Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH): an implementation study in 1,952 patients with an analysis of risk factors for conversion to laparotomy and complications, and of procedure-specific re-operations

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) with total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) with regard to relevant surgical parameters and risk factors of conversion to laparotomy and complications.

Methods

This prospective, open, single-center, interventional study included women with benign gynecologic disease who underwent standardized LSH or TLH. The techniques were compared for conversion rate and mean operating time, hemoglobin drop, hospital stay, and complication rates using descriptive statistics and standard non-parametric statistical tests. Risk factors of conversion and complications were identified by logistic regression analysis.

Results

During January 2003 to December 2010, 1,952 women [mean age (SD): 47.5 (7.2) years] underwent LSH [1,658 (84.9 %)] or TLH [294 (15.1 %)], mostly (>70 %) for uterine fibroids. Significant differences in surgical parameters were observed for conversion rate (LSH/TLH: 2.6/6.5 %), mean operating time [87 (34)/103 (36) min], hemoglobin drop [1.3 (0.8)/1.6 (1.0) g/dL], and hospital stay [4.3 (1.5)/4.9 (2.8) days]. Overall intraoperative (0.2/0.7 %) and long-term (>6 weeks) post-operative (0.8/1.7 %) complication rates did not differ significantly, but the short-term LSH complication rate was significantly lower (0.6 vs. 4.8 %). Spotting (LSH, 0.2 %) and vaginal cuff dehiscence (TLH, 0.7 %) were long-term method-specific complications. Logistic regression showed that uterine weight and extensive adhesiolysis were significant factors for conversion while previous surgery, age, and BMI were not. Major risk factors of short-term complications were age, procedure (LSH/TLH), and extensive adhesions.

Conclusions

Both procedures proved effective and were well tolerated. LSH performed better than TLH regarding most outcome measures. LSH is associated with very low rates of re-operation and spotting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sutton C (2010) Past, present, and future of hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(4):421–435. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2010.03.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jenkins TR (2004) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(6):1875–1884. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.06.096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mueller A, Renner SP, Haeberle L, Lermann J, Oppelt P, Beckmann MW, Thiel F (2009) Comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and laparoscopy-assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) in women with uterine leiomyoma. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 144(1):76–79. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.02.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kilkku P, Grönroos M, Hirvonen T, Rauramo L (1983) Supravaginal uterine amputation vs. hysterectomy. Effects on libido and orgasm. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 62(2):147–152

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Thakar R, Ayers S, Clarkson P, Stanton S, Manyonda I (2002) Outcomes after total versus subtotal abdominal hysterectomy. N Engl J Med 347(17):1318–1325. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa013336

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van Evert JS, Smeenk JMJ, Dijkhuizen FPHLJ, de Kruif JH, Kluivers KB (2010) Laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy versus laparoscopic total hysterectomy: a decade of experience. Gynecol Surg 7(1):9–12. doi:10.1007/s10397-009-0529-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Boosz A, Lermann J, Mehlhorn G, Loehberg C, Renner SP, Thiel FC, Schrauder M, Beckmann MW, Mueller A (2011) Comparison of re-operation rates and complication rates after total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and laparoscopy-assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 158(2):269–273. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.04.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wallwiener D, Jonat W, Kreienberg R, Friese K, Diedrich K, Beckmann MW, Hirsch HA, Käser O, Ikle FA (2008) Atlas der gynäkologischen Operationen. Thieme, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brucker S, Solomayer E, Zubke W, Sawalhe S, Wattiez A, Wallwiener D (2007) A newly developed morcellator creates a new dimension in minimally invasive surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(2):233–239. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2006.10.004

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Greenberg JA (2010) Brucker/Messroghli Supraloop™ Unipolar Loop. Rev Obstet Gynecol 3(2):76–77

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bojahr B, Tchartchian G, Ohlinger R (2009) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy: a retrospective analysis of 1,000 cases. JSLS 13(2):129–134

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bojahr B, Raatz D, Schonleber G, Abri C, Ohlinger R (2006) Perioperative complication rate in 1,706 patients after a standardized laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13(3):183–189. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2006.01.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Grosse-Drieling D, Schlutius JC, Altgassen C, Kelling K, Theben J (2012) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH), a retrospective study of 1,584 cases regarding intra- and perioperative complications. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285(5):1391–1396. doi:10.1007/s00404-011-2170-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hobson DT, Imudia AN, Al-Safi ZA, Shade G, Kruger M, Diamond MP, Awonuga AO (2012) Comparative analysis of different laparoscopic hysterectomy procedures. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285(5):1353–1361. doi:10.1007/s00404-011-2140-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wallenstein MR, Ananth CV, Kim JH, Burke WM, Hershman DL, Lewin SN, Neugut AI, Lu YS, Herzog TJ, Wright JD (2012) Effect of surgical volume on outcomes for laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications. Obstet Gynecol 119(4):709–716. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318248f7a8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wattiez A, Soriano D, Cohen SB, Nervo P, Canis M, Botchorishvili R, Mage G, Pouly JL, Mille P, Bruhat MA (2002) The learning curve of total laparoscopic hysterectomy: comparative analysis of 1,647 cases. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 9(3):339–345

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tunitsky E, Citil A, Ayaz R, Esin S, Knee A, Harmanli O (2010) Does surgical volume influence short-term outcomes of laparoscopic hysterectomy? Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(1):24 e21–24 e26. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Twijnstra AR, Blikkendaal MD, van Zwet EW, van Kesteren PJ, de Kroon CD, Jansen FW (2012) Predictors of successful surgical outcome in laparoscopic hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 119(4):700–708. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31824b1966

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Payne TN, Dauterive FR (2008) A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):286–291. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2008.01.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ghomi A, Cohen SL, Chavan N, Gunderson C, Einarsson J (2011) Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy vs laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy for treatment of non prolapsed uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18(2):205–210. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2010.12.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Warren L, Ladapo JA, Borah BJ, Gunnarsson CL (2009) Open abdominal versus laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy: analysis of a large United States payer measuring quality and cost of care. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16(5):581–588. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2009.06.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lassen PD, Moeller-Larsen H, DEN P (2012) Same-day discharge after laparoscopic hysterectomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91(11):1339–1341. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01535.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. InEK GmbH (2012) Fallpauschalen-Katalog 2012. InEK GmbH. http://www.g-drg.de/cms/G-DRG-System_2012/Fallpauschalen-Katalog/Fallpauschalen-Katalog_2012. Accessed 18 Sept 2012

  24. Mueller A, Boosz A, Koch M, Jud S, Faschingbauer F, Schrauder M, Löhberg C, Mehlhorn G, Renner SP, Lux MP, Beckmann MW, Thiel FC (2011) The Hohl instrument for optimizing total laparoscopic hysterectomy: results of more than 500 procedures in a university training center. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285(1):123–127. doi:10.1007/s00404-011-1905-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Donnez O, Jadoul P, Squifflet J, Donnez J (2009) A series of 3,90 laparoscopic hysterectomies for benign disease from 1990 to 2006: evaluation of complications compared with vaginal and abdominal procedures. BJOG 116(4):492–500. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01966.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Malzoni M, Perniola G, Perniola F, Imperato F (2004) Optimizing the total laparoscopic hysterectomy procedure for benign uterine pathology. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 11(2):211–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. McCartney AJ, Obermair A (2004) Total laparoscopic hysterectomy with a transvaginal tube. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 11(1):79–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Iaco PD, Ceccaroni M, Alboni C, Roset B, Sansovini M, D’Alessandro L, Pignotti E, Aloysio DD (2006) Transvaginal evisceration after hysterectomy: is vaginal cuff closure associated with a reduced risk? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 125(1):134–138. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.08.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jeung IC, Baek JM, Park EK, Lee HN, Kim CJ, Park TC, Lee YS (2010) A prospective comparison of vaginal stump suturing techniques during total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 282(6):631–638. doi:10.1007/s00404-009-1300-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lieng M, Lomo AB, Qvigstad E (2010) Long-term outcomes following laparoscopic and abdominal supracervical hysterectomies. Obstet Gynecol Int 2010:989127. doi:10.1155/2010/989127

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lethaby A, Ivanova V, Johnson NP (2006) Total versus subtotal hysterectomy for benign gynaecological conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD004993. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004993.pub2

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Sandra Ebersoll, Christian W. Wallwiener, and Adam Kasperkowiak for excellent technical assistance. No financial support or funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

All authors were employees of their respective university hospital. SYB was actively involved in the development of the SupraLoop™ unipolar loop for LSH. None of the authors have any financial relationships with instrument or equipment manufacturers or other commercial interests that might represent potential conflicts of interest regarding this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Heidelberg, Voßstraße 9, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany

    Markus Wallwiener

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tübingen, Calwerstraße 7, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    Florin-Andrei Taran, Ralf Rothmund, Adam Kasperkowiak, Gabriel Auwärter, Antje Ganz, Bernhard Kraemer, Harald Abele, Birgitt Schönfisch & Sara Yvonne Brucker

  3. Center for Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, 2014 Washington Street, Newton, MA, 02462, USA

    Keith B. Isaacson

Authors
  1. Markus Wallwiener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florin-Andrei Taran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ralf Rothmund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adam Kasperkowiak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gabriel Auwärter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Antje Ganz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bernhard Kraemer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Harald Abele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Birgitt Schönfisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Keith B. Isaacson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Sara Yvonne Brucker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Wallwiener.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wallwiener, M., Taran, FA., Rothmund, R. et al. Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH): an implementation study in 1,952 patients with an analysis of risk factors for conversion to laparotomy and complications, and of procedure-specific re-operations. Arch Gynecol Obstet 288, 1329–1339 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2921-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2921-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation