Theodoor E. Nieboer

Bio: Theodoor E. Nieboer is an academic researcher from Radboud University Nijmegen. The author has contributed to research in topics: Laparoscopic surgery & Hysterectomy. The author has an hindex of 18, co-authored 46 publications receiving 2877 citations. Previous affiliations of Theodoor E. Nieboer include Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre.

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The four approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (from inception to 14 August 2014) using the Ovid platform: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO. We also searched relevant citation lists. We used both indexed and free-text terms. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction, quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvi-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction). MAIN RESULTS: We included 47 studies with 5102 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate quality. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (nine RCTs, 762 women)Return to normal activities was shorter in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -9.5 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.6 to -6.4, three RCTs, 176 women, I(2) = 75%, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (25 RCTs, 2983 women)Return to normal activities was shorter in the LH group (MD -13.6 days, 95% CI -15.4 to -11.8; six RCTs, 520 women, I(2) = 71%, low quality evidence), but there were more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.8, 13 RCTs, 2140 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (16 RCTs, 1440 women)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for any primary outcomes. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (two RCTs, 152 women)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for any primary outcomes. Neither of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life.Overall, the number of adverse events was low in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to LH and AH, as it is associated with faster return to normal activities. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because of more rapid recovery and fewer febrile episodes postoperatively. Where VH is not possible, LH has some advantages over AH (including more rapid recovery and fewer febrile episodes and wound or abdominal wall infections), but these are offset by a longer operating time. No advantages of LH over VH could be found; LH had a longer operation time, and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) had more urinary tract injuries. Of the three subcategories of LH, there are more RCT data for laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and LH than for TLH. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy and RH should either be abandoned or further evaluated since there is a lack of evidence of any benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. These benefits and hazards seem to be dependent on surgical expertise and this may influence the decision. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH may avoid the need for AH, but LH is associated with more urinary tract injuries. There is no evidence that RH is of benefit in this population. Preferably, the surgical approach to hysterectomy should be decided by the woman in discussion with her surgeon.

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease (Review)

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The three approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH). Laparoscopic hysterectomy has three further subdivisions depending on the part of the procedure performed laparoscopically. OBJECTIVES: To assess the most beneficial and least harmful surgical approach to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials (15 August 2008), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2008), EMBASE (1980 to August 2008), Biological Abstracts (1969 to August 2008), the National Research Register, and relevant citation lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials comparing one surgical approach to hysterectomy with another were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Independent selection of trials and data extraction were employed following Cochrane guidelines. MAIN RESULTS: There were 34 included studies with 4495 women. The benefits of VH versus AH were speedier return to normal activities (mean difference (MD) 9.5 days), fewer febrile episodes or unspecified infections (odds ratio (OR) 0.42), and shorter duration of hospital stay (MD 1.1 days). The benefits of LH versus AH were speedier return to normal activities (MD 13.6 days), lower intraoperative blood loss (MD 45 cc), a smaller drop in haemoglobin (MD 0.55 g/dl), shorter hospital stay (MD 2.0 days), and fewer wound or abdominal wall infections (OR 0.31) at the cost of more urinary tract (bladder or ureter) injuries (OR 2.41) and longer operation time (MD 20.3 minutes). The benefits of LAVH versus TLH were fewer febrile episodes or unspecified infection (OR 3.77) and shorter operation time (MD 25.3 minutes). There was no evidence of benefits of LH versus VH and the operation time (MD 39.3 minutes) as well as substantial bleeding (OR 2.76) were increased in LH. For some important outcomes, the analyses were underpowered to detect important differences or they were simply not reported in trials. Data were absent for many important long-term outcome measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because of equal or significantly better outcomes on all parameters, VH should be performed in preference to AH where possible. Where VH is not possible, LH may avoid the need for AH however the length of the surgery increases as the extent of the surgery performed laparoscopically increases. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be decided by the woman in discussion with her surgeon in light of the relative benefits and hazards.

The operation room as a hostile environment for surgeons: physical complaints during and after laparoscopy.

Abstract: Due to suboptimal ergonomic conditions during laparoscopic procedures, surgeons are exposed to physical strain on the upper extremity. The primary objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of physical complaints among laparoscopic surgeons and to assess the factors that influence these complaints. A questionnaire was distributed in a university hospital to all surgeons who perform laparoscopic procedures. Participants were asked to answer questions related to experience, physical complaints during or after laparoscopic procedures and the possible causes of their complaints. Fifty-five out of 92 (60%) surgeons completed the questionnaire. In this group, 40 surgeons (73%) reported physical complaints during or after laparoscopic procedures, mainly involving neck, lower back, shoulders and thumbs. Significantly more surgeons reported complaints in the dominant upper extremity compared to the non-dominant side. Poor table height adjustment, bad monitor positioning and suboptimal design of instrument handles were reported as important causes of complaints. Physical complaints of the dominant upper extremity are common among laparoscopic surgeons, especially less experienced surgeons. The dominant upper extremity appears to be more involved than the non-dominant side. More awareness and implementation of ergonomic guidelines is needed.

Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys

Abstract: 25. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. By D. B. Rubin. ISBN 0 471 08705 X. Wiley, Chichester, 1987. 258 pp. £30.25.

Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery

Abstract: These guidelines were developed jointly by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Surgical Infection Society (SIS), and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). This work represents an update to the

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The four approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (from inception to 14 August 2014) using the Ovid platform: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO. We also searched relevant citation lists. We used both indexed and free-text terms. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction, quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvi-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction). MAIN RESULTS: We included 47 studies with 5102 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate quality. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (nine RCTs, 762 women)Return to normal activities was shorter in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -9.5 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.6 to -6.4, three RCTs, 176 women, I(2) = 75%, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (25 RCTs, 2983 women)Return to normal activities was shorter in the LH group (MD -13.6 days, 95% CI -15.4 to -11.8; six RCTs, 520 women, I(2) = 71%, low quality evidence), but there were more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.8, 13 RCTs, 2140 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (16 RCTs, 1440 women)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for any primary outcomes. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (two RCTs, 152 women)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for any primary outcomes. Neither of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life.Overall, the number of adverse events was low in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to LH and AH, as it is associated with faster return to normal activities. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because of more rapid recovery and fewer febrile episodes postoperatively. Where VH is not possible, LH has some advantages over AH (including more rapid recovery and fewer febrile episodes and wound or abdominal wall infections), but these are offset by a longer operating time. No advantages of LH over VH could be found; LH had a longer operation time, and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) had more urinary tract injuries. Of the three subcategories of LH, there are more RCT data for laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and LH than for TLH. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy and RH should either be abandoned or further evaluated since there is a lack of evidence of any benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. These benefits and hazards seem to be dependent on surgical expertise and this may influence the decision. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH may avoid the need for AH, but LH is associated with more urinary tract injuries. There is no evidence that RH is of benefit in this population. Preferably, the surgical approach to hysterectomy should be decided by the woman in discussion with her surgeon.

Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Abstract: Background Minimally invasive surgery was adopted as an alternative to laparotomy (open surgery) for radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer before high-quality evidence regarding its effect on survival was available. We sought to determine the effect of minimally invasive surgery on all-cause mortality among women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Methods We performed a cohort study involving women who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IA2 or IB1 cervical cancer during the 2010–2013 period at Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals in the United States. The study used inverse probability of treatment propensity-score weighting. We also conducted an interrupted time-series analysis involving women who underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer during the 2000–2010 period, using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database. Results In the primary analysis, 1225 of 2461 women (49.8%) underwent minimally invasive surge...