Abstract
Objectives
To compare LAVH with TAH in terms of indications, operable uterine size, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, postoperative pain and hospital stay, convalescence and average total cost; also to evaluate LAVH for its feasibility in patients with previous abdominal surgery and those requiring other surgical procedures.
Material and Methods
Aretrospective study was conducted on 550 patients (350 patients of LAVH, 200 patients of TAH) who underwent surgery at Fortis Escorts Hospital, Faridabad, between January 2005 and May 2007. Statistical analysis was done using Student-t test and Chisquare test.
Results
On comparing LAVH with TAH, the mean operative time was 63 vs 55 min (p<0.001), blood loss 116 vs 150ml (p<0.001), major complication rate 2% vs 5% hospital stay 2.7 vs 5.7 days (p<0.001). Patients of LAVH had statistically significant lower pain scores, higher activity scores, shorter convalescence and quicker resumption of normal activity. LAVH was marginally costlier than TAH.
Conclusion
LAVH enables the surgeon to convert most of the difficult abdominal hysterectomies into vaginal ones with all the benefits of a vaginal procedure. It is also a feasible and safe procedure in patients with previous abdominal surgery, large uteri and adnexal masses. LAVH enjoys patient’s support with lesser postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay, rapid return to normal activity and better body image.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference
Reich H, De Caprio J, McGlynn F. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Gynecol Surg 1989;5:213–217.
Galen D, Jacobson A, Weckstein LN. Outpatient laparoscopic hysterectomy -a review of 50 patients. Paper presented at AAGL 22nd Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 1993.
Nezhat F, Nezhat C, Gordon S et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy. J Reprod Med 1992;37:247–250.
Summitt RL Jr, Stovall TG, Lipscomb GH, et al. Randomized comparison of laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy with standard vaginal hysterectomy in an outpatient setting. Obstet Gynecol 1992;80:895–901.
Kovac SR. Guidelines to determine the role of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:1257–1263.
Johns DA, Diamond MP. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. J Reprod Med 1994;39:42–48.
Hur M, Kim JH, Moon JS et al. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. J Reprod Med 1995;40:829–833.
Doucette RC, Scott JR. Comparison of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy with abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. J Reprod Med 1996;41:1–6.
Chang WC, Lin WC, Hung YC. Pelvic adhesions and laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006;94:145–146.
Pelosi MA, Kader N. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy for uteri weighing 500 gm or more. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1994;1:405–409.
Devendra K, Tay SK. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy — an alternative to abdominal hysterectomy. Singapore Med J 2002;43:138–142.
Marana R, Busacca M, Zupi E et al. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:270–275.
Bornstein SJ, Shaber RE. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy at a health maintenance organization. Cost effectiveness and comparison with total abdominal hysterectomy. J Repord Med 1995;40:435–438.
Seow KM, Tsou CT, Lin YH et al. Outcomes and complications of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006;95:29–34.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kapoor, N., Manuja, S., Mittal, A. et al. Laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) — An effective alternative to conventional abdominal hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynecol India 60, 429–435 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-010-0071-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-010-0071-7