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
- 621 Downloads
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.
KeywordsHysterectomy 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.
- 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
- 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.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
- 10.Greenberg JA (2010) Brucker/Messroghli Supraloop™ Unipolar Loop. Rev Obstet Gynecol 3(2):76–77Google Scholar
- 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
- 23.InEK GmbH (2012) Fallpauschalen-Katalog 2012. InEK GmbH. http://www.g-drg.de/cms/G-DRG-System_2012/Fallpauschalen-Katalog/Fallpauschalen-Katalog_2012. Accessed 18 Sept 2012
- 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
- 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
- 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