Search

Study Objective: To compare the incidence of new-onset endometriosis after laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) with uterine morcellation to traditional routes., Design: Single center case-control study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2) of hysterectomies performed from January 2006 through December 2008., Patients: Two hundred seventy-seven laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomies with morcellation (cases) and 187 transvaginal or abdominal hysterectomies without morcellation (controls) were performed from January 2006 through December 2008., Interventions: A total of 464 women underwent hysterectomy, 277 cases via laparoscopic supracervical approach (LSH) with morcellation and 187 performed either transvaginally or abdominally without morcellation. Repeat operative procedures were performed for other benign indications on 16 of 464 (3.5%) patients who had undergone prior hysterectomy., Measurements and Main Results: One hundred two patients had endometriosis at the time of hysterectomy diagnosed by pathologic evaluation or gross visualization. In those without endometriosis, repeat operative procedures were performed for pain and bleeding in 3.3% (12/362). Sixty percent (3/5) of patients treated with LSH and 28.6% (2/7) of the control group were found to have newly diagnosed endometriosis, conferring a rate of 1.4% (3/217) in the LSH group and 1.4% (2/145) in the control subjects. In patients with endometriosis, repeat operative procedures for pain or bleeding occurred in 2.9% (3/102): 3/60 patients treated with LSH and none in the control group (0/42). Two of these 3 patients undergoing a second surgery had recurrent/continued endometriosis., Conclusion: Newly diagnosed endometriosis was noted in 1.4% of patients after hysterectomy, with a similar incidence between the LSH and control groups. Reoperation for those with endometriosis at the time of LSH with morcellation was infrequent, but endometriosis was usually found. Further research is needed to delineate risk factors for development of de novo endometriosis after hysterectomy., (Copyright © 2012 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Objective: To compare hysterectomy with less-invasive alternatives for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) in 7 clinically important domains., Design: Systematic review., Setting: Randomized clinical trials comparing bleeding, quality of life, pain, sexual health, satisfaction, need for subsequent surgery, and adverse events between hysterectomy and less-invasive treatment options., Patients: Women with AUB, predominantly from ovulatory disorders and endometrial causes., Interventions: Systematic review of the literature (from inception to January 2011) comparing hysterectomy with alternatives for AUB treatment. Eligible trials were extracted into standardized forms. Trials were graded with a predefined 3-level rating, and the strengths of evidence for each outcome were evaluated with the Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system., Measurements and Main Results: Nine randomized clinical trials (18 articles) were eligible. Endometrial ablation, levonorgestrel intrauterine system, and medications were associated with lower risk of adverse events but higher risk of additional treatments than hysterectomy. Compared to ablation, hysterectomy had superior long-term pain and bleeding control. Compared with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system, hysterectomy had superior control of bleeding. No other differences between treatments were found., Conclusion: Less-invasive treatment options for AUB result in improvement in quality of life but carry significant risk of retreatment caused by unsatisfactory results. Although hysterectomy is the most effective treatment for AUB, it carries the highest risk for adverse events., (Copyright © 2012 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)