Unexpected malignancies after laparoscopic-assisted supracervical hysterectomies (LASH): an analysis of 1,584 LASH cases
- 589 Downloads
The objective of this research was to identify the rate of unexpected malignancies after laparoscopic-assisted supracervical hysterectomies (LASH) and describe the therapy regime.
The research is based on a retrospective chart analysis of patients undergoing a simple hysterectomy in the gynecological endoscopy department of a general hospital in Germany.
2,577 simple hysterectomies conducted between March 2005 and March 2010 were sub-classified in different types of hysterectomies (vaginal-, abdominal-, total-, abdominal supracervical hysterectomy, LAVH, and LASH). This study focuses on the LASH sub-group of 1,584 patients and does not make any comparisons to other operative approaches. Out of the 1,584 patients, 87.8 % (n = 1,391) received preoperative screening to exclude dysplasia or malignancy based on the policy of the German Association for gynecology and obstetrics (DGGG). The screening includes cytology (Pap-smear) and preoperative ultrasound of the uterus or dilatation and curettage (d&c). Unexpected malignancies were found in 0.25 % (n = 4) of the patients pre-screened according to DGGG protocol. Out of the four malign patients, two had endometrial cancer. Two patients had leiomyosarcoma.
The study shows that there is a small probability of unexpected malignancies even in correctly pre-screened patients for LASH procedures. Yet in the short-term (28–52 months), malign patients remain recurrence free after treatment. LASH is therefore a good procedure for assumed benign disease.
KeywordsLASH Unexpected malignancies Leiomyosarcoma Endometrial cancer Laparoscopy Morcellation
Conflict of interest
- 12.Bojahr B, Zubke W, Schollmeyer T (2008) Die laparoskopische suprazervikale Hysterektomie (LASH), DGGG, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- 21.Morice P, Rodriguez A, Rey A, Pautier P, Atallah D, Genestie C et al (2004) Prognostic value of initial surgical procedure for patients with uterine sarcoma: analysis of 123 patients. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 24(3–4):237–240Google Scholar
- 23.Boosz A, Lermann J, Mehlhorn G, Renner SP, Thiel FC, Hartmann A et al (2011) Is laparoscopic extirpation of the cervical stump after laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy justified in women with incidentally found atypical endometrial hyperplasia? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 21(8):705–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Kiechle (2007) Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. Urban & Fischer VerlagGoogle Scholar
- 31.Kufahl J, Pedersen I, Sindberg Eriksen P, Helkjaer PE, Larsen LG, Jensen KL et al (1997) Transvaginal ultrasound, endometrial cytology sampled by gynoscann and histology obtained by uterine explora curette compared to the histology of the uterine specimen. A prospective study in pre- and postmenopausal women undergoing elective hysterectomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 76(8):790–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Twu NF, Chen SS (2000) Five-year follow-up of patients with recurrent postmenopausal bleeding. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei) 63(8):628–633Google Scholar
- 41.Lethaby A, Ivanova V, Johnson NP (2006) Total versus subtotal hysterectomy for benign gynaecological conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD004993Google Scholar
- 43.Grosse-Drieling D, Schlutius JC, Altgassen C, Kelling K, Theben J (2011) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH), a retrospective study of 1,584 cases regarding intra- and perioperative complications. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285(5):1391–1396Google Scholar