Korean J Obstet Gynecol.  2010 Oct;53(10):921-926. 10.5468/kjog.2010.53.10.921.

Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy using 3-trocar method through the previous operation scar for large uterus weighing 300 g or more

• Kang EJ
• Moon HS

• KMID: 1453757
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5468/kjog.2010.53.10.921

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study is to examine the feasibility and safety of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) using 3-trocar method through the previous operation scar for uterus weighing 300 g or more in the management of gynecologic disease.
METHODS
This retrospective study was peformed in 51 cases of LAVH with uterus weighing 300 g or more and with symptomatic benign gynecologic diseases (leiomyoma or adenomyosis). LAVH was performed through 3-trocar method (one trocar below the umbilicus, and two trocars at the point about 2 cm above and medial side of each anterior superior iliac spine, or at the bilateral edges of the previous operation scar).
RESULTS
Previous operation history was found in 17 cases (33.3%) and cesarean section was the most common. There was no difference in the age, body mass index, parity, length of operation, amount of blood loss, hemoglobin change, length of gas out, and hospital stay, rate of transfusion and complication between two groups divided by history of operation (P>0.05). Uterine weight in the group having operation history was lighter than that in group having not operation history (519.91+/-220.53 g and 381.24+/-70.63 g, respectively, P<0.05).
CONCLUSION
LAVH for large uterus weighing 300 g or more using 3-trocar method through previous operation scar is safe and effective operation method, and may be an alternative to abdominal hysterectomy in selected patients.

Keyword

Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy; Uteri weighing 300 g or more; Previous operation scar

MeSH Terms

Body Mass Index
Cesarean Section
Cicatrix
Female
Genital Diseases, Female
Hemoglobins
Humans
Hysterectomy
Hysterectomy, Vaginal
Length of Stay
Parity
Pregnancy
Retrospective Studies
Spine
Surgical Instruments
Umbilicus
Uterus
Hemoglobins

Reference

1. Bachmann GA. Hysterectomy. A critical review. J Reprod Med. 1990. 35:839–862.

2. Wilcox LS, Koonin LM, Pokras R, Strauss LT, Xia Z, Peterson HB. Hysterectomy in the United States, 1988-1990. Obstet Gynecol. 1994. 83:549–555.

3. Reich H. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1992. 2:85–88.

4. Tsai EM, Chen HS, Long CY, Yang CH, Hsu SC, Wu CH, et al. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy: a study of 100 cases on light-endorsed transvaginal section. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2003. 55:105–109.

5. Boike GM, Elfstrand EP, DelPriore G, Schumock D, Holley HS, Lurain JR. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy in a university hospital: report of 82 cases and comparison with abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993. 168:1690–1697.

6. Marana R, Busacca M, Zupi E, Garcea N, Paparella P, Catalano GF. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999. 180:270–275.

7. Nezhat F, Nezhat C, Gordon S, Wilkins E. Laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy. J Reprod Med. 1992. 37:247–250.

8. Olsson JH, Ellstrom M, Hahlin M. A randomised prospective trial comparing laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996. 103:345–350.

9. ACOG criteria set. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Number 11: October 1995. Committee on Quality Assessment. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1996. 53:91–92.

10. Park HM. Optimal selection of hysterectomy method. Korean J Gynecol Endosc. 2003. 15:23–35.

11. Leblanc E, Querleu D, Castelain B, Occelli B, Chauvet MP, Chevalier A, et al. Role of laparoscopy in the management of uterine cervix cancer. Cancer Radiother. 2000. 4:113–121.

12. Meikle SF, Nugent EW, Orleans M. Complications and recovery from laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy compared with abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997. 89:304–311.

13. Raju KS, Auld BJ. A randomised prospective study of laparoscopic vaginal hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy each with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994. 101:1068–1071.

14. Summitt RL Jr, Stovall TG, Steege JF, Lipscomb GH. A multicenter randomized comparison of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy in abdominal hysterectomy candidates. Obstet Gynecol. 1998. 92:321–326.

15. Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Peterson HB. Uterine size and risk of complications among women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy for leiomyomas. Obstet Gynecol. 1996. 87:539–543.

16. Chang WC, Huang SC, Sheu BC, Torng PL, Hsu WC, Chen SY, et al. LAVH for large uteri by various strategies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008. 87:558–563.

17. Park JY, Park JW, Ko MJ, Lee YS. Clinical comparisons of laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy in the huge uterine myoma. Korean J Obstet Gynecol. 2003. 46:62–65.

18. Harris WJ, Daniell JF. Early complications of laparoscopic hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1996. 51:559–567.

19. Sheth SS, Malpani AN. Vaginal hysterectomy following previous cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1995. 50:165–169.

20. Ku CH, Yoon SJ, Lee JS, Lee HK, Lee KB. Comparison study on results of LAVH according to prior abdominal surgery. Korean J Obstet Gynecol. 2006. 49:1085–1092.