nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.05.2012 | General Gynecology

Comparative analysis of different laparoscopic hysterectomy procedures

verfasst von: Deslyn T. G. Hobson, Anthony N. Imudia, Zain A. Al-Safi, George Shade, Michael Kruger, Michael P. Diamond, Awoniyi O. Awonuga

Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Ausgabe 5/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the antecedent gynecological characteristics, indications for, and complications associated with, the different laparoscopic approaches to hysterectomy, in women with benign gynecological conditions.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of 957 patients who underwent laparoscopic supracervical (LSH), total (TLH), and assisted vaginal (LAVH) hysterectomies between January 2003 and December 2009.

Results

Among 957 LH, 799 (83.5%) were LSH, 62 (6.4%) TLH, and 96 (10.1%) LAVH. Demographic characteristics were not different among the groups. Antecedent gynecologic conditions that were associated with the type of laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) performed were: postmenopausal bleeding [LAVH vs. LSH, odds ratio (OR) 2.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04–4.65], previous pelvic surgery (TLH vs. LSH, OR 1.92; CI 1.05–3.52), previous cesarean delivery (LAVH vs. LSH, OR 0.39; CI 0.21–0.76), and prior hysteroscopy (LAVH vs. LSH, OR 0.29; CI 0.16–0.50). Preoperative diagnoses that were associated with the choice of LH were: menometrorrhagia (LAVH vs. LSH, OR 0.23; CI 0.14–0.38; TLH vs. LSH, OR 0.50; CI 0.26–0.98), uterine fibroids (LAVH vs. LSH, OR 0.25; CI 0.15–0.41), endometrial hyperplasia (TLH vs. LSH, OR 5.5; CI 2.04–14.84), and cervical dysplasia (TLH vs. LSH, OR 17.1; CI 6.83–42.79; LAVH vs. LSH, OR 8.05; CI 3.05–22.06). Estimated blood loss, operating time, and length of hospital stay were significantly reduced with LSH.

Conclusion

Antecedent gynecological history and the indications for surgery were associated with the type of LH performed in our institution. LSH was the most common approach and was associated with significantly less morbidity.

Wu JM et al (2007) Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003. Obstet Gynecol 110(5):1091–1095PubMedCrossRef

Farquhar CM, Steiner CA (2002) Hysterectomy rates in the United States 1990–1997. Obstet Gynecol 99(2):229–234PubMedCrossRef

Jacoby VL et al (2009) Nationwide use of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal and vaginal approaches. Obstet Gynecol 114(5):1041–1048PubMedCrossRef

Reich H, Roberts L (2003) Laparoscopic hysterectomy in current gynecological practice. Rev Gynaecol Pract 3:32–40CrossRef

Nieboer TE et al (2009) Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD003677

Erian J et al (2008) Efficacy of laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy in the management of menorrhagia: 400 consecutive cases. BJOG 115(6):742–748PubMedCrossRef

Milad MP et al (2001) A comparison of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy vs laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Surg Endosc 15(3):286–288PubMedCrossRef

Ostrzenski A, Radolinski B, Ostrzenska KM (2003) A review of laparoscopic ureteral injury in pelvic surgery. Obstet Gynecol Surv 58(12):794–799PubMedCrossRef

Spiegelman D, Hertzmark E (2005) Easy SAS calculations for risk or prevalence ratios and differences. Am J Epidemiol 162(3):199–200PubMedCrossRef

10.

Lethaby A et al (2000) Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD000329

11.

Occhino JA, Gebhart JB (2010) Difficult vaginal hysterectomy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 53(1):40–50PubMedCrossRef

12.

Pasic R, Abdelmonem A, Levine R (2006) Comparison of cervical detachment using monopolar lap loop ligature and conventional methods in laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. JSLS 10(2):226–230PubMed

13.

Bojahr B, Tchartchian G, Ohlinger R (2009) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy: a retrospective analysis of 1000 cases. JSLS 13(2):129–134PubMed

14.

Carlson KJ, Nichols DH, Schiff I (1993) Indications for hysterectomy. N Engl J Med 328(12):856–860PubMedCrossRef

15.

El-Mowafi D et al (2004) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 11(2):175–180PubMedCrossRef

16.

Altman D et al (2007) Hysterectomy and risk of stress-urinary-incontinence surgery: nationwide cohort study. Lancet 370(9597):1494–1499PubMedCrossRef

17.

Altman D et al (2008) Pelvic organ prolapse surgery following hysterectomy on benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(5):572 (e1–6)PubMedCrossRef

18.

Thakar R et al (2002) Outcomes after total versus subtotal abdominal hysterectomy. N Engl J Med 347(17):1318–1325PubMedCrossRef

19.

Robert M, Soraisham A, Sauve R (2008) Postoperative urinary incontinence after total abdominal hysterectomy or supracervical hysterectomy: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(3):264 (e1–5)PubMedCrossRef

20.

Munro MG (1997) Supracervical hysterectomy: a time for reappraisal. Obstet Gynecol 89(1):133–139PubMedCrossRef

21.

Saini J et al (2002) Supracervical hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy: perceived effects on sexual function. BMC Womens Health 2(1):1PubMedCrossRef

22.

Sills ES et al (1998) Abdominal hysterectomy practice patterns in the United States. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 63(3):277–283PubMedCrossRef

23.

Kives S et al (2010) Supracervical hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 32(1):62–68PubMed

24.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2008) ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 99: management of abnormal cervical cytology and histology. Obstet Gynecol 112(6):1419–1444CrossRef

25.

Cutler E, Zollinger R (1949) Atlas of surgical operations. Macmillan, New York

26.

Kilkku P, Gronroos M (1982) Peroperative electrocoagulation of endocervical mucosa and later carcinoma of the cervical stump. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 61(3):265–267PubMedCrossRef

27.

Kilkku P, Gronroos M, Rauramo L (1985) Supravaginal uterine amputation with peroperative electrocoagulation of endocervical mucosa. Description of the method. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 64(2):175–177PubMedCrossRef

28.

Jimerson GK, Merrill JA (1976) Cancer and dysplasia of the post-hysterectomy vaginal cuff. Gynecol Oncol 4(3):328–334PubMedCrossRef

29.

Lyons TL (1993) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy using contact ND-YAG laser. Gynecol Endosc 2:79–81

30.

Videlefsky A et al (2000) Routine vaginal cuff smear testing in post-hysterectomy patients with benign uterine conditions: when is it indicated? J Am Board Fam Pract 13(4):233–238PubMed

31.

Hellstrom AC, Sigurjonson T, Pettersson F (2001) Carcinoma of the cervical stump. The radiumhemmet series 1959–1987. Treatment and prognosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80(2):152–157PubMedCrossRef

32.

Drahonovsky J et al (2006) Clinical comparison of laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) and total laparoscopy hysterectomy (TLH) in women with benign disease of uterus—a prospective randomized study. Ceska Gynekol 71(6):431–437PubMed

33.

Donnez O, Donnez J (2010) A series of 400 laparoscopic hysterectomies for benign disease: a single centre single surgeon prospective study of complications confirming previous retrospective study. BJOG 117(6):752–755PubMedCrossRef

34.

Donnez O et al (2009) A series of 3190 laparoscopic hysterectomies for benign disease from 1990 to 2006: evaluation of complications compared with vaginal and abdominal procedures. BJOG 116(4):492–500PubMedCrossRef

35.

Morelli M et al (2007) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus laparoscopic total hysterectomy: a prospective randomized study. Minerva Ginecol 59(1):1–10PubMed

Titel: Comparative analysis of different laparoscopic hysterectomy procedures
verfasst von: Deslyn T. G. Hobson
Anthony N. Imudia
Zain A. Al-Safi
George Shade
Michael Kruger
Michael P. Diamond
Awoniyi O. Awonuga
Publikationsdatum: 01.05.2012
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Ausgabe 5/2012
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2140-2

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Comparative analysis of different laparoscopic hysterectomy procedures