, Regina, SK, Canada; 2Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Regina, SK, Canada; 3Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 4Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH), Research Institute of St Joe’s Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada Objective: The objective of this study was to compare laparoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation of fibroids (Lap-RFA) and laparoscopic myomectomy in terms of 1) health care utilization and 2) serious complication rates. The secondary objectives were comparison of subject responses to validated symptom and quality-of-life questionnaires. We hypothesized that Lap-RFA health care utilization and clinical outcomes would not be worse than those of laparoscopic myomectomy in the aggregate. Patients and methods: Post-market, randomized, prospective, multicenter, longitudinal, non-inferiority interventional comparative evaluation of health care utilization and clinical outcomes in premenopausal women with symptomatic uterine fibroids who desired uterine conservation was conducted. Both procedures were planned as outpatient day surgeries. Health care resource utilization was measured during the procedure day and at 1 week, 1 and 3 months post-surgery. Symptom severity and quality of life were based on patients’ responses to the Uterine Fibroid Symptom Severity and Quality-of-Life Questionnaire, EuroQol-5D-visual analog scale general health status and menstrual impact questionnaires, and time from work. Results: Forty-five participants provided written informed consent and were enrolled (Lap-RFA, n=23; myomectomy, n=22) in Canada. Hospitalization time (primary endpoint) was 6.7±3.0 hours for the Lap-RFA group and 9.9±10.7 hours for the myomectomy group (Wilcoxon, p=0.0004). Intraoperative blood loss was lesser for Lap-RFA subjects: 25.2±21.6 versus 82.4±62.5 mL (p=0.0002). Lap-RFA procedures took lesser time than myomectomy procedures: 70.0 versus 86.5 minutes (p=0.018), and Lap-RFA required −34.9% (130 fewer) units of surgical equipment. At 3 months, both cohorts reported the same significant symptom severity reduction (−44.8%; p<0.0001). Lap-RFA subjects also took lesser time from work: 11.1±7.6 versus 18.5±10.6 days (p=0.0193). One myomectomy subject was hospitalized overnight after experiencing a 20-second asystole during the procedure. One Lap-RFA subject underwent a reintervention. The combined per patient direct and indirect costs of the two procedures were comparable: Lap-RFA (CAD $5,224.96) and myomectomy (CAD $5,321.96). Conclusion: Compared to myomectomy, Lap-RFA is associated with significantly lesser intraoperative blood loss, shorter procedure and hospitalization times, lesser consumption/use of disposable and reusable surgery equipment, reduced health care resource utilization, and faster return to work through 3 months posttreatment. Direct and indirect costs of Lap-RFA and myomectomy are comparable. Keywords: Acessa, radiofrequency ablation, fibroids, laparoscopy, myomectomy, ultrasound
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».