Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 2/2017

01-02-2017 | Editorial

Moving from vaginal hysterectomy to “no-incision” hysterectomy: how terminology has an impact

Author: Michael Moen

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Excerpt

It is estimated that one in three women undergo hysterectomy in the USA, with the majority of these procedures performed via open abdominal surgery [1]. It is well known that morbidity related to hysterectomy can be reduced by using less invasive surgical techniques, such as vaginal and laparoscopic approaches. In some countries, the proportion of vaginal hysterectomies is over 40 % and in others, the proportion of laparoscopic hysterectomies is over 80 %, with a resultant decreased number of abdominal hysterectomies being performed [2, 3]. However, despite the availability of vaginal hysterectomy for over a century and that of laparoscopic hysterectomy for almost three decades, the most common procedure currently performed worldwide is still abdominal hysterectomy. Recently, robotic hysterectomy has been introduced and has been rapidly adopted in some countries, including the USA. Despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting its routine use, it is estimated that robotic hysterectomy now accounts for over 40 % of hysterectomies in some areas of the USA [4]. …
Literature
1.
go back to reference Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Tsui J, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Lu YS, et al. Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:233–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Tsui J, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Lu YS, et al. Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:233–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Brummer THI, Jalkanen J, Fraser J, Heikkinen AM, Kauko M, Mäkinen J, et al. FINHYST 2006--national prospective 1-year survey of 5,279 hysterectomies. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:2515–22. Brummer THI, Jalkanen J, Fraser J, Heikkinen AM, Kauko M, Mäkinen J, et al. FINHYST 2006--national prospective 1-year survey of 5,279 hysterectomies. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:2515–22.
3.
go back to reference Donnez O, Jadoul P, Squifflet J, Donnez J. A series of 3190 laparoscopic hysterectomies for benign disease from 1990 to 2006: evaluation of complications compared with vaginal and abdominal procedures. BJOG. 2009;116:492–500.CrossRefPubMed Donnez O, Jadoul P, Squifflet J, Donnez J. A series of 3190 laparoscopic hysterectomies for benign disease from 1990 to 2006: evaluation of complications compared with vaginal and abdominal procedures. BJOG. 2009;116:492–500.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Swenson CW, Kamdar NS, Harris JA, Uppal S, Campbell DA, Morgan DM. Comparison of robotic and other minimally invasive routes of hysterectomy for benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:650.e1–8.CrossRef Swenson CW, Kamdar NS, Harris JA, Uppal S, Campbell DA, Morgan DM. Comparison of robotic and other minimally invasive routes of hysterectomy for benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:650.e1–8.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Smorgick N, Patzkowsky KE, Hoffman MR, Advincula AP, Song AH, As-Sanie S. The increasing use of robot-assisted approach for hysterectomy results in decreasing rates of abdominal hysterectomy and traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;289:101–5.CrossRefPubMed Smorgick N, Patzkowsky KE, Hoffman MR, Advincula AP, Song AH, As-Sanie S. The increasing use of robot-assisted approach for hysterectomy results in decreasing rates of abdominal hysterectomy and traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;289:101–5.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Moving from vaginal hysterectomy to “no-incision” hysterectomy: how terminology has an impact
Author
Michael Moen
Publication date
01-02-2017
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3205-3

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

International Urogynecology Journal 2/2017 Go to the issue