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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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
Nezhat F et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy. J Reprod Med. 1992;37(3):247–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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