Abstract
Purpose
The present study is a prospective, randomized comparative study of abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomies comparing various parameters such as indications, blood loss, post operative pain, time taken for surgery, intraoperative and postoperative complications and total hospital stay.
Materials and Methods
50 patients were selected in each group over a period of 18 months. The patients were selected in such a way that they could be operated by all 3 routes. Thus patients undergoing hysterectomy for non malignant conditions, having no adnexal masses, having no severe endometriosis, uterine size not more than 12 weeks and uterine descent of not more than 1st degree were selected.
Results
The most common indication for hysterectomy was found to be DUB, the maximum time taken was in TLH, the minimum blood loss was found in TLH. There was significant difference in the pain scores using VAS among the three groups on day 0 and day 1, where the scores were significantly lower in VH group, the hospital stay was maximum in TAH group while there was no difference between VH and TLH groups.
Conclusion
TLH is a better alternative for TAH and with good equipment, expertise and excellent teamwork TLH will be the future candidate for mode of surgery.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Gomel V. Operative laparoscopy: time for acceptance. Fertil Steril. 1989;52:1–11.
Bharatnur S. Comparative study of abdominal versus vaginal hysterectomy in non-descent cases. Internet J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;15(2):1528.
Chakraborty S, Goswami S, Mukherjee P et al. Hysterectomy….Which route? J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2011;61(5):554–7.
Schindlebeck C, Klauser K, Dian D et al. Comparison total laparoscopic, vaginal and abdominal hysterectomy. Arch Gynaecol Obstet. 2008;277(4):331–2.
Aninliene R, Varzgaliche L, Varzgalis M. A comparative analysis of hysterectomies. Medicina (Kaunas). 2007;43(2):118–24.
O’Hanlan KA, Dibble SL, Garnier AC. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and complications of 830 cases. JSLS. 2007;11(1):45–53.
Landen LB, Bell MC, Hubert HB et al. Clinical and cost comparisons for hysterectomy via abdominal, standard laparoscopic, vaginal and robot-assisted approaches. SD Med. 2011;64(6):197–9.
Meltomaa SS, Makinen J, Taalikka MC et al. One-year cohort of abdominal, vaginal, and laparoscopic hysterectomies: complications and subjective outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;189(4):389–96.
Cosson M, Lambadic E, Bonkerran M. Vaginal, laparoscopic, or abdominal hysterectomies for benign disorders: immediate and early postoperative complications. Eur J obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol. 2001;98(2):231–6.
Zao J, Tan XJ, Lang JH et al. PMID:20137653. Zhongua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2009;89(41):2931–3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Anand Murari Nanavati and Sudhir Gokral declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Informed consent in studies with human studies
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all patients being included in this study.
Additional information
Dr. Anand Murari Nanavati is a Resident at KJ Somaiya hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai; Sudhir B. Gokral is a Professor at KJ Somaiya hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nanavati, A.M., Gokral, S.B. A Prospective Randomized Comparative Study of Vaginal, Abdominal, and Laparoscopic Hysterectomies. J Obstet Gynecol India 66 (Suppl 1), 389–394 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-015-0756-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-015-0756-z