medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2024, Number 07

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2024; 92 (07)

Hysterectomy trends and risk of complications

Aurioles QLD, Pedraza GLA, López JJC, Gómez CPF

Language: Spanish
References: 29
Page: 295-302
PDF size: 199.02 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To analyze trends in hysterectomy by type of approach, reason for request, and immediate complications.
Materials and Methods: Observational, cross-sectional, retrospective and retrolective study conducted at the Hospital Español de México based on the review of records of patients who underwent hysterectomy between the months of October 2018 and July 2023. In all cases, the type of approach for hysterectomy, reason for indication, patient age, and immediate trans- and postoperative complications were identified.
Results: The records of 1234 patients with a mean age of 48.63 ± 9.22 years were analyzed. The surgical route of choice (54.4%) was laparoscopic total hysterectomy, followed by total abdominal hysterectomy (35.89%) and laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy, vaginal hysterectomy, and robotic hysterectomy: 3.72, 5.51, and 0.32%, respectively. Total complications represented 8% and total laparoscopic hysterectomy 6%, while total abdominal hysterectomy only 10%. The most common complications were hemorrhage (53%), bladder injury (17%), and vaginal wall tear (10%).
Conclusions: Laparoscopic hysterectomy is the preferred surgical procedure in our population: it accounts for more than half of the cases. A trend towards fewer complications was observed in minimally invasive hysterectomies.


REFERENCES

  1. López-Vera EA, Reynosa-Oviedo Y, Martínez-Salazar GJ,Bazaldúa-Cruz JJ, et al. Experiencia en histerectomíaobstétrica y control vascular en el Noreste de México.Ginecol Obstet Mex 2021; 89 (2): 109-114. https://doi.org/10.24245/gom.v89i2.4781

  2. Kauko M. New techniques using the ultrasonic scalpelin laparoscopic hysterectomy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol1998; 10: 303-5. https://doi.org/ 10.1097/00001703-199808000-00004

  3. Payá V, Diago V, Abad A, Costa S, et al. Histerectomíalaparoscópica frente a histerectomía abdominal: estudioclínico comparativo. Clin Invest Gin Obstet 2002; 29: 284-9.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0210-573X(02)77196-7

  4. Ayala R, Briones C, Anaya H, Leory L, Zavaleta R. Histerectomíatotal laparoscópica: estudio descriptivo de laexperiencia institucional con 198 casos. Ginecol ObstetMex 2010; 78: 605-11.

  5. Walters MD, Ferrando C. Hysterectomy: Selection of surgicalroute (benign indications). UpToDate 2021. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/hysterectomy-for-benignindications-selection-of-surgical-route

  6. Sardinas PR. La histerectomía laparoscópica y sus aspectosfundamentales. Revista Cubana de Cirugía 2015; 54: 82-95.

  7. Castañeda J, De los Ríos J, Calle G, Serna E, et al. Asociaciónentre el índice de masa corporal y los resultadosperioperatorios y posoperatorios en pacientes sometidasa histerectomía laparoscópica total. Medellín (Colombia).Rev Colomb Obstet Ginecol 2010;61:108-12.

  8. Metha A, Xu T, Hutfless S, Makary M, et al. Patient, surgeon,and hospital disparities associated with benignhysterectomy approach and perioperative complications.Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 216: 497.e1-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.08.035

  9. Morgan-Ortiz F, López-Zepeda MA, Elorriaga-García E,Soto-Pineda JM, Lelevier-Rico HB, et al. Histerectomía totallaparoscópica: complicaciones y evolución clínica en unaserie de 87 casos. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2008; 76: 520-5.

  10. Lobato MJL, Villasante MA, Pérez SC, Marqués MM,López VM. Evisceración intestinal transvaginal después dehisterectomía. Revista Cubana de Cirugía 2010; 49: 69-73.

  11. Ricari E, Oroz L, Lara A. Complicaciones de la cirugía ginecológica.An Sist Sanit Navar 2009; 32: 65-79.

  12. Agarwal M, Sinha S, Singh S, Haripriya H, et al. Surgical morbidityof laparoscopic hysterectomy vs abdominal hysterectomy:a retrospective overview. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther 2023;12 (3): 161-65. https://doi.org/10.4103/gmit.gmit_30_23

  13. Uwais A, Al-Abadleh A, Jahameh M, Satari A, et al. A Comparisonbetween total abdominal hysterectomy vs total laparoscopichysterectomy. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther 2023;13 (1): 43-47. https://doi.org/10.4103/gmit.gmit_72_23

  14. Jain N, Kamra J, Chabbra A. Rising trend of laparoscopichysterectomy over abdominal hysterectomy: a comparativestudy. World J Lap Surg 2018; 11 (2): 59-63. https://doi.org/ 10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1336

  15. Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB. Trends in the adoption ofrobotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMANetw Open 2020; 3 (1): e1918911. https://doi.10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911

  16. Lee SH, Oh SR, Cho YJ, Han M, et al. Comparison of vaginalhysterectomy and laparoscopic hysterectomy: a systematicreview and meta-analysis. BMC Womens Health 2019; 19(1): 83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-019-0781-4

  17. Wieslander CK, Grimes CL, Balk EM, Hobson DTG, et al.Health care disparities in patients undergoing hysterectomyfor benign indications: a systematic review. ObstetGynecol 2023; 142 (5): 1044-54. https://doi.org/ 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005389

  18. Murillo IJM, Pedraza GLA, Aguirre OX, López GPE. Histerectomíapor laparoscopia: experiencia de 10 años en elHospital Español de México. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2007;75 (11): 667-77.

  19. Lee SR, Kim HO, Shin JH. Learning curve analysis oftransvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic hysterectomy.BMC Surg 2023; 23: 50. https://doi.10.1186/s12893-023-00812-4.

  20. Jeppson PC, Rahimi S, Gattoc L, Westermann LB; Fellows'Pelvic Research Network of Society of GynecologicSurgeons. Impact of robotic technology on hysterectomyroute and associated implications for resident education.Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (2): 196.e1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.07.037

  21. Saleeb SF, El-Nashar SA, Gebhart JB, Hopkins MR, et al. Gynecologicsurgical subspecialty training decreases surgicalcomplications in benign minimally invasive hysterectomy.Obstet Gynecol 2023; 141 (3): 529-36. https://doi.10.1097/AOG.0000000000005071.

  22. Vermeulen CKM, Veen J, Adang C, van Leijsen SAL, et al.Pelvic organ prolapse after laparoscopic hysterectomycompared with vaginal hysterectomy: the POP-UP study. IntUrogynecol J 2021; 32 (4): 841-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04552-0

  23. Lenfant L, Canlorbe G, Belghiti J, Kreaden US, et al. Roboticassistedbenign hysterectomy compared with laparoscopic,vaginal, and open surgery: a systematic review and metaanalysis.J Robot Surg 2023; 17 (6): 2647-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01408-9

  24. Yi YX, Zhang W, Zhou Q, Guo WR, Su Y. Laparoscopic-assistedvaginal hysterectomy vs abdominal hysterectomy forbenign disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlledtrials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 159 (1): 1-18.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.07.005

  25. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, etal. Surgical outcomes between routes of hysterectomy forbenign disease: total laparoscopic, vaginal, and abdominalhysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2023; 130 (2): 311-19.https://doi.10.1097/AOG.0000000000001515.

  26. Carlson S, Brando A, McGregor AE, Sutaria T, et al. Comparisonof postoperative complications between laparoscopicmyomectomy and total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J MinimInvasive Gynecol 2024; 31 (1): 43-48. https://doi.10.1016/j.jmig.2023.10.005

  27. Durán-Colín AZ, Ponce-Escobar LF, Silvestri-TomassoniJR, et al. Tratamiento de úteros grandes mediante cirugíade mínima invasión. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2016; 84 (10):639-44.

  28. Schulten SFM, Claas-Quax MJ, Weemhoff M, vanEijndhoven HW, et al. Risk factors for primary pelvicorgan prolapse and prolapse recurrence: an updatedsystematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol2022; 227 (2): 192-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2022.02.028

  29. Wickenheisser NE, Dillon M, Broadwater G, Zacherl K, etal. Radical hysterectomy case volume and cervical cancertreatment in the era of COVID-19: A multi-site analysisof National Cancer Institute-designated ComprehensiveCancer Centers. Gynecol Oncol 2023; 179: 70-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.10.010




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com