World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Laparoscopic-assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy vs Handassisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy

Sheriff Z Kotb, Mohamed El-Metwally, Nazem Shams, Ashraf Khater

Citation Information : Kotb SZ, El-Metwally M, Shams N, Khater A. Laparoscopic-assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy vs Handassisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy. World J Lap Surg 2016; 9 (2):63-70.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1274

Published Online: 01-08-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Objectives and background

The use of laparoscopic techniques now permits combination of benefits of both abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. But, laparoscopic hysterectomy has been associated with a higher risk of urinary tract injury compared with abdominal and vaginal procedures, and the risks of these minimally invasive approaches must be balanced with the benefits. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery was first described in the early 1990s as a surgical method designed to facilitate the performance of challenging laparoscopic procedures while maintaining the advantages of a minimally invasive approach.

Our present study aims to compare between laparoscopicassisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) and hand-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (HALH).

Materials and methods

This study was conducted at the Oncology Center of Mansoura University (OCMU). A total of 41 sequential patients scheduled for hysterectomy were divided randomly (patient by patient) into two groups: group 1 included 21 patients who underwent LAVH and group 2 included 20 patients who underwent HALH from August 2010 to March 2013.

Patients were excluded from this study if they had contraindications to either vaginal hysterectomy, such as several prior abdominal surgeries, vaginal stenosis, or severe endometriosis, or to laparoscopy, including underlying medical conditions that could be worsened by pneumoperitoneum or the Trendelenburg position. Body mass index was not a limiting factor for patient inclusion in the study.

Results

The clinical characteristics of the 41 patients were similar as regards age, parity, and uterine size. The indications for hysterectomy among the study groups were nearly similar. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in operative time. Operative blood loss was higher in the LAVH group. Two cases in the LAVH group were converted to laparotomy to control bleeding and to repair a urinary bladder tear.

Conclusion

The HALH group had less analgesic consumption, earlier ambulation, shorter hospital stay, and earlier regain of daily and coital activities. On the contrary, the HALH group had much more direct costs, which requires much effort to be directed toward this fruitful technique and more training programs to surgeons to increase their experience in enriching hand skills in this emerging technique.

How to cite this article

Kotb SZ, El-Metwally M, Shams N, Khater A. Laparoscopic-assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy vs Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy. World J Lap Surg 2016;9(2):63-70.


PDF Share
  1. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (type II–III) with pelvic lymphadenectomy in early invasive cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2005 Mar-Apr;12(2):113-120.
  2. National Center for Health Statistics. Number of all-listed procedures for discharges from short stay hospitals: United States, 2010 [cited 2013 Jan 1]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhds/10 Detailed diagnoses procedures/2010 det10_ all listed procedures.pdf.
  3. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009 Jul8;(3):CD003677.
  4. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99(2):229-234.
  5. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Gynecol Surg 1989;5:213-215.
  6. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2000 Feb;7(1):140-146.
  7. Laparoscopic hysterectomy in current gynecological practice. Gynaec Pract 2003 Jun;3(1):32-40.
  8. The evolution and current applications of hand assisted laparoscopy. Contemporary Urology, 2003;15(10):30-58.
  9. Hand – assisted endosc 2000;14:891-895.
  10. Hysterectomy comparison of laparoscopic assisted vaginal versus total abdominal hysterectomy. Professional Med J 2012 Mar-Apr;19(2):214-221.
  11. Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy for elderly patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012 Sep;207(3):195.e1-195.e8.
  12. Can laparoscopic radical hysterectomy be a standard surgical modality in stage IA2–IIA cervical cancer? Gynec Oncol 2012 Oct;127(1):102-106.
  13. Trend changes in the proportion of minimal invasive hysterectomies over a five-year period: a single-center experience. Tzu Chi Med J 2012 Sep;24(3):136-138.
  14. Twenty-first century laparoscopic hysterectomy: Should we not leave the vaginal step out? Gynecol Surg 2009 Nov;6(4):311-316.
  15. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy. JSLS 2011 Apr-Jun;15(2):218-221.
  16. Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy. JSLS 2011 Oct-Dec;15(4):460-470.
  17. Laparoscopic hysterectomy in the treatment of endometrial cancer: NCI experience. J Egyptian Natl Cancer Inst 2011 Sep;23(3):101-104.
  18. Indication for laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. JSLS 2011 Jul-Sep;15(3):343-345.
  19. Predictors of successful surgical outcome in laparoscopic hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2012 Apr;119(4):700-708.
  20. Laparoscopicassisted vaginal hysterectomy vs abdominal hysterectomy for benign disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011 Nov;159(1):1-18.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.