Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Peritoneal closure during laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Our goal was to compare postoperative pain and analgesic requirements regarding closure and non-closure of the peritoneum in women undergoing laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH).

Study design

A prospective cohort study was designed to investigate the impact of peritoneal closure for LSH. Postoperative pain was measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS) and analgesic requirements were assessed. Intra- and postoperative complications and operative time were recorded.

Results

A total of 104 patients were enrolled. Fifty-two (50 %) women underwent a LSH with peritoneal closure and 52 (50 %) underwent LSH without closure. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups except for age; women undergoing LSH without peritoneal closure were significantly younger (p < 0.008, t test). The median operative time was 53 (26–105) minutes for LSH with peritoneal closure and 44 (24–83) minutes for LSH without peritoneal closure, a median reduction of 9 minutes (p = 0.007). No differences were found in uterine weight, intra- and post-operative complications, median haemoglobin drop or time in hospital when contrasting both groups. Both groups had similar VAS-pain scores and needed similar analgesic therapies.

Conclusions

The peritoneal closure at LSH provides no short-term postoperative advantages over a non-closure approach, and it prolongs the operative time and anaesthetic exposure. Our data suggest that peritoneal closure is not necessary in LSH.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pietrantoni M, Parsons MT, O’Brien WF et al (1991) Peritoneal closure or non-closure at cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 77:293–296

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rafique Z, Shibli KU, Russell IF et al (2002) A randomised controlled trial of the closure or non-closure of peritoneum at caesarean section: effect on post-operative pain. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 109:694–698

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Højberg KE, Aagaard J, Laursen H et al (1998) Closure versus non-closure of peritoneum at cesarean section–evaluation of pain. A randomized study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 77:741–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Janschek EC, Hohlagschwandtner M, Nather A et al (2003) A study of non-closure of the peritoneum at vaginal hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 267:213–216

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kucuk M, Okman TK (2001) Non-closure of visceral peritoneum at abdominal hysterectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet Off Organ Int Feder Gynaecol Obstet 75:317–319

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gupta JK, Dinas K, Khan KS (1998) To peritonealize or not to peritonealize? A randomized trial at abdominal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 178:796–800

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A et al (2009) Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database System Reviews:CD003677

  8. Weerawetwat W, Buranawanich S, Kanawong M (2004) Closure vs non-closure of the visceral and parietal peritoneum at cesarean delivery: 16 year study. J Med Assoc Thailand Chotmaihet Thangphaet 87:1007–1011

    Google Scholar 

  9. Behtash N, Ghaemaghami F, Gilani MM et al (2001) To peritonealise or not to peritonealise? A randomised trial at abdominal hysterectomy in Iran. J Obstet Gynaecol J Institute Obstet Gynaecol 21:520–524

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Zanaboni F et al (1997) Nonclosure of peritoneum at radical abdominal hysterectomy and pelvic node dissection: a randomized study. Obstetrics and gynecology 90:622–627

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Milad MP, Morrison K, Sokol A et al (2001) A comparison of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy vs laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Surg Endosc 15:286–288

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hoffman CP, Kennedy J, Borschel L et al (2005) Laparoscopic hysterectomy: the Kaiser Permanente San Diego experience. J Mini Invasive Gynecol 12:16–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mueller A, Renner SP, Haeberle L et al (2009) Comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and laparoscopy-assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) in women with uterine leiomyoma. Euro J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 144:76–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Washington JL (2005) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy compared with abdominal, vaginal, and laparoscopic vaginal hysterectomy in a primary care hospital setting. JSLS J Soc Laparoend Surg/Soc Laparoend Surg 9:292–297

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was not funded.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Clinic Magdeburg, Germany, Gerhart-Hauptmann Str. 35, 39108, Magdeburg, Germany

    Holm Eggemann, Serban Dan Costa & Atanas Ignatov

  2. Krüssmannklinik, Munich, Germany

    Nara Asbahr Mitrik & Otto Kabdebo

Authors
  1. Holm Eggemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nara Asbahr Mitrik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Otto Kabdebo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Serban Dan Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Atanas Ignatov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Holm Eggemann.

Ethics declarations

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. 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

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients before treatment. An additional individual consent for this analysis was not needed.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eggemann, H., Mitrik, N.A., Kabdebo, O. et al. Peritoneal closure during laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 294, 785–789 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4125-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4125-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation