Advertisement

The History of Hysterectomy

  • Christopher J. G. SuttonEmail author
Chapter
  • 898 Downloads

Abstract

Vaginal hysterectomy dates back to ancient times. The procedure was probably first performed by Themison of Athens 20 years before the birth of Christ and definitely performed and described by Soranus of Ephesus in 120 AD. There are many reports of its use in the middle ages and, although some can be substantiated most were for the extirpation of an inverted uterus post-partum and the patients rarely survived.

Up until the beginning of the nineteenth Century it was considered certain death to open the peritoneal cavity by a surgical incision so the only realistic way to remove a uterus for cancer was by the vaginal approach and there are well documented successful vaginal hysterectomies by German surgeons such as Ossiander and Langenbeck who both came from Gottingen.

The first laparotomy deliberately performed to remove a massive ovarian tumour was by Ephraim McDowell on Christmas Day 1809 and was not in a famous University Hospital but in the small American frontier town of Danville in Kentucky when he operated on Jane Todd Crawford on his kitchen table without anaesthetic.

The first abdominal hysterectomy was performed by Charles Clay in Manchester, England in 1843; unfortunately the diagnosis was wrong and the patient died in the immediate post-operative period. The following year, Charles Clay was almost the first to claim a surviving patient, however she died post-operatively on the 15th day and it was not until 1853 that Walter Burnham from Lowell, Massachusetts achieved the first successful abdominal hysterectomy although again the diagnosis was wrong.

Later that year Gilman Kimball who was also from Lowell had the honour of achieving the first survivor of abdominal hysterectomy in the world when he removed a large fibroid correctly diagnosed before the operation.

The early hysterectomies were fraught with hazard and the patients usually died of haemorrhage, peritonitis, and exhaustion. Early procedures were performed without anaesthesia with a mortality of about 70 %, mainly due to sepsis from leaving a long ligature to encourage the drainage of pus. Thomas Keith from Scotland realized the danger of this practice and merely cauterized the cervical stump and allowed it to fall internally, thereby bringing the mortality down to about 8 %.

Hysterectomy became safer with the introduction of anaesthesia, antibiotics and antisepsis, blood transfusions and intravenous therapy. During the 1930s, Richardson introduced the total abdominal hysterectomy to avoid sero-sanguineous discharge from the cervical remnant and the risk of cervical carcinoma developing in the stump. Apart from this innovation, and the transverse incision introduced by Pfannenstiel in 1900, there was little advance in hysterectomy techniques until the advent of endoscopic surgery and the performance of the first total laparoscopic hysterectomy by Harry Reich in Kingston, Pennsylvania in 1988.

Since general surgeons introduced laparoscopy to remove the gall bladder industry has risen to the challenge and new instrumentation of increasing sophistication including the use of robotics continues to refine hysterectomy leading to increasing safety for the patient and less fatigue for the surgeon.

Keywords

History of gynaecological surgery Ovarian surgery Total abdominal hysterectomy Vaginal hysterectomy Sub-total hysterectomy, laparoscopic total hysterectomy Laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy Hysterectomy rates Day case hysterectomy Instrumentation for hysterectomy Robotic hysterectomy Robotics 

References

  1. 1.
    Lameras K. Galen and hippocrates. Athens: Papyrus; 1975.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Studd J. Ovariotomy for menstrual madness and premenstrual syndrome – 19th century history and lessons for current practice. Gynaecol Endocrinol. 2006;22(8):411–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barker-Benfield GI. The horrors of the half-known life. London: Routledge; 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adler RE. Medical firsts: from Hippocrates to the human genome. Hobokin: Wiley; 2004.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leonardo RA. History of gynecology. New York: Foben Press; 1944.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Temkin O (1956). Soranus’ Gynaecology. (Translated). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1991. Softshell Books edition.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Dowd MJ, Philipp EE. The history of obstetrics and gynaecology. Carnforth: Parthenon Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Soranus (of Ephesus). De arte obstetrician morbisque mulierum quae superaunt. Ex apogropho F.R. Dietze. Regimontii Pr: Graef et Unzer; 1838.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Senn N. The early history of vaginal hysterectomy. JAMA. 1895;25:476–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Avenzoar A. L iber Teiser, sive rectification medication et regiminus. J & G de Gregoriis, Venice.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berengario da Carpi G. Commentaria cum amplissimis additionibus super anatomia Mundini., per H de Benedictus, Bononiae; 1521.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benrubi GI. History of hysterectomy. J Fla Med Assoc. 1988;75:533–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sutton CJG. The history of vaginal hysterectomy. In: Sheth SS, editor. Vaginal hysterectomy, vol. 1. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Publishers; 2014. p. 1–8.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thornton JL, Want PC. William Harvey (1578 – 1657), ‘Father of British Obstetrics’, and his friend Percival Willughby (1596 – 1685). Br J Obst Gynaecol. 1978;85(4):241–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baskett T. On the shoulders of giants. Eponyms in obstetrics and gynaecology. 1st ed. London: Butterworths; 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ricci JV. One hundred years of gynaecology 1800–1900. Philadelphia: Bakiston Company; 1945.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Langenbeck CJM. Geschichte einer von mir glucklich verichteten extirpation der ganger gebarrmutter. Bibliotyh Chir Opth Hannover. 1817;1:557–62.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matthieu A. History of hysterectomy. West J Surg Obstet Gynecol. 1934;1(8):333–49.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sutton CJG. Hysterectomy: a historical perspective. In: Wood C, Maher P, editors. Baillières clinical obstetrics and gynaecology, Hysterectomy, vol. 1. London: Bailliere Tindal; 1997. p. 1–23.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ricci JV. Genealogy of gynaecology. Philadelphia: Blakiston; 1950. p. 350–2.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gray L. The life and times of Ephraim McDowell. Louisville: VG Reid Printers; 1987.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sutton CJG. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists historical lecture 1993. 150 years of hysterectomy: from Charles Clay to laparoscopic hysterectomy. Year Book of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. London: RCOG Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ellis H. Ephraim McDowell and the first elective successful laparotomy. Br J Hosp Med(Lond). 2009;70(2):107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tan SY, Wong C. Ephraim McDowell (1771 – 1830): pioneer of ovariotomy. Singapore Med J. 2005;46(1):4–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Graham S Jr D. Ephraim McDowell (1771 – 1830). The President’s lithotomist. Invest Urol. 1981;19(3):216–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bernhard CM. Presidential address: Dr. Ephraim McDowell: father of abdominal surgery. Am Surg. 1980;46(1):1–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tait L. Diseases of the ovaries. New York: William Wood; 1883.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Othersen Jr HB. Ephraim McDowell: the qualities of a good surgeon. Ann Surg. 2004;239:648–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McDowell E. Initial observations on abdominal extirpation of tumours of the ovaria: a report of three cases. The Eclectic Repertory and Analytical Review of Philadelphia; 1819.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sutton CJG: (2014). In: Reidy J, Hacking N, McLucas B, editors. Radiological interventions in obstetrics and gynaecology. Ch. 1; 3–16. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Speert H. Obstetrics and gynaecology in America: a history. Baltimore: Waverly Press; 1980.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Morton LT. (1965). Garrison and Morton’s medical Bibliography. Andre Deutsch London , 527–537.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lizars J. Observations on extirpation of the ovaria with cases. Edinburgh Med Surg J. 1824. 22 October.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bosdin Leech E. Some Manchester Medical Authors and their works. The Manchester University Medical School Gazette; 1956a, p. 102–6.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fenster JM. Ether day: the strange tale of America’s greatest medical discovery and the haunted men who made it. New York: Harper Collins; 2001.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bosdin Leech E. Some Manchester Medical Authors and their Works. III – Charles Clay. The Manchester University Medical School Gazette; 1956b, p. 152–6.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Clay C. Observations on ovariotomy statistical and practical: also a successful case of entire removal of the uterus. Trans Obstet Soc London. 1863;5:58–74.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Burnham W. Extirpation of the uterus and ovaries for sarcomatous disease. Am Lancet. 1845:147–51.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Graham H. Eternal Eve. London: W Heinemann; 1950. p. 153–4.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kimball G. Successful case of extirpation of the uterus. Boston Med Surg J. 1855;52:249–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Baskett TF. On the shoulders of giants. eponyms and names in obstetrics and gynaecology. 2nd ed. London: RCOG Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lister J. On a new method of treating compound fractures, abscess, etc . with observations on the condition of suppuration. Lancet. 1867;1867:326–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Simpson JY. Discovery of a new anaesthetic agent, more effective than sulphuric ether. Lancet. 1847;2:549–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Simpson JY. Answer to the religious objections advanced against the employment of anaesthetic agents in midwifery and surgery. Sutherland and Knox: Edinburgh; 1857. p. 23–5.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Baker BI. On the curability of certain forms of insanity, epilepsy, catalepsy, and hysteria in females. J Obstet Soc. London1866:107–11.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fennel P. Treatment without consent. Law, Psychiatry and treatment of mentally disordered people since 1845. London: Taylor and Francis; 2002.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shepherd JA. Spencer Wells. The life and work of a Victorian Surgeon. Edinburgh: E & S Livingstone; 1965.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Freund WA. Eine neue Methode der Exstirpation des ganzen uterus. Berlin Med Surg J. 1878;15:417–8.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Czerny V. Ueber die Ausrottung des Gebarmutterkrebses. WienMedWahrc. 1879;29:1171–4.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Porro E. Della amputazione utero-ovarica come complement di taglio cesareo. Ann Univ Med Chir (Milan). 1876;237:289–350.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Caffarato TM. Ricordo di Eduardo Porro nell’centenario del’suo operazione. Minerva Ginecol. 1976;28:1033–40.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Baskett TF. Hysterectomy: evolution and trends. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;10:295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ricci JV. The development of gynaecological surgery and instruments. Philadelphia: Blackiston; 1949. p. 297–301.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sutton CJG. The past present and future of hysterectomy. J Minim Inv Gynecol Surgery. 2010;17(4):421–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Clark JG. A more radical method of performing hysterectomy for cancer of the uterus. Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin. 1895;6:120–4.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wertheim E. Zur Frage der Radicaloperation beim Uteruskrebs. Arch Gynakol. 1900;61:627–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Webb MJ. Radical Hysterectomy. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;11(1):149–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schauta F. Die erweiterte vaginale totalexstirpation des Uterus bei Kollumkarzinom. Leipzig: J Safar; 1908.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schuchardt K. Eine neue Methode der Gerbärmutterextirpation. Zentralbl Chir. 1893;20:1121–6.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mikuta JJ. A history of the centennial of the first radical hysterectomy and its developer – Dr. John Goodrich Clark. J Pelvic Surg. 1995;1:3–7.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wertheim E. The extended abdominal operation for carcinoma uteri. Am J Obstet. 1912;66:169–232.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Richardson EH. A simplified technique for abdominal panhysterectomy. Surg Gynaecol Obstet. 1929;48:248–51.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cutler EC, Zolenger RM, editors. Atlas of surgical operations. 1949. New York: McMillan & Co.; 1949.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kilkku P, Gronroos M, Rauramo L. Supravaginal uterine amputation with pre-operative electro coagulation of endocervical mucosa. Acta Obstetrica et Gynaecologica Scandinavica. 1985;64:175–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lyons TL. Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy using the contact Nd:YAG laser. Gynecol Endosc. 1993;2:79–81.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pfannenstiel HJ. Uber die vortheile des suprasymphsaren Fascienquerschnitts fur die gynakogischen Koliotomein zugleich ein Beitrag zu der Indikationstellung der Operationswerge. Samml Klin Vortr Leipzig. 1900;268:1735–56.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Amirikiah M, Evans TN. Ten year review of hysterectomies: trends indications and risks. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1979;124:431–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Daly JW, Higgins KA. Injury to the ureter during gynaecological procedures. Surgical Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 1988;167:19–21.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Dicker RC, Greenspan JR, Strauss LT, et al. Complications of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy among women of reproductive age in the United States. The collaborative review of sterilisation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;144:841–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bachmann G. Hysterectomy: a critical review. J Reprod Med. 1990;35(9):839–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kelling G. Uber oesophagoskopie, gastroskopie und koelioskopie. Munch Med Wochenschr. 1902;49:21–4.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Von Ott D. Die direkte Beleuchtung der Bauchhohle, der Harnblase, des Dickdarms und des Uterus zu diagnostischen Zwecken. Rev Med Tcheque (Prague). 1901;2:27.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Jacobaeus HC. Uber due Moglichkeit die Zystosco;ie bei Untersuchlung seroser Hohlungen anzerwerden. Munchen Medizinische Wochenschrift. 1910;57:2090–2.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Gordon AG, Taylor P. History and development of endoscopic surgery. In: Sutton C, Diamond M, editors. Endoscopic surgery for gynaecologists. 2nd ed Ch 1. London: W B Saunders; 1998. p. 1–8.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Palmer R. La coelioscopie gynécologique. Acad Chir. 1946;72:363–8.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Frangenheim H. Die tuben sterilization unter sicht mit dem laparoscope. Gerbutsh Frauenheilk. 1964;24:470–3.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Steptoe PC. Laparoscopy in gynaecology. Edinburgh/London: Livingstone; 1967.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Semm K. Hysterectomy by pelviscopy: an alternative approach without colpotomy (CASH). In: Garry R, Reich H, editors. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. Oxford: Blackwell; 1993. p. 118–32.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Semm K O’Neill-Freys L. Conventional operative laparoscopy (pelviscopy). In: Sutton CJG, editors. Laparoscopic surgery; Baillière’s Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology; Baillière Tindall, London. vol. 3: 3; 1989, p. 451–85.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Garry R, Reich H. Laparoscopic hysterectomy – definitions and indications. Gynaecol Endosc. 1994;4(2):77–9.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Bruhat MA, Manhes H, Mage G, Pouly JL. Treatment of ectopic pregnancy by means of laparoscopy. Fertil Steril. 1980;33:411–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Hopkins HH. Optical principles of the endoscope. In: Berci G, editor. Endoscopy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1976. p. 3–27.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    De Cherney AH. The leader of the band is tired. Fertil Steril. 1985;44:299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Reich H, De Caprio J, McGlynn F. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Gynecol Surg. 1989;5(2):213–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Sutton CJG. Wither Hysterectomy? Curr opin gynaecol. 1994;6:203–5.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Semm K. Hysterectomy via laparotomy or pelviscopy. a new CISH method without colpotomy. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1991;51:996–1003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Mettler L, Ahmed-Ebbiary N, Scollmeyer T. Laparoscopic hysterectomy: challenges and limitations. Min Invas Ther & Allied Technol. 2005;14:145–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ewen SP, Sutton CJG. Initial experience with supra-cervical laparoscopic hysterectomy and removal of the transformation zone. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;101:225–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Lyons TL. Laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy. A comparison of morbidity and mortality results with laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy. J Reprod Med. 1993;38:738–63.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Okara EO, Jones KD, Sutton CJG. Long term outcome following laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;108:1017–20.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Lieng M, Qvigstat E, Istre O, Langebrekke A, Ballard K. Long term outcomes following laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. Br J Obstet Gyanaecol. 2008;115:1605–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Donnez J, Nisolle N, Smets M, et al. Laparoscopic supracervical (subtotal) hysterectomy: a first series of 500 cases. Gynaecol Endosc. 1997;6:73–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Dequesne J, Schmidt N, Fryman R. A new electrosurgical loop technique for laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy. Gynaecol Endosc. 1998;7:29–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Pasic R, Abdelmomen A, Levine R. Comparison of cervical detachment using monopolar lap loop ligature and conventional methods in laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. JSLS. 2006;10:226–30.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Sutton C, Abbott J. History of power sources in endoscopic surgery. J Minimally Invasive Gynecol. 1995;20(3):271–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Merrill RM. Hysterectomy surveillance in the United States: 1997 through 2005. Med Sci Monit. 2008;14:24–31.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Gimbel H, Settiness A, Tabor A. Hysterectomy for benign conditions in Denmark 1988 – 1998. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80:267–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Kilkku P, Gonroos M, Hirvonen T, Rauramo L. Supravaginal uterine amputation vs hysterectomy: effect on libido and orgasm. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Scand. 1983;62:147–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Thakar R, Ayers S, Clarkson P, Stanton S, Manyonda I. Outcomes after total versus subtotal hysterectomy. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:11318–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Morelli M, Noia R, Mocciaro R, et al. Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus laparoscopic total hysterectomy: a prospective randomized study. Minerva Gynecol. 2007;59:1–10.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Nezhat CR, Stevens A, Balassiano E, Soliemannjad BS. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy vs conventional laparoscopy for the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:40–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Magrina JF, Kho R, Weaver L, Montero P, Magtibay P. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynaecol Oncol. 2008;109:86–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Reynolds R, Advincula A. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy technique and initial experience. Am J Surg. 2006;191:555–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Advincula A, Reynolds R. The use of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy in the patient with a scarred or obliterated anterior cul-de-sac. JSLS. 2005;9:287–91.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Garry R, Fountain J, Mason S, et al. The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy. BMJ. 2004;328:129–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Brown J, Taylor K, Ramirez PT, et al. Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with morcellation: should it stay or should it go? J Minim Invas Gynaecol. 2015;22:185–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Health and Social ScienceGuilford, SurreyUK

Personalised recommendations