Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH), a retrospective study of 1,584 cases regarding intra- and perioperative complications

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

Abstract

Objective

The main interest of this study was to assess the rate of intraoperative and perioperative complications of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) in a teaching hospital.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 1,584 laparoscopic assisted hysterectomies between 2005 and 2010 by different surgeons.

Results

In 2,577 patients undergoing simple hysterectomy, an indication for LASH was present in 1,584 cases. Indications were uterine myomas (71.6%), dysfunctional uterine bleeding (12.6%), suspicion of adenomyosis uteri (8.9%), descensus uteri (2.8%), dysmenorrhea (2.8%), hysterectomy on demand (1.2%) and benign hyperplasia of the endometrium (0.2%). Mean duration of the procedure was 76.5 ± 33.4 min (95% CI, ±1.66). The average age of patients was 45.9 ± 5.4 years (95% CI, ±0.27). Mean body mass index (BMI) was 25.3 ± 4.9 (95% CI, ±0.24). Adhesiolysis due to earlier surgery had to be performed in 190 (12%) cases. The total complication rate was 1.07%. The total conversion rate to laparotomy was 0.88%. The rate of conversion after laparoscopic assessment of the situs was 0.57%. In five cases, conversion to laparotomy was necessary due to intraoperative complications (0.32%). On the whole, six bleedings (0.38%), four bladder injuries (0.25%), three intestinal injuries (0.19%), one ureter injury (0.06%), one injury of the epigastric vein (0.06%) and two omental incarcerations (0.13%) occurred.

Conclusion

In this retrospective analysis, the rate of complications for LASH was very low in a hospital of standard care and residency. LASH has to be considered as a minimally invasive method with a low perioperative morbidity to treat benign uterine pathologies even in a teaching setting and should therefore be the method of choice if the cervix can be preserved.

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. Roumm AR, Pizzi L, Goldfarb NI, Cohn H (2005) Department of health policy, minimally invasive: minimally reimbursed? An examination of six laparoscopic surgical procedures. USA Surg Innov 12(3):261–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Semm K (1991) Hysterectomy via laparotomy or pelviscopy. A new CASH method without colpotomy. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 51(12):996–1003

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. El-Mowafi D, Madkour W, Lall C, Wenger JM (2004) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 11(2):175–180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Donnez J, Nisolle M (1993) Laparoscopic supracervical (subtotal) hysterectomy (LASH). J Gynecol Surg 9(2):91–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sarmini OR, Lefholz K, Froeschke HP (2005) A comparison of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(2):121–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hoffman CP, Kennedy J, Borschel L, Burchette R, Kidd A (2005) Laparoscopic hysterectomy: the Kaiser Permanente San Diego experience. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(1):16–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lyons TL (2000) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 27(2):441–450

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Milad MP, Morrison K, Sokol A, Miller D, Kirkpatrick L (2001) A comparison of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Surg Endosc 15(3):286–288

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kondo W, Bourdel N, Tamburro S, Cavoli D, Jardon K, Rabischong B, Botchorishvili R, Pouly J, Mage G, Canis M (2011) Complications after surgery for deeply infiltrating pelvic endometriosis. BJOG 118(3):292–298. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02774.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kolmorgen K (1998) Laparoscopy complications in previously operated patients. Zentralbl Gynakol 120(4):191–194

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ellis H, Moran BJ, Thompson JN, Parker MC, Wilson MS, Menzies D, McGuire A, Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, O’Brien F, Buchan S, Crowe AM (1999) Adhesion-related hospital readmissions after abdominal and pelvic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 353(9163):1476–1480

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Léonard F, Fotso A, Borghese B, Chopin N, Foulot H, Chapron C (2007) Ureteral complications from laparoscopic hysterectomy indicated for benign uterine pathologies: a 13-year experience in a continuous series of 1,300 patients. Hum Reprod 22(7):2006–2011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bojahr B, Tchartchian G, Ohlinger R (2009) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy: a retrospective analysis of 1,000 cases. JSLS 13(2):129–134

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Donnez O, Jadoul P, Squifflet J, Donnez J (2009) A series of 3,190 laparoscopic hysterectomies for benign disease from 1990 to 2006: evaluation of complications compared with vaginal and abdominal procedures. BJOG 116(4):492–500

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Donnez O, Donnez J (2010) A series of 400 laparoscopic hysterectomies for benign disease: a single centre, single surgeon prospective study of complications confirming previous retrospective study. BJOG 117(6):752–755

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Liu CY (1992) Laparoscopic hysterectomy. A review of 72 cases. J Reprod Med 37(4):351–354

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Salfelder A, Lueken RP, Bormann C et al (2003) Die suprazervikale Hysterektomie in neuem Licht. Wiederentdeckung als minimalinvasive Methode. Frauenarzt 44:1071–1075

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, St. Elisabeth Hospital Cologne, Werthmannstrasse 1, 50935, Cologne, Germany

    Dietmar Grosse-Drieling, Julia Caroline Schlutius, Christopher Altgassen & Juliane Theben

  2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Schleswig-Holstein, Luebeck, Germany

    Katharina Kelling

Authors
  1. Dietmar Grosse-Drieling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julia Caroline Schlutius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher Altgassen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katharina Kelling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Juliane Theben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dietmar Grosse-Drieling.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grosse-Drieling, D., Schlutius, J.C., Altgassen, C. et al. Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH), a retrospective study of 1,584 cases regarding intra- and perioperative complications. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285, 1391–1396 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2170-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2170-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation