Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perioperative outcomes in laparoscopic hysterectomy: identifying surgical risk factors

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Gynecological Surgery

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of surgical risk factors, including type of surgery, body mass index, uterine size and presence of adhesions, on perioperative outcomes and complication rates in laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH). This was a retrospective cohort study of 264 LH cases performed between 2005 and 2013 at a London University Hospital. One hundred sixty six (62.9 %) underwent laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy (LASH) and 98 (37.1 %) total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH). Mean operation duration was 77 (±35) min and mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was 196 (±128) ml. Mean specimen weight was 323 g (range 46–1765 g). There were no conversions to laparotomy. Patients undergoing LASH were older than TLH patients (46.7 vs 42.8 years, p < 0.0001) and with larger uterine size (16.9 vs 11.0 weeks, p < 0.0001). There were no differences in operation duration, EBL or hospital stay. Bladder injury occurred in 3 LASH cases (1.8 %) and no TLH cases. Presence of adhesions increased operative duration (95.2 vs 71.5 min, p < 0.0001). Preoperative uterine size correlated positively with specimen weight (p < 0.001), operation duration (p < 0.001) and EBL (p < 0.001). There was a linear relationship between BMI and EBL and operation duration (EBL r 2 0.028, p = 0.006; operative duration r 2 0.017, p = 0.038). This study shows that overall, LH is a safe procedure with low risk of major complications, even in patients with significant surgical risk factors. This study has highlighted particular groups which might be at increased surgical risk, particularly those with a combination of elevated BMI and large uterus, which can aid preoperative counselling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Reid PC, Mukri F (2005) Trends in number of hysterectomies performed in England for menorrhagia: examination of health episode statistics, 1989 to 2002–3. BMJ 330:938–9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Mukhopadhaya N, Manyonda IT (2013) The hysterectomy story in the United Kingdom. J Midlife Health 4:40–1

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Reich H, Decaprio J, McGlynn F (1989) Laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Gynecol Surg 5:213–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A, Tavebder E, Curr E, Garry R, van Voorst S, Mol BW, Kluivers KB (2009) Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3, CD003677. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309:689–698

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Practice Report AAGL (2011) Route of hysterectomy to treat benign uterine disease. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Shahid A, Sankaran S, Odejinmi F (2011) Laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy for large uteri using modified five port technique. Arch Gynecol Obstet 283:79–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hussain M, Odejinmi F (2012) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy: impact of body mass index and uterine weight. Gynecol Surg 9:351–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Drahonovsky J, Haakova L, Otcenasek M, Krofta L, Kucera E, Feyereisl J (2010) A prospective randomized comparison of vaginal hysterectomy, laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy, and total laparoscopic hysterectomy in women with benign uterine disease. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 148:172–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Practice Report AAGL (2014) Practice guidelines for laparoscopic subtotal/supracervical hysterectomy (LSH). J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:9–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brucker SY, Taran FA, Bogdanyova S, Ebersoll S, Wallwiener CW, Schönfisch B, Krämer B, Abele H, Neis F, Sohn C, Gawlik S, Wallwiener D, Wallwiener M (2014) Patient-reported quality-of-life and sexual-function outcomes after laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH): a prospective, questionnaire-based follow-up study in 915 patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 290:1141–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Berner E, Qvigstad E, Myrvold AK, Lieng M (2015) Pain reduction after total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy among women with dysmenorrhea: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13362

  14. Alperin M, Kivnick S, Poon KY (2012) Outpatient laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uteri. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19:689–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cipullo L, De Paoli S, Fasolino L, Fasolino A (2009) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy compared to total hysterectomy. JSLS 13:370–5

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Twijnstra AR, Blikkendaal MD, van Zwet EW, van Kesteren PJ, de Froon CD, Jansen FW (2012) Predictors of successful surgical outcome in laparoscopic hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 119:700–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wallwiener M, Taran FA, Rothmund R, Kasperkowiak A, Auwärter G, Ganz A, Kraemer B, Abele H, Schönfisch B, Isaacson KB, Brucker SY (2013) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH): an implementation study in 1,952 patients with an analysis of risk factors for conversion to laparotomy and complications, and of procedure-specific re-operations. Arch Gynecol Obstet 288:1329–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Morelli M, Noia R, Chiodo D, Mocciaro R, Costantino A, Caruso MT, Cosco C, Lucia E, Curcio B, Gullì G, Amendola G, Zullo F (2007) Laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy versus laparoscopic total hysterectomy: a prospective randomized study. Minerva Ginecol 59:1–10

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Van Evert JS, Smeenk JM, Dijkhuizen FP, de Kruif JH, Kluivers KB (2010) Laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy versus laparoscopic total hysterectomy: a decade of experience. Gynecol Surg 7:9–12

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Boosz A, Lermann J, Mehlhorn G, Loehberg C, Renner SP, Thiel FC, Schrauder M, Beckmann MW, Mueller A (2011) Comparison of re-operation rates and complication rates after total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and laparoscopy-assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 158(2):269–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mueller A, Renner SP, Haeberie L, Lermann J, Oppelt P, Beckmann MW, Thiel F (2009) Comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and laparoscopy-assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) in women with uterine leiomyoma. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 144(1):76–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kobayashi E, Nagase T, Fujiwara K, Hada T, Ota Y, Takaki Y, Kanao H, Andou M (2012) Total laparoscopic hysterectomy in 1253 patients using an early ureteral identification technique. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 38:1194–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lafay Pillet MC, Leonard F, Chopin N, Malaret JM, Borghese B, Foulot H, Fotso A, Chapron C (2009) Incidence and risk factors of bladder injuries during laparoscopic hysterectomy indicated for benign uterine pathologies: a 14.5 years experience in a continuous series of 1501 procedures. Hum Reprod 24:842–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sinha R, Sundaram M, Lakhotia S, Hedge A, Kadam P (2010) Total laparoscopic hysterectomy in women with previous cesarean sections. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:513–517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang L, Merkur H, Hardas G, Soo S, Lujic S (2010) Laparoscopic hysterectomy in the presence of previous caesarean section: a review of one hundred forty-one cases in the Sydney West Advanced Pelvic Surgery Unit. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:186–191

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bonilla DJ, Mains L, Whitaker R, Crawford B, Finan M, Magnus MJ (2007) Uterine weight as a predictor of morbidity after a benign abdominal and total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Reprod Med 52:490–498

    Google Scholar 

  27. O’Hanlan KA, McCutcheon SP, McCutcheon JG (2011) Laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact of uterine size. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18(1):85–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Uccella S, Cromi A, Bogani G, Casarin J, Formenti G, Ghezzi F (2013) Systematic implementation of laparoscopic hysterectomy independent of uterus size: clinical effect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 20:505–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yavuzcan A, Cağlar M, Ustün Y, Dilbaz S, Kumru S (2014) Evaluation of the outcomes of laparoscopic hysterectomy for normal and enlarged uterus (>280 g). Arch Gynecol Obstet 289:831–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Uccella S, Cromi A, Serati M, Casarin J, Sturla D, Ghezzi F (2014) Laparoscopic hysterectomy in case of uteri weighing ≥1 kg: a series of 71 cases and review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:460–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Harmanli O, Esin S, Knee A, Jones K, Ayaz R, Tunitsky E (2013) Effect of obesity on perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Reprod Med 58:497–503

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bardens D, Solomayer E, Baum S, Radosa J, Gräber S, Rody A, Juhasz-Böss I (2014) The impact of the body mass index (BMI) on laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289:803–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Siedhoff MT, Carey ET, Findley AD, Riggins LE, Garrett JM, Steege JF (2012) Effect of extreme obesity on outcomes in laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19:701–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Morgan-Ortiz F, Soto-Pineda JM, López-Zepeda MA, Peraza-Garay Fde J (2013) Effect of body mass index on clinical outcomes of patients undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 120:61–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. McMahon MD, Scott DM, Saks E, Tower A, Raker CA, Matteson KA (2014) Impact of obesity on outcomes of hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:259–65

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Kondo W, Bourdel N, Marengo F, Botchorishvili R, Pouly JL, Jardon K, Rabischong B, Mage G, Canis M (2012) What’s the impact of the obesity on the safety of laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22:949–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Chopin N, Malaret JM, Lafay-Pillet MC, Fotso A, Foulot H, Chapron C (2009) Total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign uterine pathologies: obesity does not increase the risk of complications. Hum Reprod 24:3057–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ghandi S (2009) Have the safety concerns about laparoscopic hysterectomy been fully addressed? BJOG 116:1272

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wallenstein MR, Ananth CV, Kim JH, Burke WM, Hershman DL, Lewin SN, Neugut AI, Lu YS, Herzog TJ, Wright JD (2012) Effect of surgical volume on outcomes for laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications. Obstet Gynecol 119:709–716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ridgeway B, Falcone T (2014) Innovations in minimally invasive hysterectomy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 57:83–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors’ contribution

K Maclaran conducted the data analysis and wrote the manuscript. F Odejinmi developed the project, performed data collection and management and wrote/edited the manuscript. N Agarwal developed the project, collected and managed the data and wrote/edited the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Northwick Park Hospital, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA1 3UJ, UK

    Kate Maclaran & Nilesh Agarwal

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Whipps Cross University Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, Leytonstone, London, E11 1NR, UK

    Funlayo Odejinmi

Authors
  1. Kate Maclaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nilesh Agarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Funlayo Odejinmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Funlayo Odejinmi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Statement of human rights

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

For this type of retrospective study, formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maclaran, K., Agarwal, N. & Odejinmi, F. Perioperative outcomes in laparoscopic hysterectomy: identifying surgical risk factors. Gynecol Surg 13, 75–82 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-015-0914-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-015-0914-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation