Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (53)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mäkinen, J.
Right arrow Articles by Sjöberg, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mäkinen, J.
Right arrow Articles by Sjöberg, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 16, No. 7, 1473-1478, July 2001
© 2001 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Morbidity of 10 110 hysterectomies by type of approach

Juha Mäkinen1,8, Jari Johansson2, Candido Tomás2, Eija Tomás3, Pentti K. Heinonen3, Timo Laatikainen4, Minna Kauko5, Anna-Mari Heikkinen6 and Jari Sjöberg7

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Turku University Hospital, FIN-20520 Turku, 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oulu University Hospital, P.O.Box 22, FIN-90221 Oulu, 3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tampere University Hospital, P.O.Box 2000, Fin-33521 Tampere, 4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki City Maternity Hospital, Sofialehdonkatu 5 A, 00610 Helsinki, 5 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, North Carelia Central Hospital, Tikkamäentie 16, 80210 Joensuu, 6 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kuopio University Hospital, P.O.Box 1777, FIN-70211 Kuopio, 7 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 2, FIN-00290 Helsinki, Finland

BACKGROUND: Since the late 1980s, the option of laparoscopic hysterectomy has raised questions about the most suitable approach to hysterectomy. METHODS: To evaluate the influence of the type of approach, in causing or avoiding certain complaints in hysterectomies a prospective nationwide study was conducted comprising all hysterectomies for benign disease performed in Finland during 1996. The primary outcomes of interest were the operation-related morbidity, common surgical details and post-operative complications. RESULTS: A total of 10 110 hysterectomies, including 5875 abdominal, 1801 vaginal and 2434 laparoscopic operations showed a low rate of overall complications, 17.2, 23.3 and 19.0% respectively. Infections were the most common complications with incidences of 10.5, 13.0 and 9.0% in the abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic group respectively. The most severe type of haemorrhagic events occurred in 2.1, 3.1 and 2.7% in the abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic group respectively. Ureter injuries were predominant in laparoscopic group [relative risk (RR) 7.2 compared with abdominal] whereas bowel injuries were most common in vaginal group (RR 2.5 compared with abdominal). Surgeons who had performed >30 laparoscopic hysterectomies had a significantly lower incidence of ureter and bladder injuries (0.5 and 0.8% respectively) than those who had performed <=30 operations (2.2 and 2.0% respectively). A decreasing trend of bowel complications was also seen with increasing experience in vaginal hysterectomies. CONCLUSIONS: This large-scale observational study on hysterectomies provides novel information on operation-related morbidity of abdominal, vaginal or laparoscopic approach. The results support the importance of the experience of the surgeon in reducing severe complications, especially in laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomies.

Key words: complication/epidemiology/gynaecology/hysterectomy/laparoscopy

8 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: juha.makinen{at}tyks.fi


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
T. H.I. Brummer, T. T. Seppala, and P. S.M. Harkki
National learning curve for laparoscopic hysterectomy and trends in hysterectomy in Finland 2000-2005
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2008; 23(4): 840 - 845.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
F. Leonard, A. Fotso, B. Borghese, N. Chopin, H. Foulot, and C. Chapron
Ureteral complications from laparoscopic hysterectomy indicated for benign uterine pathologies: a 13-year experience in a continuous series of 1300 patients
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2007; 22(7): 2006 - 2011.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
cfpHome page
A. Raikhlin, M. O. Baerlocher, and M. R. Asch
Uterine fibroid embolization: CME update for family physicians
Can Fam Physician, February 1, 2007; 53(2): 250 - 256.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Obstet GynecolHome page
D. T. Gilmour, S. Das, and G. Flowerdew
Rates of urinary tract injury from gynecologic surgery and the role of intraoperative cystoscopy.
Obstet. Gynecol., June 1, 2006; 107(6): 1366 - 1372.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
S. Vetter, F. W. Schultz, E.-P. Strecker, and J. Zoetelief
Optimisation strategies and justification: an example in uterine artery embolisation for fibroids
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2005; 117(1-3): 50 - 53.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ImagingHome page
T M Wah and J A Spencer
CT of adult urinary tract trauma
Imaging, August 1, 2005; 17(1): 53 - 68.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
NEJMHome page
N. D. Kauff, J. M. Satagopan, M. E. Robson, L. Scheuer, M. Hensley, C. A. Hudis, N. A. Ellis, J. Boyd, P. I. Borgen, R. R. Barakat, et al.
Risk-Reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy in Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation
N. Engl. J. Med., May 23, 2002; 346(21): 1609 - 1615.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
M. A. Lumsden
Embolization versus myomectomy versus hysterectomy: Which is best, when?
Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2002; 17(2): 253 - 259.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.