Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 288, Issue 6, pp 1329–1339 | Cite as

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

  • Markus Wallwiener
  • Florin-Andrei Taran
  • Ralf Rothmund
  • Adam Kasperkowiak
  • Gabriel Auwärter
  • Antje Ganz
  • Bernhard Kraemer
  • Harald Abele
  • Birgitt Schönfisch
  • Keith B. Isaacson
  • Sara Yvonne Brucker
General Gynecology



To compare laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) with total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) with regard to relevant surgical parameters and risk factors of conversion to laparotomy and complications.


This prospective, open, single-center, interventional study included women with benign gynecologic disease who underwent standardized LSH or TLH. The techniques were compared for conversion rate and mean operating time, hemoglobin drop, hospital stay, and complication rates using descriptive statistics and standard non-parametric statistical tests. Risk factors of conversion and complications were identified by logistic regression analysis.


During January 2003 to December 2010, 1,952 women [mean age (SD): 47.5 (7.2) years] underwent LSH [1,658 (84.9 %)] or TLH [294 (15.1 %)], mostly (>70 %) for uterine fibroids. Significant differences in surgical parameters were observed for conversion rate (LSH/TLH: 2.6/6.5 %), mean operating time [87 (34)/103 (36) min], hemoglobin drop [1.3 (0.8)/1.6 (1.0) g/dL], and hospital stay [4.3 (1.5)/4.9 (2.8) days]. Overall intraoperative (0.2/0.7 %) and long-term (>6 weeks) post-operative (0.8/1.7 %) complication rates did not differ significantly, but the short-term LSH complication rate was significantly lower (0.6 vs. 4.8 %). Spotting (LSH, 0.2 %) and vaginal cuff dehiscence (TLH, 0.7 %) were long-term method-specific complications. Logistic regression showed that uterine weight and extensive adhesiolysis were significant factors for conversion while previous surgery, age, and BMI were not. Major risk factors of short-term complications were age, procedure (LSH/TLH), and extensive adhesions.


Both procedures proved effective and were well tolerated. LSH performed better than TLH regarding most outcome measures. LSH is associated with very low rates of re-operation and spotting.


Hysterectomy Laparoscopy LASH Benign gynecologic disease Comparison of surgical techniques Prediction of complications 



The authors thank Sandra Ebersoll, Christian W. Wallwiener, and Adam Kasperkowiak for excellent technical assistance. No financial support or funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

All authors were employees of their respective university hospital. SYB was actively involved in the development of the SupraLoop™ unipolar loop for LSH. None of the authors have any financial relationships with instrument or equipment manufacturers or other commercial interests that might represent potential conflicts of interest regarding this work.


  1. 1.
    Sutton C (2010) Past, present, and future of hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(4):421–435. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.03.005 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jenkins TR (2004) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(6):1875–1884. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.06.096 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mueller A, Renner SP, Haeberle 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):76–79. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.02.004 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kilkku P, Grönroos M, Hirvonen T, Rauramo L (1983) Supravaginal uterine amputation vs. hysterectomy. Effects on libido and orgasm. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 62(2):147–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thakar R, Ayers S, Clarkson P, Stanton S, Manyonda I (2002) Outcomes after total versus subtotal abdominal hysterectomy. N Engl J Med 347(17):1318–1325. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa013336 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Evert JS, Smeenk JMJ, Dijkhuizen FPHLJ, de Kruif JH, Kluivers KB (2010) Laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy versus laparoscopic total hysterectomy: a decade of experience. Gynecol Surg 7(1):9–12. doi: 10.1007/s10397-009-0529-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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):269–273. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.04.021 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wallwiener D, Jonat W, Kreienberg R, Friese K, Diedrich K, Beckmann MW, Hirsch HA, Käser O, Ikle FA (2008) Atlas der gynäkologischen Operationen. Thieme, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brucker S, Solomayer E, Zubke W, Sawalhe S, Wattiez A, Wallwiener D (2007) A newly developed morcellator creates a new dimension in minimally invasive surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(2):233–239. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2006.10.004 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greenberg JA (2010) Brucker/Messroghli Supraloop™ Unipolar Loop. Rev Obstet Gynecol 3(2):76–77Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bojahr B, Tchartchian G, Ohlinger R (2009) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy: a retrospective analysis of 1,000 cases. JSLS 13(2):129–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bojahr B, Raatz D, Schonleber G, Abri C, Ohlinger R (2006) Perioperative complication rate in 1,706 patients after a standardized laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13(3):183–189. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2006.01.010 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grosse-Drieling D, Schlutius JC, Altgassen C, Kelling K, Theben J (2012) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH), a retrospective study of 1,584 cases regarding intra- and perioperative complications. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285(5):1391–1396. doi: 10.1007/s00404-011-2170-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hobson DT, Imudia AN, Al-Safi ZA, Shade G, Kruger M, Diamond MP, Awonuga AO (2012) Comparative analysis of different laparoscopic hysterectomy procedures. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285(5):1353–1361. doi: 10.1007/s00404-011-2140-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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(4):709–716. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318248f7a8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wattiez A, Soriano D, Cohen SB, Nervo P, Canis M, Botchorishvili R, Mage G, Pouly JL, Mille P, Bruhat MA (2002) The learning curve of total laparoscopic hysterectomy: comparative analysis of 1,647 cases. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 9(3):339–345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tunitsky E, Citil A, Ayaz R, Esin S, Knee A, Harmanli O (2010) Does surgical volume influence short-term outcomes of laparoscopic hysterectomy? Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(1):24 e21–24 e26. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Twijnstra AR, Blikkendaal MD, van Zwet EW, van Kesteren PJ, de Kroon CD, Jansen FW (2012) Predictors of successful surgical outcome in laparoscopic hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 119(4):700–708. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31824b1966 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Payne TN, Dauterive FR (2008) A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):286–291. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.01.008 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ghomi A, Cohen SL, Chavan N, Gunderson C, Einarsson J (2011) Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy vs laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy for treatment of non prolapsed uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18(2):205–210. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.12.005 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Warren L, Ladapo JA, Borah BJ, Gunnarsson CL (2009) Open abdominal versus laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy: analysis of a large United States payer measuring quality and cost of care. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16(5):581–588. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2009.06.018 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lassen PD, Moeller-Larsen H, DEN P (2012) Same-day discharge after laparoscopic hysterectomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91(11):1339–1341. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01535.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    InEK GmbH (2012) Fallpauschalen-Katalog 2012. InEK GmbH. Accessed 18 Sept 2012
  24. 24.
    Mueller A, Boosz A, Koch M, Jud S, Faschingbauer F, Schrauder M, Löhberg C, Mehlhorn G, Renner SP, Lux MP, Beckmann MW, Thiel FC (2011) The Hohl instrument for optimizing total laparoscopic hysterectomy: results of more than 500 procedures in a university training center. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285(1):123–127. doi: 10.1007/s00404-011-1905-y PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Donnez O, Jadoul P, Squifflet J, Donnez J (2009) A series of 3,90 laparoscopic hysterectomies for benign disease from 1990 to 2006: evaluation of complications compared with vaginal and abdominal procedures. BJOG 116(4):492–500. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01966.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Malzoni M, Perniola G, Perniola F, Imperato F (2004) Optimizing the total laparoscopic hysterectomy procedure for benign uterine pathology. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 11(2):211–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCartney AJ, Obermair A (2004) Total laparoscopic hysterectomy with a transvaginal tube. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 11(1):79–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Iaco PD, Ceccaroni M, Alboni C, Roset B, Sansovini M, D’Alessandro L, Pignotti E, Aloysio DD (2006) Transvaginal evisceration after hysterectomy: is vaginal cuff closure associated with a reduced risk? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 125(1):134–138. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.08.009 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jeung IC, Baek JM, Park EK, Lee HN, Kim CJ, Park TC, Lee YS (2010) A prospective comparison of vaginal stump suturing techniques during total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 282(6):631–638. doi: 10.1007/s00404-009-1300-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lieng M, Lomo AB, Qvigstad E (2010) Long-term outcomes following laparoscopic and abdominal supracervical hysterectomies. Obstet Gynecol Int 2010:989127. doi: 10.1155/2010/989127 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lethaby A, Ivanova V, Johnson NP (2006) Total versus subtotal hysterectomy for benign gynaecological conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD004993. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004993.pub2

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Wallwiener
    • 1
  • Florin-Andrei Taran
    • 2
  • Ralf Rothmund
    • 2
  • Adam Kasperkowiak
    • 2
  • Gabriel Auwärter
    • 2
  • Antje Ganz
    • 2
  • Bernhard Kraemer
    • 2
  • Harald Abele
    • 2
  • Birgitt Schönfisch
    • 2
  • Keith B. Isaacson
    • 3
  • Sara Yvonne Brucker
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany
  3. 3.Center for Minimally Invasive Gynecologic SurgeryNewton-Wellesley HospitalNewtonUSA

Personalised recommendations