Outpatient Hysterectomy versus Inpatient Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The aim was to investigate whether outpatient hysterectomy (OH) has benefits when compared with inpatient hysterectomy (IH) regarding postoperative complications, readmissions, operative outcomes, cost, and patient quality of life.A systematic search for studies comparing OH with IH was conducted through PubMed, SAGE, and Scopus from January 2010 to March 2020, without limitations regarding language and study design.Studies reporting on the differences between same-day discharge and overnight stay after hysterectomy were included. The study outcomes were overall complication rate, type of complication, readmission after discharge, surgery duration, estimated blood loss, payer savings, hospital savings, and health-related quality of life (HrQoL). Median and range are used to describe non-normal data, while mean ± SD and confidence interval are used to descibe data with normal distribution. A meta-analysis with sensitivity analysis and subgroup analyses was performed.Eight studies published between 2011 and 2019 with 104,466 patients who underwent hysterectomy were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. All included studies except 1 were found to have a high risk of bias. OH in comparison with IH had a lower overall complication rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.82) and lower rates of wound infection (OR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.84), urinary tract infection (OR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.78), need for transfusion (OR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.59), sepsis (OR 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.64), uncontrolled pain (OR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.95), and bleeding requiring medical attention (OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.94). In addition, patients who underwent OH had a lower readmission rate (OR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.87), surgery duration (standardized mean difference -0.35; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.08), and estimated blood loss (standardized mean difference -0.63; 95% CI, -0.93 to -0.33) than those who underwent IH. A qualitative analysis found that OH had a poorer patient HrQoL and a lower cost for the hospital as well as the payer.OHs present fewer complications and have a lower readmission rate and estimated blood loss as well as a shorter surgery duration than IHs. OHs also have a cost benefit in comparison with IHs. But patients seem to have a worse HrQoL in the first postoperative week after OH. The high risk of bias of the included studies indicates that well-designed clinical trials and standardization of surgical complication reporting are essential to better address this issue.