ISPUB.com / IJGO/15/2/13585
  • Author/Editor Login
  • Registration
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus

ISPUB.com

Internet
Scientific
Publications

  • Home
  • Journals
  • Latest Articles
  • Disclaimers
  • Article Submissions
  • Contact
  • Help
  • The Internet Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics
  • Volume 15
  • Number 2

Original Article

Comparative Study Of Abdominal Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy In Non- Descent Cases

S Bharatnur

Keywords

abdominal hysterectomy, intra-operative and post-operative complications of hysterectomy, non-descent cases, vaginal hysterectomy

Citation

S Bharatnur. Comparative Study Of Abdominal Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy In Non- Descent Cases. The Internet Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2010 Volume 15 Number 2.

Abstract

Hysterectomy, abdominal or vaginal, total or subtotal laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy is by far the most frequently performed elective major operation in Gynaecology. It is said that the two are not competitive procedures but each has its own place in the operative armamentarium of the gynaecologist. This study was done with the Objective to study the comparative risks of complications of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies during intra-operative and post-operative period thereby improve the proportion of hysterectomies done vaginally. Method: A total of 50 patients in the study were divided into two groups. 25 cases in each group each designated as group-A and group-B underwent abdominal hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy respectively for non-prolapsed cases with good uterine mobility and uterine size less than16 week. Results: Intra-operative blood loss, mean operating time was more in group A than in group B (500±250,316±238) and (101±27.1 min, 65±26.2) respectively. Only one case of bladder injury was observed in group A, (which was a case of previous caesarean section) and none in vaginal route. Only one patient underwent re-laparotomy for internal bleeding via abdominal route. Postoperative fever (28% & 16%),UTI(20% & 15%)and abdominal wound infection(8%,0%) was more common in Group A as compared to Group B. Vaginal cellulitis (44% & 24%) and vault granuloma (20% & 0%) was found frequently in vaginal than in abdominal route. Conclusion: From the study results it can be concluded that patients requiring hysterectomy for benign non prolapse cases be offered the option of vaginal route which is less invasive, minimal or no complications, more economical and effective. In our centre, it is likely to replace abdominal hysterectomy as the operation of choice.

 

Introduction

Hysterectomy, abdominal or vaginal, total or subtotal laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy is by far the most frequently performed elective major operation in Gynaecology1.It is said that the two are not competitive procedures but each has its own place in the operative armamentarium of the gynaecologist. As compared to three routes, vaginal hysterectomy should be the route of choice and laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) as an alternative because of long operating time, expensive without added benefits in terms of postoperative complications compared to vaginal hysterectomy2.

Hysterectomy by vaginal route must be practiced in all cases where there is an indication for hysterectomy in benign non prolapse cases. The vaginal route has mainly been restricted to the treatment of uterine prolapse, the reverse should be the case because fewer post-operative complications, no abdominal incision hence cosmetically approved by patient which allows earlier recovery and return to work3. There is ample opportunity to learn and master vaginal surgery1.Hence it is best interest of the patient if vaginal route is mastered. To maximize the proportion of hysterectomies performed vaginally, gynecologists need to be familiar with surgical techniques for dealing with non-prolapsed uterus.

Methods and Materials

The study was carried out at tertiary level teaching hospital. A total of 50 Cases admitted to gynecological ward requiring hysterectomy for benign diseases were selected randomly and divided into two groups according to the type of surgery. In group A, 25 patients were subjected to total abdominal hysterectomy and in Group B another 25 patients subjected to vaginal hysterectomy. The study was carried out over a two year period from Dec 2002-Dec 2004.

A careful history from the patient was elicited and a thorough examination was conducted. This included complete physical as well as pelvic examination. Inclusion criteria were uterus without descent, with good mobility and size not more than 16 weeks size. Uterine prolapse, associated adnexal pathology, history of 2 or more serial abdominal surgeries or pelvic organ surgeries was excluded from the study.

Routine investigations including complete haemogram, urine analysis, blood grouping and Rh-typing, blood sugar, serum creatinine, blood urea, cervical swab for culture and sensitivity, Pap smear, ECG, Chest X-ray/ USG Abdomen and Pelvis, HIV, HBSAg was done.

A written informed consent was taken from all patients after explaining the procedure. Every patient was completely evaluated by an anesthetist before deciding the type of anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia was used in most of our patients. Operating time for Abdominal Hysterectomy was calculated from the start of skin incision to the closure of the skin incision and for vaginal hysterectomy from the start of incision at cervico-vaginal junction to the placement of vaginal pack.

Blood loss was calculated by noting the number of Mops used during surgery. Measurement of Mops used in present study was 34 cm x 24 cm. On an average ¼ soaked Mops contained 20 ml, ½ soaked 40 ml and fully soaked 100 ml. This is rough estimation of blood loss. Intra-operative complications like injury to the bladder/bowel/ ureter. Hemorrhage was noted. Post operatively, all patients were meticulously followed. On 3 rd post-operative day, Routine hemoglobin estimation and urine examination was done and vaginal swab taken on 4 th postoperative day and subjected for culture and sensitivity. In case of abdominal wound infection, culture and sensitivity was done to know the type of organisms. Post-operative complications like fever, urinary tract infection, vaginal cuff cellulitis, abdominal would infection were noted.

Statistical analysis was done using SPSS software Version 15. Mean and standard deviation was calculated. Test of significance was done by using unpaired’ test. Level of significance noted at 5% and 1%.All the patients were advised to attend the outpatient department two weeks after discharge from hospital to note their well-being or any late complications like vaginal discharge, urinary/bowel symptom

Result

Majority of the patients were in the range of 40-49 years and were equally distributed age wise in both the groups. (Table 1)

Figure 1
Table 1: Age Distribution

Mean age of the patient in Group A is 44.4±8.3 and in Group B is 44.2±0.3, which is not statistically significant (P>0.05).Parity wise distribution is equal in both groups with mean parity in Group A is 3.6 and in Group B 3.8 (Table 2).

Figure 2
Table 2: Parity Wise distribution

Commonest indication for abdominal hysterectomy is fibroid (32%) and chronic cervicitis (32%), whereas for vaginal hysterectomy it is DUB (48%), fibroid (32%) and chronic cervicitis (12%). Other indications are ovarian pathology, cervical dysplasia, adenomyosis and cervical polyp (Table 3).

Figure 3
Table 3: Indication for Surgery

The size of the uterus in Group A (40%) was between 12-14 weeks size and in Group B (52%) 6-8 weeks in vaginal hysterectomy (Table 4). The average blood loss in abdominal group was 500±250 and 316±238 in vaginal group. The difference in amount of blood loss was significant statistically (Table 5).

Figure 4
Table 4: Size of the Uterus in Gestational Weeks

Figure 5
Table 5: Type of Operation and Blood Loss

In majority of cases (72%) the maximum operating time was between 60-120min in Group A where as in Group B (68%) the time taken was 60min (Table 6).Mean time taken for abdominal hysterectomy was 101±27.1 whereas vaginal hysterectomy was 65±26.2 which was statistically highly significant.

Figure 6
Table 6: Operating time for Surgery

In our study, post-operative complications is more in Group A than in Group B. Fever (28%),UTI(20%) is more common in Group A than in Group B(16%,15%) Vaginal cuff cellulitis and vault granuloma is frequently seen in Group B (44%, 20%) than in Group A(24%, 0%).Abdominal wound infection in 3 cases (12%). Re-laparotomy was done in one case of abdominal hysterectomy due to intra-peritoneal bleeding. Secondary suturing is performed in 2 cases, one case was with severe anemia and other case with relaparotomy with severe anemia, vaginal swab positive(28% &40%) in Group A & B respectively (Table 7).In Group A 9 patients (36%) did not have any complaints postoperatively as against 17(68%) patients in Group B(Table 7,8).

Figure 7
Table 7: Post-operative Complications

Figure 8
Table 8: Late Complications

Post-operative hospital stay was maximum in Group-A 11.1day (68%) as compared to Group-B 9.6 days(32%).Two patients in abdominal hysterectomy stayed for more than 30 days who underwent secondary suturing and re-laparatomy procedure (Table 9).

Figure 9
Table 9: Hospital Stay

Discussion

It is well known fact that 70-80% of hysterectomies done for benign conditions are through abdominal route. Vaginal hysterectomies are usually performed for prolapse cases. The reason behind this is inadequate technical skills, presence of uterine enlargement makes vaginal route difficult. But with newer techniques like bisection, morcellation and myomectomy it has become easy to perform vaginal hysterectomy even in enlarged uterus in benign cases4.

In our study most of patients were in the age group of 40-49 years of age which was well compared with the study carried out by Tariq Miskry et al. Mean parity for vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy in our study was 3.8 and 3.6 respectively. Parity wise distribution of cases was similar to Nasiraet al study.

Figure 10
Table 10: Comparison of Age Distribution

Figure 11
Table 11: Mean parity by different authors

Indications for Hysterectomy

In this study, most common indication for abdominal hysterectomy is fibroid uterus (32%) followed by chronic cervicitis (32%) and DUB (20%). The commonest indication for vaginal hysterectomy in non-descent cases is DUB (48%) followed by fibroid (32%).

Figure 12
Table 12: Indications of hysterectomy by different authors

Figure 13
Table 13: Indications for vaginal hysterectomy for non-descent uterus by different authors

Uterine size in gestational weeks

The uterine size in gestational weeks is compared with both routes.

Figure 14

Figure 15
Table 15: Vaginal Hysterectomy for non-descent by different authors

Figure 16
Table 16: Intraoperative Complications

In the present study, one patient had bladder injury during abdominal hysterectomy, which was a case of previous LSCS. No patient had any intra-operative problem in vaginal hysterectomy.

Figure 17
Table 17: Mean Blood Loss (ml)

In the present study, mean blood loss for Abdominal Hysterectomy was 500 ml and that for VH was 316.4 ml. The present study was well correlated with the study conducted by Tariq Miskry.

Figure 18
Table 18: Operating Time

The mean operating time for abdominal hysterectomy was 101 minute and that for vaginal hysterectomy was 65 minutes. The present study was correlated with the study of Kovac et al.

Figure 19
Table 19: Operating time for non-descent vaginal hysterectomy

In the present study, the mean operating time for vaginal hysterectomy was 65 minutes. Range between 30-120. The present study is well correlated with Octacillio Figueiredo study.

Figure 20
Table 20: Postoperative Complications

In our study women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy had more febrile morbidity (28%) than vaginal hysterectomy (16%); urinary tract infection is more in abdominal (20%) group well correlated with Kovac et al study than vaginal (12%).

Figure 21
Table 21: Hospital Stay

Post-operative hospital stay in the present study was 11.1 days (7-30) in abdominal group 9.6 days (6-13) in vaginal group.

Post-operative stay in the present study was more than other studies because most of our patients are from rural areas and from far places, who cannot come back for follow-up study.

Our study shows that in patients without genital tract prolapse, vaginal hysterectomy is associated with significantly shorter hospitalization than abdominal hysterectomy. It is not surprising that patients reported less discomfort and faster recovery after vaginal hysterectomy in the immediate post-operative period. Abdominal hysterectomy maybe associated with a higher risk of post-operative fever, while bleeding may be more frequent with vaginal surgery. These findings support the view that vaginal hysterectomy should not be restricted to women with genital tract prolapsed alone.

Conclusion

All the patients without uterine prolapse submitted to vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of benign disease had some advantage in relation to abdominal hysterectomy. Less intra-operative blood loss, less febrile morbidity, low postoperative complications, faster recovery, less hospital stay demonstrate that the vaginal route should be the choice of operation for non-descent cases. Vaginal hysterectomy is least invasive route, safe and effective procedure for benign non-prolapsed cases. Besides the faster recovery and lower incidence of bleeding and other complications, vaginal route lowers cost for Health System. It is undeniable that the simple vaginal hysterectomy is less invasive than laparoscopy.

