Minilaparotomically Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy

Endoscopic hysterectomy is increasingly selected as a current trend to minimize invasion, tissue trauma and early recovery. However it has disadvantages of the difficulty to learn and needs expensive equipments. So we developed a new minimally invasive method of vaginal hysterectomy-minilaparotomically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (MAVH) in order to complement the current laparoscopic surgery. The principle of MAVH is based on suprapubic minilaparotomical incision and uterine elevator that allows access and maximal exposure of the pelvic anatomy and an easy approach to the surrounding anatomy enabling division of round ligaments, Fallopian tubes, tuboovarian ligaments, and dissection of bladder peritoneum. After then, the vaginal phase of MAVH is done by the traditional vaginal hysterectomy. We enrolled 75 consecutive cases and in 73 cases thereof MAVH was accomplished successfully. The technique of MAVH is simple and easy to learn and it involves a small incision causing less pain and complications. This practice does not require expensive equipments. MAVH is considered as a safe and effective alternative method for abdominal hysterectomy in most cases

Gynaecologists estimate and experience laparoscopic hysterectomy as more difficult compared with abdominal hysterectomy

The level of difficulty of various types of hysterectomy differs and may influence the choice of either approach. When surgeons consider one specific approach to hysterectomy as more difficult, they may be reluctant to perform this type of hysterectomy. The main objective of this study was to investigate the potential different levels of difficulty for laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy. Furthermore, the accuracy of estimating the level of difficulty was examined. In a randomized controlled trial between laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and abdominal hysterectomy (AH), gynaecologists were asked to record the preoperatively estimated and postoperatively experienced level of difficulty on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Differences between LH and AH were examined and the correlation between the estimated uterine weight on bimanual palpation and the actual uterine weight was calculated. A difference on the VAS of three points or more (ΔVAS ≥ 3) was considered clinically relevant. In 72 out of 76 cases, both VAS scores were recorded. LH was estimated and experienced as significantly more difficult as compared with AH. In 13 (18%) cases, ΔVAS was ≥3, equally distributed between LH (n = 6) and AH (n = 7). Eleven of these 13 cases had a positive ΔVAS ≥3, meaning that surgery was experienced as more difficult than it was estimated. Surgeon’s estimation of uterine size correlated well with the actual uterine weight. LH is considered as more difficult than AH, which might be a reason for its slow implementation. In a large proportion of cases, gynaecologists seem to be able to estimate the level of difficulty of hysterectomy accurately

Costs and Effects of Abdominal versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: Systematic Review of Controlled Trials

Objective: Comparative evaluation of costs and effects of laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and abdominal hysterectomy (AH). Data sources: Controlled trials from Cochrane Central register of controlled trials, Medline, Embase and prospective trial registers. Selection of studies: Twelve (randomized) controlled studies including the search terms costs, laparoscopy, laparotomy and hysterectomy were identified. Methods: The type of cost analysis, perspective of cost analyses and separate cost components were assessed. The direct and indirect costs were extracted from the original studies. For the cost estimation, hospital stay and procedure costs were selected as most important cost drivers. As main outcome the major complication rate was taken. Findings: Analysis was performed on 2226 patients, of which 1013 (45.5%) in the LH group and 1213 (54.5%) in the AH group. Five studies scored >= 10 points (out of 19) for methodological quality. The reported total direct costs in the LH group ($63,997) were 6.1$60,114). The reported total indirect costs of the LH group ($1,609) were half of the total indirect in the AH group ($3,139). The estimated mean major complication rate in the LH group (14.3%) was lower than in the AH group (15.9%). The estimated total costs in the LH group were $3,884 versus$3,312 in the AH group. The incremental costs for reducing one patient with major complication(s) in the LH group compared to the AH group was $35,750. Conclusions: The shorter hospital stay in the LH group compensates for the increased procedure costs, with less morbidity. LH points in the direction of cost effectiveness, however further research is warranted with a broader costs perspective including long term effects as societal benefit, quality of life and survival