Comparison study of VTH and LAVH for the indications other than uterine prolapse

Keum, Hyung Yong; Choi, Oh Sung; Park, Young Hwa; Shin, Byung Shick; Kim, Zong Chul; Lee, Yoon Hyuk; Lee, Dong Ook; Lee, Sung Won; Cho, Yong; Ro, Eu Sun

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To compare the advantages and disadvantages between total vaginal hysterectomy (VTH) and laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) including the indications and safety.
METHODS
We reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent VTH from July 1998 to December 1999 and those who underwent LAVH from January 2000 to April 2002. We evaluated age, parity, previous abdominal operations, indications for hysterectomy, combined operations, operation time, bleeding amount, hemoglobin change, weight of uterus, and postoperative complications.
RESULTS
1. Age was not a notable factor but parity was significantly lower in LAVH group. 2. In VTH group, 48% of patients had previous operations compared with 46% in LAVH group. 3. The most common indication for hysterectomy of both group was uterine myoma. 4. The weight of hysterectomized specimen was 256 g in VTH group and 237 g in LAVH group. 5. In VTH group, 38% received concurrent surgical procedures of which colporrhaphy was the most common (14 cases). In LAVH group, 72.5% received concurrent surgical procedures of which salpingoo- phorectomy was most common. 6. The operation time showed a notable difference; 78.6 min. in VTH group and 105.4 min. in LAVH. 7. There was no significant difference in bleeding amount and hemoglobin change. 8. Postoperative complication was higher in VTH group (14%) than LAVH group (7.5%). However all the patients recovered with conservative treatment and close observation.
CONCLUSION
Both VTH and LAVH had the following advantages compared with abdominal hysterectomy: less pain, shorter hospital stay, cosmetic advantages, lower prevalence. In this study we found out that in VTH, the procedure could be done safely even if the uterus was big or with previous abdominal operations. Limited operation field and the fact that we couldn't check the abdominal cavity were some disadvantages. In comparison, LAVH offered a view of the abdominal cavity which make easy adnexal operation but because of expensive operative tools, cost was a problem. In order to satisfy the patient and lower the cost, appropriate study on the indications and training on procedures will be necessary.