Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Future Perspectives in Hysterectomy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Hysterectomy

  • 762 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter reviews current practices as it relates to the commonest gynecological procedure performed: hysterectomy.

We intend to raise awareness about considerable national and international disparities in hysterectomy rates and explore some implications this may have on overall quality of women’s health, teaching and policy.

In an era of evolving surgi-technological health care advancements, it is important to temper our surgical optimism, without outpacing our clinical pragmatism.

Being mindful that one of the most reliable method of measuring health care waste is evaluating outcomes and identifying variations.

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. Sutton C. Past, present, and future of hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(4):421–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. DeFrances CJ, Lucas CA, Buie VC, Golosinskiy A. 2006 National Hospital Discharge Survey. Natl Health Stat Rep. 2008(5):1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Vessey MP, Villard-Mackintosh L, McPherson K, Coulter A, Yeates D. The epidemiology of hysterectomy: findings in a large cohort study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992;99(5):402–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilcox LS, Koonin LM, Pokras R, Strauss LT, Xia Z, Peterson HB. Hysterectomy in the United States, 1988–1990. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;83(4):549–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Merrill RM. Prevalence corrected hysterectomy rates and probabilities in Utah. Ann Epidemiol. 2001;11(2):127–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Maresh MJA, Metcalfe MA, McPherson K, et al. The VALUE national hysterectomy study: description of patients and their surgery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;109:302–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cosson M, Lambaudie E, Boukerroum M, Querleu D, Crepin G. Vaginal, laparoscopic or abdominal hysterectomy for benign disorders immediate and early postoperative complications. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001;98:231–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Makinen J, Johansson J, Tomas C, et al. Morbidity of 10,110 hysterectomies by type of approach. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1473–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Moller C, Kehlet H, Utzon J, Ottesen B. Hysterectomy in Denmark. An analysis of postoperative hospitalization morbidity and readmission. Dan Med Bull. 2002;49:353–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Materia E, Rossi L, Spadea T, et al. Hysterectomy and socioeconomic position in Rome, Italy. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56:461–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. McPherson K, Wennberg JE, Hovind OB, Clifford P. Small-area variations in the use of common surgical procedures. An international comparison of New England, England and Norway. N Engl J Med. 1982;307:1310–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wu JM, Wechter ME, Geller EJ, Nguyen TV, Visco AG. Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(5):1091–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Online. “Hysterectomy Surveillance” United States, 1994–1999–2002. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5105a1.htm.

  14. The Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. Our bodies, ourselves: a new edition for a new era. New York: Touchstone; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Broder MS, Kanouse DE, Mittman BS, Bernstein SJ. The appropriateness of recommendations for hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95(2):199–205.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hullfish KL, Henry E, Ferguson II JE. The effect of preoperative checklists on final histology & rates of hysterectomy for benign conditions. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18:143–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lawson EH, Gibbons MM, Ingraham AM, Shekelle PG, Ko CY. Appropriateness criteria to assess variations in surgical procedure use in the United States. Arch Surg. 2011;146:1433–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. Management of abnormal uterine bleeding associated with ovulatory dysfunction. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 136. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:176–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Health services research on hysterectomy and alternatives. http://archive.ahrg.gov/research/hysterec.htm. Accessed 7 Mar 2015.

  20. Wright J, Herzog T, Tsui J, et al. Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:233–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Corona LE, Swenson CW, Sheetz KH, et al. Use of other treatments before hysterectomy for benign conditions in a statewide hospital collaborative. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:304.e1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Health Indicators 2010. Ottawa: CIHI; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lefebvre G, Allaire C, Jeffrey J, Vilos G, Arneja J, Birch C, et al. SOGC clinical guidelines: hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2002;24:37–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nieber TE. et al., Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009:(3). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003677.

  25. Hall RE, Cohen MM. Variations in hysterectomy rates in Ontario: does the indication matter? CMAJ. 1994;151(12):1713–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Elshaug A et al. Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money. Med J Aust. 2009;190(5):269–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ontario Women’s Health Council. Achieving best practices in the use of hysterectomy: report of Ontario’s Expert Panel on best practices in the use of hysterectomy. OWHC: Ottawa; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Stang A, Kluttig A, Moebus S,Volzke H, Berger K, Greiser K H, Stockl D, Jockl K-H, Meisinger C. Educational level, prevalence of hysterectomy, and age at amenorrhoea: a cross-sectional analysis of 9536 women from six population-based cohort studies in Germany. BMC Women’s Health. 2014:14:10. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/14/10.

  29. Merrill RM. Hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 1997 through 2005. Med Sci Monit. 2008;14:CR24–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stang A, Merrill RM, Kuss O. Nationwide rates of conversion from laparoscopic or vaginal hysterectomy to open abdominal hysterectomy in Germany. Eur J Epidemiol. 2011;26:125–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Harlow BL, Barbieri RL. Influence of education on risk of hysterectomy before age 45 years. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150:843–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cooper R, Lucke J, Lawlor DA, Mishra G, Chang JH, Ebrahim S, et al. Socioeconomic position and hysterectomy: a cross-cohort comparison of women in Australia and great Britain. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62:1057–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Wolfrum C. Vorschnelle Schnitte. In: Apotheken Umschau vom 1. Jun 2008. Wort & Bild Verlag, Baierbrunn. ohne ISSN.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Müller A, Thiel FC, Renner SP, Winkler M, Häberle L, Beckmann MW. Hysterectomy-a comparison of approaches. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107(20):353–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Mettler L, Ahmed-Ebbiary N, Schollmeyer T. Laparoscopic hysterectomy: challenges and limitations. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2005;14(3):145–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Stang A, Merrill RM, Kuss O. Hysterectomy in Germany: a DRG-based nationwide analysis, 2005–2006. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108:508–14.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Chief Medical Officers Report. UK Department of Health. 2006. www.gov.uk/dh.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Edozien L. Hysterectomy for benign conditions. BMJ. 2005;330:1457–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Marshall SF, Hardy RJ, Kuh D. Socioeconomic variation in hysterectomy up to age 52, national, population based, prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2000;320:1579.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists. Evidence based clinical guidelines: the initial management of menorrhagia. 1998. http://www.rcog.org.uk/.

  41. Johnson N, Barlow D, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R. Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews: surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease (Review Issue 2, 2006) Art no.:CD003677.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Croydon PCT, Sutton & Merton PCT, Richmond & Twickenham PCT, Kingston PCT & Wandsworth Teaching PCT; Jointly published. Effective Commissioning Initiative – South West London Public Health Network. November 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Reid PC, Mukri F. Trends in the number of hysterectomies performed in England for menorrhagia: examination of health episode statistics 1989–2002–2003. BMJ. 2005;330:938–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Lethaby A, Shepperd S, Cooke I, Farquhar C. Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews: endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding. 1999:(Issue 2). Art No.: CD000329.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Marjoribanks J, Lethaby A, Farquhar C. Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews: surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding. 2006:(Issue 2). Art No. CD003855.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Burger MJ, Timmermans A, Burger MP. Regional and temporal variation in hysterectomy rates and surgical routes for benign diseases in the Netherlands. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91(2):220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hehenkamp WJ, Volkers NA, Donderwinkel PF, de Blok S, Birnie E, Ankum WM, et al. Uterine artery embolization versus hysterectomy in the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids (EMMY trial): peri- and post-procedural results from a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1618–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Heli¨ovaara-Peippo S, Halmesm¨aki K, Hurskainen R, Teperi J, Grenman S, Kivel¨a A, et al. The effect of hysterectomy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system on lower abdominal pain and back pain among women treated for menorrhagia: a five-year randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88:1389–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. van der Kooij SM, Ankum WM, Hehenkamp WJ. Review of nonsurgical/minimally invasive treatments for uterine fibroids. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;24(6):368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Nielsen SL, Daugbjerg SB, Gimbel H, Settnes A. Steering committee of Danish hysterectomy database, use of vaginal hysterectomy in Denmark: rates, indications and patient characteristics. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:978–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. NOMESCO. Health statistics in the Nordic countries; 2011. http://nomescoeng.nom-nos.dk/filer/publikationer/Helsstat%202011.pdf.

  52. Gimbel H, Settnes A, Tabor A. Hysterectomy on benign indication in Denmark 1988–1998. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80(3):267–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Jacobson GF, Shaber RE, Armstrong MA, Hung YY. Hysterectomy rates for benign indications. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1278–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Powell LH, Meyer P, Weiss G, Matthews KA, Santoro N, Randolph Jr JF, et al. Ethnic differences in past hysterectomy for benign conditions. Womens Health Issues. 2005;15:179–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Armstrong A, Maddox YT. Health disparities and women’s reproductive health. Ethn Dis 2007:17(2 Suppl 2):S2–4, S2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Erekson EA, Weitzen S, Sung VW, Raker CA, Myers DL. Socio-economic indicators and hysterectomy status in the United States; 2004. J Reprod Med. 2009;54:553–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Daugbjerg SB, Ottesen B, Diderichsen F, Frederiksen BL, Osler M. Socioeconomic factors may influence the surgical technique for benign hysterectomy. Dan Med J. 2012;59:A4440.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Gimbel H, Ottesen B, Tabor A. Danish gynecologists’ opinion about hysterectomy on benign indication: results of a survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81:1123–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Davies A, Magos A. The hysterectomy lottery. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;21:166–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Brummitt K, Harmanli OH, Gaughan J, Dandolu V, Chatwani AJ, Hernandez E. Gynaecologists’ attitudes toward hysterectomy: is the sex of the clinician a factor? J Reprod Med. 2006;51:21–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Lundholm C, Forsgren C, Johansson AL, Cnattingius S, Altman D. Hysterectomy on benign indications in Sweden 1987–2003: a nationwide trend analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88:52–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Hilton P, Cromwell D. The risk of vesico-vaginal and urethra-vaginal fistula after hysterectomy performed in the English National Health Service-a retrospective cohort study examining patterns of care between 2000 and 2008. BJOG. 2012;119:1447–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Whiteman MK, Hillis SD, Jamieson DJ, et al. Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000–2004. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(34):e1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Lykke R, Blaakær J, Ottesen B, Gimbel H. Hysterectomy in Denmark 1977–2011: changes in rate, indications, and hospitalization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;171:333–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Parazzini F, Ricci E, Bulfoni G, Cipriani S, Chiaffarino F, Malvezzi M, Frigerio L. Hysterectomy rates for benign conditions are declining in Lombardy, Italy: 1996–2010. Eur J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;178:107–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Lombardy Region. General Health Directorate. Regione Lombardia. I ricoveri ginecologici negli ospedali della Lombardia, anno 1999 con riferimenti al triennio 1996–1998 (Admissions for gynecologic reasons in Lombardy hospitals, 1999 and comparison to1996–1998). http://www.sanita.regione.lombardia.it/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=DG_Sanita%2FDGLayout&cid=1213480043116&packedargs=stype%3Dlist&pagename=DG_SANWrapper&numr=1201. Accessed Feb 2015.

  67. Arisi E. Consumo e compliance dei contraccettivi ormonali (Use and compliance of hormonal contraceptives). Riv It Ost Gin. 2004;2:63.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Butt JL, Jeffery ST, Van derSpuy ZM. An audit of indications and complications associated with elective hysterectomy at a public service hospital in South Africa. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2012;(2):112–6.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Chao YM, Tseng TC, Su CH, Chien LY. Appropriateness of hysterectomy in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc. 2005;104(2):107–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Chun-Che Huang, Ming-Ping Wu, Yu-Tung Huang. Gynecologists’ characteristics associated with the likelihood of performing laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy: a nationwide population-based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;161(2):209–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Einarsson JI, Matteson KA, Schulkin J, Chavan NR, Sangi-Haghpeykar H. Minimally invasive hysterectomies – a survey on attitudes and barriers among practicing gynecologists. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(2):167–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Brummer TH, Seppälä TT, Härkki PS. National learning curve for laparoscopic hysterectomy and trends in hysterectomy in Finland 2000–2005. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(4):840–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Twijnstra AR, Kolkman W, Trimbos-Kemper GC, Jansen FW. Implementation of advanced laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: national overview of trends. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(4):487–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Wu MP, Huang KH, Long CY, Tsai EM, Tang CH. Trends in various types of surgery for hysterectomy and distribution by patient age, surgeon age, and hospital accreditation: 10-year population-based study in Taiwan. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(5):612–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(3):CD003677.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Singh A, Arora K. Why hysterectomy rate are lower in India? Indian J Community Med. 2008;33(3):196–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Desai S, Sinha T, Mahal A. Prevalence of hysterectomy among rural and urban women with and without health insurance in Gujarat, India. Reprod Health Matters. 2011;19(37):42–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Lee N, Dicker R, Rubin G, Ory H. Confirmation of the preoperative diagnoses for hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984;150(3):283–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Ingelsson E, Lundholm C, Johansson ALV, Altman D. Hysterectomy and risk of cardiovascular disease: a population-based cohort study. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:745–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. McPherson K, Herbert A, Judge A, et al. Psychosexual health 5 years after hysterectomy: population-based comparison with endometrial ablation for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Health Expect. 2005;8(3):234–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Farquhar CM, Sadler L, Harvey SA, Stewart AW. The association of hysterectomy and menopause: a prospective cohort study. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112(7):956–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Pandey D, Sehgal K, Saxena A, Hebbar S, Nambiar J, Bhat RG. An audit of indications, complications, and justification of hysterectomies at a Teaching Hospital in India. Int J Repro Med. 2014: Article ID 279273:6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Magon N, Divakar H, Kriplani A. Editorial: the use, misue, and abuse of hysterectomy. J Mid Life Health. 2013;4(1):40–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Amin A, Ali A, Amin Z, Sani FN. Justification for hysterectomies and frequency of histo-pathological lesions of hysterectomy at a Teaching Hospital in Peshawar, Pakistan. Pak J Med Sci. 2013;29(1):170–2.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Qamar-ur-Nisa H, Habibullah, Memon F, Shaikh TA, Memon Z. Hysterectomies: an audit at a tertiary care hospital. Prof Med J. 2011;18(1):46–50.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Iftikhar R. The outcome of subtotal abdominal hysterectomy. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2005;15(10):594–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Ahsan S, Naeem S, Ahsan A. A case note analysis of hysterectomies performed for non neoplastic indications Liaquat National Hospital Karachi. J Pak Med Assc. 2001;51(10):346–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Rardin CR. The debate over robotics in benign gynecology. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:418–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Magrina JF, Kho R, Weaver L, Montero P, Magtibay P. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109:86–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Park AJ, et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:368.e1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, et al. Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:604–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacro-colpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1005–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Jeppson PC, Rahimi S, Gattoc L, et al. Impact of robotic technology on hysterectomy route and associated implications for resident education. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:196.e1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Carlson J, Lee J. Medical boon or bust? Suits raise allegations of defects in da Vinci robot. Mod Healthc. 2013;43:8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Woelk JL, Borah BJ, Trabuco EC, Heien HC, Gebhart JB. Cost differences among robotic, vaginal, and abdominal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(2):255–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Barbash G, Glied S. New technology and health care costs-the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):701–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2009;302:1557–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O, et al. Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators: a systematic review. BJU Int. 2012;111:194–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Culligan P, Gurshumov E, Lewis C, et al. Predictive validity of a training protocol using a robotic surgery simulator. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20:48–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Gala RB, Margulies R, Steinberg A, et al. Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:353–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Lumsden MA, et al. BMJ. 2007:334:175. www.nice.org.uk/CG44.

    Google Scholar 

  102. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. Diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive-aged women. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 128. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Management of endometriosis. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 114. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:223–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Alternatives to hysterectomy in the management of leiomyomas. ACOG Practice bulletin. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:387–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: NICE clinical guideline 44: heavy menstrual bleeding. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2007:2-5-2011.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Ravina JH, Herbreteau D, Ciraru-Vigneron N, et al. Arterial embolization to treat uterine myomata. Lancet. 1995;346:671–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Malzoni M, Sizzi O, Rossetti A, Imperato F. Laparoscopic myomectomy: a report of 982 procedures. Surg Technol Int. 2006;15:123–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Mara M, Maskova J, Fucikova Z, et al. Midterm clinical and first reproductive results of a randomised controlled trial comparing uterine fibroid embolization and myomectomy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2008;31:73–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Pinto I, Chimeno P, Roma A, Paul L, Haya J, de la Cal M. Uterine fibroids: uterine artery embolization versus abdominal hysterectomy for treatment—a prospective randomised and controlled clinical trial. Radiology. 2003;226:425–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Kong CY, Omer ZB, Pandharipande PV, Shannon Swan J, Srouji S, Scott Gazelle G, Fennessy FM. MRI-guided focused ultrasound surgery for uterine fibroid treatment: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(2):361–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Tsui C, Klein R, Garabrant M. Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:2253–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Bhattacharya K. Kurt Semm: a laparoscopic crusader. J Minim Access Surg. 2007;3(1):35–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Kelley WE. The evolution of laparoscopy and the revolution in surgery in the decade of the 1990s. JSLS. 2008;12:351–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Learman LA. Hysterectomy 2014: indications and techniques. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;57(1):1–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Doll KM, Milad MP, Gossett DR. Surgeon volume and outcomes in benign hysterectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2013;20(5):554–61.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Roberts TE, Tsourapas A, Middleton LJ, et al. Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation, and levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ. 2011;342:2202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Qvistad E, Langebrekke A. Should we recommend hysterectomy more often to premenopausal and climacteric women? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:811–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Harlow BL, Barbieri RL. Influence of education on risk of hysterectomy before age 45 years. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150:843–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Donnez O, Jadoul P, Squifflet J, et al. A series of 3190 laparoscopic hysterectomies for benign disease from 1990 to 2006: evaluation of complications compared with vaginal and abdominal procedures. BJOG. 2009;116:492–500.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Ternamian A. Risk management in gynecological endoscopy. In: Schollmeyer T, Mettler L, Rüther D, Alkatout I, editors. Practical manual for laparoscopic & hysteroscopic gynecological surgery. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Lagrew DC, Jenkins TR. 2020: the future of obstetrics/gynecology in a clearer vision. Why is change needed? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;(211):470–4.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Mettler L, Clevin L, Ternamian A, Puntambekar S, Schollmeyer T, Alkatout I. The past, present and future of minimally invasive endoscopy in gynecology: a review and speculative outlook. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2013;22(4):210–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Singh SS, Marcoux V, Ternamian AM, Cheung V, Martin D. Core competencies for gynecologic endoscopy in residency training: a National Consensus project. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16(1):1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We thank Ms. Dawn Rüther from the Kiel School of Gynecological Endoscopy for reviewing the manuscript.

Declaration of Interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for content and writing of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, St Joseph’s Health Center Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Artin Ternamian

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

    Liselotte Mettler

Authors
  1. Artin Ternamian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liselotte Mettler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Artin Ternamian .

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

Ternamian, A., Mettler, L. (2018). Future Perspectives in Hysterectomy. In: Alkatout, I., Mettler, L. (eds) Hysterectomy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22497-8_132

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22497-8_132

  • 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