Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 4/2016

01-10-2016 | General Gynecology

Peritoneal closure during laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy

Authors: Holm Eggemann, Nara Asbahr Mitrik, Otto Kabdebo, Serban Dan Costa, Atanas Ignatov

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 4/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

Our goal was to compare postoperative pain and analgesic requirements regarding closure and non-closure of the peritoneum in women undergoing laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH).

Study design

A prospective cohort study was designed to investigate the impact of peritoneal closure for LSH. Postoperative pain was measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS) and analgesic requirements were assessed. Intra- and postoperative complications and operative time were recorded.

Results

A total of 104 patients were enrolled. Fifty-two (50 %) women underwent a LSH with peritoneal closure and 52 (50 %) underwent LSH without closure. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups except for age; women undergoing LSH without peritoneal closure were significantly younger (p < 0.008, t test). The median operative time was 53 (26–105) minutes for LSH with peritoneal closure and 44 (24–83) minutes for LSH without peritoneal closure, a median reduction of 9 minutes (p = 0.007). No differences were found in uterine weight, intra- and post-operative complications, median haemoglobin drop or time in hospital when contrasting both groups. Both groups had similar VAS-pain scores and needed similar analgesic therapies.

Conclusions

The peritoneal closure at LSH provides no short-term postoperative advantages over a non-closure approach, and it prolongs the operative time and anaesthetic exposure. Our data suggest that peritoneal closure is not necessary in LSH.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Pietrantoni M, Parsons MT, O’Brien WF et al (1991) Peritoneal closure or non-closure at cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 77:293–296CrossRefPubMed Pietrantoni M, Parsons MT, O’Brien WF et al (1991) Peritoneal closure or non-closure at cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 77:293–296CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Rafique Z, Shibli KU, Russell IF et al (2002) A randomised controlled trial of the closure or non-closure of peritoneum at caesarean section: effect on post-operative pain. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 109:694–698CrossRef Rafique Z, Shibli KU, Russell IF et al (2002) A randomised controlled trial of the closure or non-closure of peritoneum at caesarean section: effect on post-operative pain. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 109:694–698CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Højberg KE, Aagaard J, Laursen H et al (1998) Closure versus non-closure of peritoneum at cesarean section–evaluation of pain. A randomized study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 77:741–745CrossRefPubMed Højberg KE, Aagaard J, Laursen H et al (1998) Closure versus non-closure of peritoneum at cesarean section–evaluation of pain. A randomized study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 77:741–745CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Janschek EC, Hohlagschwandtner M, Nather A et al (2003) A study of non-closure of the peritoneum at vaginal hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 267:213–216PubMed Janschek EC, Hohlagschwandtner M, Nather A et al (2003) A study of non-closure of the peritoneum at vaginal hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 267:213–216PubMed
5.
go back to reference Kucuk M, Okman TK (2001) Non-closure of visceral peritoneum at abdominal hysterectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet Off Organ Int Feder Gynaecol Obstet 75:317–319CrossRef Kucuk M, Okman TK (2001) Non-closure of visceral peritoneum at abdominal hysterectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet Off Organ Int Feder Gynaecol Obstet 75:317–319CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Gupta JK, Dinas K, Khan KS (1998) To peritonealize or not to peritonealize? A randomized trial at abdominal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 178:796–800CrossRefPubMed Gupta JK, Dinas K, Khan KS (1998) To peritonealize or not to peritonealize? A randomized trial at abdominal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 178:796–800CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A et al (2009) Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database System Reviews:CD003677 Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A et al (2009) Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database System Reviews:CD003677
8.
go back to reference Weerawetwat W, Buranawanich S, Kanawong M (2004) Closure vs non-closure of the visceral and parietal peritoneum at cesarean delivery: 16 year study. J Med Assoc Thailand Chotmaihet Thangphaet 87:1007–1011 Weerawetwat W, Buranawanich S, Kanawong M (2004) Closure vs non-closure of the visceral and parietal peritoneum at cesarean delivery: 16 year study. J Med Assoc Thailand Chotmaihet Thangphaet 87:1007–1011
9.
go back to reference Behtash N, Ghaemaghami F, Gilani MM et al (2001) To peritonealise or not to peritonealise? A randomised trial at abdominal hysterectomy in Iran. J Obstet Gynaecol J Institute Obstet Gynaecol 21:520–524CrossRef Behtash N, Ghaemaghami F, Gilani MM et al (2001) To peritonealise or not to peritonealise? A randomised trial at abdominal hysterectomy in Iran. J Obstet Gynaecol J Institute Obstet Gynaecol 21:520–524CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Zanaboni F et al (1997) Nonclosure of peritoneum at radical abdominal hysterectomy and pelvic node dissection: a randomized study. Obstetrics and gynecology 90:622–627CrossRefPubMed Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Zanaboni F et al (1997) Nonclosure of peritoneum at radical abdominal hysterectomy and pelvic node dissection: a randomized study. Obstetrics and gynecology 90:622–627CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Milad MP, Morrison K, Sokol A et al (2001) A comparison of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy vs laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Surg Endosc 15:286–288CrossRefPubMed Milad MP, Morrison K, Sokol A et al (2001) A comparison of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy vs laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Surg Endosc 15:286–288CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Hoffman CP, Kennedy J, Borschel L et al (2005) Laparoscopic hysterectomy: the Kaiser Permanente San Diego experience. J Mini Invasive Gynecol 12:16–24CrossRef Hoffman CP, Kennedy J, Borschel L et al (2005) Laparoscopic hysterectomy: the Kaiser Permanente San Diego experience. J Mini Invasive Gynecol 12:16–24CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Mueller A, Renner SP, Haeberle L et al (2009) Comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and laparoscopy-assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) in women with uterine leiomyoma. Euro J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 144:76–79CrossRef Mueller A, Renner SP, Haeberle L et al (2009) Comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and laparoscopy-assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) in women with uterine leiomyoma. Euro J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 144:76–79CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Washington JL (2005) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy compared with abdominal, vaginal, and laparoscopic vaginal hysterectomy in a primary care hospital setting. JSLS J Soc Laparoend Surg/Soc Laparoend Surg 9:292–297 Washington JL (2005) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy compared with abdominal, vaginal, and laparoscopic vaginal hysterectomy in a primary care hospital setting. JSLS J Soc Laparoend Surg/Soc Laparoend Surg 9:292–297
Metadata
Title
Peritoneal closure during laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy
Authors
Holm Eggemann
Nara Asbahr Mitrik
Otto Kabdebo
Serban Dan Costa
Atanas Ignatov
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4125-7

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 4/2016 Go to the issue