Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Choosing the Correct Hysterectomy Technique

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Hysterectomy

  • 1028 Accesses

Abstract

Existing data indicates that vaginal approach to hysterectomy is associated with fewer complications, faster recovery and lower healthcare costs than abdominal hysterectomy and shorter operative time than laparoscopic hysterectomy. However, the vaginal route is not always feasible and when this occurs, laparoscopic techniques should be employed, if possible, over laparotomy. Though this concept seems simple, selecting the route for hysterectomy is a complex task that requires consideration of patient preference, surgical indications, patient characteristics, available resources, procedural costs and surgeon skills and limitations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. TE N, Johnson N, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R, van Voorst S, BW M, KB K. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;3:CD003677. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub4.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Johnson N, Barlow D, Lethaby A, et al. Methods of hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMJ. 2005;330:1478.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Drahonovsky et al. A prospective randomized comparison of vaginal hysterectomy, laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and total laparoscopic hysterectomy in women with benign uterine disease. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;148(2):172–6. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.10.019. Epub 2009 Nov 18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gendy R, Walsh CA, Walsh SR, Karantanis E. Vaginal hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a metanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(5):388.e1–8. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.12.059. Epub 2011 Mar 4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Donnez O, Donnez J. A series of 400 laparoscopic hysterectomies for benign disease: a single centre, single surgeon prospective study of complications confirming previous retrospective study. BJOG. 2010;117:752–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114:1156–8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Route of hysterectomy to treat benign uterine disease. AAGL position statement, American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18: 1–3. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2010.10.001.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Walters M, Barber M. Hysterectomy for benign disease. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier ; 2010.http://www.clinicalkey.com.au/dura/browse/bookChapter/3-s2.0-C20090388534

    Google Scholar 

  9. Garry et al. EVALUATE hysterectomy trial: a multicentre randomised trial comparing abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic methods of hysterectomy. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(26):1–154.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Siedhoff MT et al. Effect of extreme obesity on outcomes in laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(6):701–7. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2012.07.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Scheib SA et al. Laparoscopy in the morbidly obese: physiologic considerations and surgical techniques to optimize success. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(2):182–95. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2013.09.009. Epub 2013 Oct 4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Silasi DA et al. Robotic versus abdominal hysterectomy for very large uteri. JSLS. 2013;17(3):400–6. doi:10.4293/108680813X13693422521755.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Eddib A et al. Influence of morbid obesity on surgical outcomes in robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery. J Gynecol Surg. 2014;30(2):81–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu H et al. WITHDRAWN: Robotic surgery for benign gynecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;(12):CD008978. [Epub ahead of print]

  15. Rosero EB et al. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(4):778–86. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182a4ee4d.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Wright JD et al. An economic analysis of robotically assisted hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):1038–48. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000244.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Levrant SG et al. Anterior abdominal wall adhesions after laparotomy or laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1997;4(3):353–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Skinner BD, Delancey JO. Selecting the route for hysterectomy: a structured approach. Contemporary OB/GYN. 2013;58(8):p24.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rogo-Gupta LJ et al. The effect of surgeon volume on outcomes and resource use for vaginal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(6):1341–7. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181fca8c5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Boyd LR et al. Effect of surgical volume on route of hysterectomy and short-term morbidity. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Oct;116(4):909–15. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f395d9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Burkett D et al. Assessing current trends in resident hysterectomy training. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17(5):210–4. doi:10.1097/SPV.0b013e3182309a22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kenton K et al. How well are we training residents in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):567.e1–4. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.01.045. Epub 2008 Mar 20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Moen M et al. Considerations to improve the evidence-based use of vaginal hysterectomy in benign gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(3):585–8. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000398.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Barbash GI, Glied SA. New technology and health care costs: the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:701–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pasic R, Rizzo J, Fang H, et al. Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: Impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;6:730–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery in benign gynecology. AAGL position statement, American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20: 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Davaratna S et al. Hospital costs of total vaginal hysterectomy compared with other minimally invasive hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(2):120.e1–6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2013.09.028. Epub 2013 Sep 20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Goebal K, Goldberg JM. Women’s preference of cosmetic results after gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(1):64–7. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2013.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lethaby et al. Total versus subtotal hysterectomy for benign gynaecological conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2:CD004993. (Evidence I)

    Google Scholar 

  30. AAGL practice report: practice guidelines for laparoscopic subtotal/supracervical hysterectomy(LSH). American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(1):9–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.08.001. Epub 2013 Aug 15.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Metrohealth Medical Center/Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, OH, USA

    Linda-Dalal J. Shiber MD

  2. Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery OB/GYN, University of Louisville, Louisville, Jefferson County, KY, USA

    Resad Pasic MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Linda-Dalal J. Shiber MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Resad Pasic MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda-Dalal J. Shiber MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospitals Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany

    Ibrahim Alkatout

  2. Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospitals Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany

    Liselotte Mettler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shiber, LD.J., Pasic, R. (2018). Choosing the Correct Hysterectomy Technique. In: Alkatout, I., Mettler, L. (eds) Hysterectomy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22497-8_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22497-8_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22496-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22497-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation