Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 285, Issue 4, pp 1025–1029 | Cite as

Vaginal hysterectomy and multimodal anaesthesia with bipolar vessel sailing (Biclamp® forceps) versus conventional suture technique: quality results’ analysis

  • Livio Leo
  • Francesca RiboniEmail author
  • Carlo Gambaro
  • Daniela Surico
  • Nicola Surico
General Gynecology



The medical and economic benefits of the transvaginal approach over the abdominal and laparoscopic methods are demonstrated in many studies. Vaginal hysterectomy with bipolar vessel sailing (BiClamp®) represents an example of mininvasive surgery and could be a valid and cost-benefit alternative in the surgical treatment of benign gynaecologic disease. BiClamp® may be carried out according to Clavè’s technique with a good result in postoperative pain.


Prospective randomized study (Canadian Task Force classification I). We compared the vaginal hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomies with BiClamp® and multimodal anaesthesia (group A 30 patients) with vaginal hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomies and spinal anaesthesia (group B 30 patients).


The median operating time was 33.5 min for group A and 54.5 min for group B (p < 0.0001). The median blood loss was 59.25 ml in group A and 81.75 ml in group B. The median hospital stay was 1.6 ± 0.58 days for group A and 2.55 ± 0.66 days for group B. Postoperative pain was statistically different between groups in the immediate postoperatory times, at 2 and at 6 h from the surgery and at 10 p.m. (p < 0.0001). Analyses of cost-effectiveness have stated advantages in terms of costs and indirect–direct benefits but also in earlier resumption of working.


BiClamp® technique with multimodal anaesthesia has advantages from surgical, anaesthesiology and economic point of view. It is a minimally invasive surgery characterised by lower morbidity, quicker surgery times and reduced costs when compared to classical vaginal hysterectomy. BiClamp® technique represents a new border in vaginal surgery.


Bipolar vessel sailing BiClamp® Vaginal hysterectomy Mininvasive surgery Multimodal anesthesia 


Conflict of interest

The authors certify that no actual or potential conflict of interest exist in relation to this article.


  1. 1.
    Kovac SR (2004) Clinical opinion: guidelines for hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:635–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kovac SR (2002) Hysterectomy outcomes in patients with similar indications. Obstet Gynecol 95:787–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farquar CM, Steiner CA (2002) Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 1990–1997. Obstet Gynecol 99:229–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ottosen C, Lingman G, Ottosen L (2000) Three methods for hysterectomy: a randomised, prospective study of short term outcome. BJOG 107:1380–1385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cronjè HS, De Coning EC (2005) Electrosurgical bipolar vessel sealing during vaginal hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Obstet 91:243–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levy B, Emery L (2003) Randomized trial of suture versus electrosurgical bipolar vessel sealing in vaginal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 102:147–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zubke W, Becker S, Kramer B, Wallwiener D (2004) Vaginal hysterectomy: a new approach using bicoagulatioon forceps. Gynecol Surg 1:179–182Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clavè H, Niccolai P (2003) Hysterectomy sans douleurs: une technique innovante. J Gynecol Obstet Reprod 32:375–380Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ERBE Electromédizin GmbH. Waldhörulestraße 17, D72072, TubingenGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clavè H, Baar H, Niccolai P (2005) Painless vaginal hysterectomy with thermal hemostasis. Gynecol Surg 2(2):101–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clavè H, Niccolai P, Zubke W, Becker S (2004) Vaginal Hysterectomy: a new approach using bicoagulation forceps. Gynecol Surg 1:179–182Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zubke W, Hornung R, Wässerer S, Hucke J, Füllers U, Werner C et al (2009) Bipolar coagulation with the BiClamp forceps versus conventional suture ligation: a multicenter randomized controlled trial in 175 vaginal hysterectomy patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 280(5):753–760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Samulak D, Wilczak M, Michalska MM, Pięta B (2010) Vaginal hysterectomy with bipolar coagulation forceps (BiClamp) as an alternative to the conventional technique. Arch Gynecol Obstet (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ferraris G (1986) Tecnica chirurgica. Chirurgia Ginecologica e Ostetrica. UtetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kehlet H (1997) Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth 78:606–617PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kehlet H (1999) Acute pain control and accelerated postoperative surgical recovery. Surg Clin North Am 7:431–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sculpher M, Manca A, Abbott J et al (2004) Cost effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with standard hysterectomy:result from a randomised trial. BMJ 238:134–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Crawford BL (2004) Laparoscopic hysterectomy is not cost effective compared with vaginal hysterectomy. Evidence Based Healthc 8:197–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Livio Leo
    • 1
  • Francesca Riboni
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carlo Gambaro
    • 1
  • Daniela Surico
    • 1
  • Nicola Surico
    • 1
  1. 1.Advanced Gynecological Oncology Centre, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity “A. Avogadro”NovaraItaly

Personalised recommendations