References

1. Robert S. Kovac: Guidelines to determine the route of hysterectomy.Obstet& Gynecology; 1995; 85: 1: 18-22.
2. Richardson RE, Bournas N, Magos AL: Is laparoscopic hysterectomy a waste of time? Lancet; 1995; 345: 36-41.
3. Wikox LS, Koonin LM, Pokras R, Strauss LT, Xiaz, Peterson HB:Hysterectomy in the United States 1988-1990. Obstet. Gynecol; 1994; 83: 549-55.
4. DewanRupali,AgarwalShivani,Manisha,MinochaBharti,SenSoumendra K: Non descent vaginal hysterectomy- An Experience.JObstetGynecol India; 2004;54:376-378.
5. Robert S Kovac, Sheela Barhan, Margit Laster et al: Guidelines for the selection of the route of hysterectomy – Applications in a resident clinic population. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol; 2002; 187: 1521-7.
6. Susan M. Taylor, Andrey A et al: Abdominal hysterectomy for the enlarged myomatous uterus compared with vaginal hysterectomy with morcellation. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol; 2003; 189: 1579-83.
7. Tariq Miskry and Adam Magos: Randomized prospective double-blind comparison of abdominal versus vaginal hysterectomy in women without utero-vaginal prolapse. Acta Obstet. Gynecol; 2003; 82: 351-58.
8. NasiraSabihaDawood, RabiaMahmoodNaliaHaseeb:Comparison of vaginal and abdominal hysterectomy: Peri-and post-operative outcome.JAyub Med Coll Abbottabad;2009;21(4).
9. Dicker RC, Scally MJ, Greenspan JR et al:Hysterectomy among women of reproductive age – Trends in USA 1970-1978.JAMA; 1982; 248: 323-327.
10. White,StevenC,Wartel,LawrenceJ,Wade,Maclyn E:Comparison of abdominal and Vaginal hysterectomies.Obstet and Gynecol;1971;37,4 : 530-537.
11. Anthony Davies et al: How to increase the proportion of hysterectomies performed vaginally. Am. J. Obstet. & Gynecol; 1998; 179: 100-12.
12. Raymond C Doueettee, Howard T Sharp and Stephan C Alder et al: Challenging generally accepted contraindications to vaginal hysterectomy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol; 2001; 184: 1386-91.
13. Pradeep Garg, Neena Malhotra, Deepika Deka: Vaginal approach for hysterectomy in benign conditions of the uterus at a rural health setting. Obstet. & Gynecol Today; 2003; 520-22.
14. Kumar Sushil, Antony ZK: Vaginal hysterectomy for benign non-prolapsed uterus – Initial experience.J Obstet. Gynecol, Ind; 2004;54: 60-63.
15. Mogas A, Boyiras N, Sinha R: Vaginal hysterectomy for the large uterus. Br. J. Obstet. Gynecol; 1996; 103: 246-51.
16. Robert C Reiter: Routine hysterectomy for large asymptomatic uterine leiomyomata – A reappraisal. Obstet. Gynecol; 1992; 79, 4: 481-84.
17. Wesley J Haris: Early complications of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. CME Review Article. Obstet. Gynecol Survey;1995; 50, 11: 795-805.
18. Costa Amorim et al: Vaginal hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy in patients without uterine prolapse: A randomized clinical trial. Rev. Bras. Gynecol Obstet; 2003; 25, 3: 169-176.
19. Ramesh Chandra, Arun Nagrath et al: Comparative operative morbidity following Abdominal& Vaginal Hysterectomy in cases of DUB; CME Committee, Agra; 1994; 88-94.
20. Octacilio Figueiredo Netto, Macro Antonoi et al: Vaginal removal of the benign non-prolapsed uterus – Experience with 300 consecutive operations. Obstet. Gynecol; 1999; 94: 348-51.

Author Information

Sunanda Bharatnur
Assistant Professor, Dept. Of OBGYN, l Manipal University

Download PDF

Your free access to ISPUB is funded by the following advertisements:

 

 

BACK TO TOP
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus

© 2013 Internet Scientific Publications, LLC. All rights reserved.    UBM Medica Network Privacy Policy

Close

Enter the site

Login

Password

Remember me

Forgot password?

Login

SIGN IN AS A USER

Use your account on the social network Facebook, to create a profile on BusinessPress