Minilaparotomically Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy.
- Author:
Yu Duk CHOI
1
;
Soon Pyo LEE
;
Won Ik SEOK
Author Information
1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gachon Medical University Hospital, Incheon, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Minilaparotomically assisted vaginal hysterectomy;
Uterine elevator;
Suprapubic minilaparotomy
- MeSH:
Adenomyosis;
Body Mass Index;
Diagnosis;
Dysmenorrhea;
Elevators and Escalators;
Endometrial Hyperplasia;
Endometrial Neoplasms;
Fallopian Tubes;
Female;
Gynecology;
Hair;
Hemorrhage;
Humans;
Hysterectomy;
Hysterectomy, Vaginal*;
Leiomyoma;
Ligaments;
Obstetrics;
Parity;
Peritoneum;
Polyps;
Recovery of Function;
Reoperation;
Round Ligament of Uterus;
Skin;
Sutures;
Urinary Bladder;
Uterine Hemorrhage;
Uterus;
Weights and Measures;
Wounds and Injuries
- From:Korean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
2003;46(2):323-330
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To review the safety and effectiveness of a new vaginal hysterectomy method, Minilaparatomically Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (MAVH), tried on benign diseases with indication of abdominal hysterectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysis of the safety and the effectiveness of MAVH is based on randomized consecutive 75 patients who received the operation from Feb. 1, 2002 to Jul. 10, 2002 in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Gacheon Medical University Hospital. OPERATION TECHNIQUE: Access to the pelvic cavity was obtained by the traditional suprapubic minilaparotomical incision that is 2-2.5 cm long and parallel to the pubic hair line. Through this incision site, the adnexa and other pelvic organs around the bladder were brought into sight by manipulating the uterine elevator that was already inserted into the uterine cavity. By this method, the round ligament, uteroovarian ligament, and the fallopian tube were exposed at the incision site, then clamped, cut, sutured and divided. The dissection of the bladder peritoneum was performed and then followed by the traditional transvaginal approach. RESULTS: The MAVH was successful in 73 cases (97.3%) out of 75 attempts. The mean age, parity, weight, and body mass index of the subjects of the 73 cases were 42.6 (+/-7.8) years, 2.0 (+/-0.7), 59.5 (+/-7.5) kg, and 23.6 (+/-2.6). Forty subjects (54.8%) had a previous surgical history. The operational indications were 44 cases (60.3%) of uterine myoma, 19 cases (26.0%) of uterine bleeding, 7 cases (9.6%) of dysmenorrhea, and 3 other cases (4.1%). There were 6 cases (8.2%) of cumulative complication. In terms of pathologic diagnosis, 54 cases (74.0%) were uterine myoma with adenomyosis, 12 cases (16.4%) adenomyosis, 2 cases (2.7%) endometrial polyp, 1 case (1.4%) endometrial hyperplasia, 1 case endometrial cancer, and 3 other cases. The weights of uteri ranged from 75 gm to 1150 gm with an average of 286.8 (+/-217.5) gm. The average operation time for MAVH from skin incision to the completion of suture was 75.8 (+/-21.8) minutes. The average bowel function recovery time was 45.9 (+/-12.9) hours. The external bleeding loss was 337.0 (+/-306.8) ml, 11.0% (8/73) required transfusion with an average amount of 1.5 pint. No subject of this study needed reoperation or expired. CONCLUSION: The technique of MAVH is simple and easy to learn. The MAVH involves a relatively small size of incision and less pain and complication with fast recovery and small wound. The method requires a little bit of practice but not an expensive equipment. The MAVH is considered as a safe and effective operational method which could replace the abdominal hysterectomy in most cases.
