Comparative analysis of patient profile, intraoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes of two routes of hysterectomy: non descent vaginal hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy

Authors

  • Smritee Virmani Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Sunderlal Jain Hospital, Delhi, India
  • Umarani Swain Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Sunderlal Jain Hospital, Delhi, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20150440

Keywords:

Benign gynaecological disorders, Non descent vaginal hysterectomy, Total abdominal hysterectomy

Abstract

Background: Worldwide, hysterectomy is the most common non–pregnancy related major surgery performed on women. In the past, uterine prolapse was the major indication for vaginal route of hysterectomy. However, recently, the applicability of this route has expanded to other common benign gynaecological disorders without uterovaginal descent giving way to non-descent vaginal hysterectomy (NDVH). The purpose of this study was to compare the two routes of hysterectomy: NDVH and TAH.

Methods: The prospective observational study compared fifty cases each undergoing NDVH and TAH respectively for benign gynaecological disorders. Data was statistically analyzed to find out the level of significance between various factors of the two groups.

Results: Most common indication for performing hysterectomy was uterine fibroid (62%). Large size uteri were removed vaginally by use of complementary techniques. A statistically significant difference was observed in the mean post-operative haemoglobin (p=0.03) and percentage drop in haemoglobin (p=0.000) in the two groups. Mean residual pain percentage was more for TAH group (p=0.000), thereby this group required greater number of doses of injectable analgesics (p=0.000). Duration of catheterization was more for TAH group. The NDVH group showed a faster tolerance to normal diet (p=0.000) with a faster resumption of normal routine activities (p=0.000).

Conclusions: Hysterectomy should always be performed by the least invasive and most economical route and NDVH should be a gynecologist’s first choice in cases with benign gynaecological disorders. 

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Kovac SR. Intramyometrial coring as an adjunct to vaginal hysterectomy by uterine morcellation: an efficient, non-morbid procedure. Obstet Gynecol. 1986;67:131-6.

Singh A, Bansal S. Comparative study of morbidity and mortality associated with non-descent vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy based on ultrasound determination of uterine volume. Int Surg. 2008;93(2):88-94.

Guvenal T, Ozsoy AZ, Kilcik MA, Yanik A. The availability of vaginal hysterectomy in benign gynecologic diseases: a prospective, non-randomized trial. J Obstet Gynecol Res. 2010;36(4):832-7.

Kore S, Sah A, Hedge A, Srikrishna, Ambiye V. Bisection, Myomectomy and Coring in vaginal hysterectomy of large uterus. Bombay Hospital Journal (http://www.bhj.org/journal/1999_4104_oct 99/original_706.htm).

Davies A, O’ Connor H, Magos AL. A prospective study to evaluate oophorectomy at the time of vaginal hysterectomy. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1996;103:915-20.

Magos A, Bournas N, Sinha R, Richardson RE, O’ Connor H. Vaginal hysterectomy for the large uterus. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;103(3):246-51.

Unger JB, Meeks GR. Vaginal hysterectomy in women with history of previous caesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179(6):1473-8.

Hoffman MS, De Cesare S, Kalter C. Abdominal hysterectomy versus transvaginal morcellation for the removal of enlarged uteri. Am. J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;171:309-15.

Kammerer -Doak D, Mao J. Vaginal hysterectomy with and without morcellation: the university of New Mexico hospital’s experience. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88(4):560-3.

Kayastha S, Tuladhar H. Vaginal hysterectomy vs. abdominal hysterectomy. Nepal Med Coll J. 2006;8(4):259-62.

Benassi I, Rossi T, Kaihura CT, Ricci L, Bedocchi L, Galanti B et al. Abdominal or vaginal hysterectomy for enlarged uteri: A randomized clinical trial. Am J obstet Gynaecol. 2002;187:1561-5.

Miskry T, Magos A. Randomized, prospective, double- blind comparison of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy in women without uterovaginal prolapses. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82:351-8.

Dawood NS, Mahmood R, Haseeb N. Comparison of vaginal and abdominal hysterectomy: peri and post-operative outcome. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2009;21(4):116-20.

Johnson N, Barlow D, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr L, Garry R. Methods of hysterectomy: systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMJ. 2005,330:1478.

Downloads

Published

2017-02-09

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles