Advertisement

Hysterectomy pp 323-330 | Cite as

Indications and Contraindications for Laparoscopic Hysterectomy

  • Helder FerreiraEmail author
  • António Braga
Chapter
  • 773 Downloads

Abstract

Hysterectomy, the “queen” of gynecological surgical procedures, has been described since many years ago. Nowadays, the uterus removal is one of the most common performed surgeries in the gynecological field. The trend goes in a minimally invasive approach, decreasing the morbidity associated with surgical trauma caused by a laparotomic way. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with less blood loss, fewer transfusions, less post-operative pain, shorter hospital stay, decreased risk of wound infection, better quality of life and lower levels of disability in comparison with classic abdominal hysterectomy.

The benefits of laparoscopy have been more recognized and well accepted by the patients. The surgeons’ way of thinking is moving towards this less invasive technique. The expertise and experience of the surgeons has been developed decreasing the number of contraindications for this less invasive technique.

Keywords

Abdominal hysterectomy Total laparoscopic hysterectomy Vaginal hysterectomy Minimally invasive gynecological procedure 

References

  1. 1.
    Garry R 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(7432):129.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nezhat F et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy. J Reprod Med. 1992;37(3):247–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Phipps JH, John M, Nayak S. Comparison of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with conventional abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;100(7):698–700.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raju KS, Auld BJ. A randomised prospective study of laparoscopic vaginal hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy each with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;101(12):1068–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Olsson JH, Ellstrom M, Hahlin M. A randomised prospective trial comparing laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103(4):345–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Langebrekke A et al. Abdominal hysterectomy should not be considered as a primary method for uterine removal. A prospective randomised study of 100 patients referred to hysterectomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1996;75(4):404–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marana R et al. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180(2 Pt 1):270–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Falcone T, Paraiso MF, Mascha E. Prospective randomized clinical trial of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180(4):955–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferrari MM et al. Identifying the indications for laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a prospective, randomised comparison with abdominal hysterectomy in patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids. BJOG. 2000;107(5):620–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lumsden MA et al. A randomised comparison and economic evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy. BJOG. 2000;107(11):1386–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schutz K et al. Prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) with abdominal hysterectomy (AH) for the treatment of the uterus weighing >200 g. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(1):121–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walsh CA et al. Total abdominal hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;144(1):3–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aarts JW et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;12(8):CD003677. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wattiez A, Cohen SB, Selvaggi L. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2002;14(4):417–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghezzi F et al. Postoperative pain after laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(2):118 e1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(5):1156–8.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A.A.M.I.G. Worldwide. AAGL position statement: route of hysterectomy to treat benign uterine disease. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(1):1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walters MD. Choosing a route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Uptodate. 2015.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shiota M et al. Indication for laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. JSLS. 2011;15(3):343–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bijen CB et al. Costs and effects of abdominal versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: systematic review of controlled trials. PLoS One. 2009;4(10):e7340.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reich H. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1992;2(1):85–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GynecologyCentro Materno-Infantil do Norte/Centro Hospitalar do Porto, Largo da Maternidade Júlio DinisPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyCentro Materno-Infantil do Norte/Centro Hospitalar do Porto, Largo da Maternidade Júlio DinisPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations