Journal de gynecologie, obstetrique et biologie de la reproduction · 1999
[Hysterectomy for a benign lesion: can the vaginal route be used in all cases?].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Martin X, Gjata A, Golfier F, Raudrant D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine which factors indicate the vaginal route cannot be used for hysterectomy and study the morbidity of this technique in comparison with the abdominal route.
METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in 682 patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign lesions between 1992 and 1996. Genital prolapses and/or urinary incontinence accounted for 31% of the indications. Mean patient age was 50 years. There were 75 nulliparous patients and 27% of all patients had a pelvic history (including cesarean section) which might compromise vaginal hysterectomy.
RESULTS: Hysterectomy was performed via the abdominal route in 39.7% of the cases and via the vaginal route in 60.3% including 5.7% with laparoscopic assistance. Factors which dictated the abdominal route were: large size of the uterus (47%), pelvic background (30%), tubo-ovarian pathology (6%), multiple elements (6%), unknown (11%). Operation time depended on the surgical route, parity, pelvic background and associated techniques (prolapse, oophorosalpingectomy, uterine segmentation). Morbidity was very low and the same for both routes: 1.8% operative accidents (mainly bladder wounds), 1% reoperation, only one case of thromboembolism and less than 0.5% postoperative fever.
DISCUSSION: There is no absolute contraindication to vaginal hysterectomy. It would appear unreasonable to an unexperienced surgeon to use the vaginal route for a fixed uterus with an estimated weight over 400 g in nulliparous patients with a pelvic background. In a department with vaginal training, 84% of all hysterectomies could be performed by vaginal route, because half of the indications for the abdominal route are excessive or a matter for laparoscopic assistance.
METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in 682 patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign lesions between 1992 and 1996. Genital prolapses and/or urinary incontinence accounted for 31% of the indications. Mean patient age was 50 years. There were 75 nulliparous patients and 27% of all patients had a pelvic history (including cesarean section) which might compromise vaginal hysterectomy.
RESULTS: Hysterectomy was performed via the abdominal route in 39.7% of the cases and via the vaginal route in 60.3% including 5.7% with laparoscopic assistance. Factors which dictated the abdominal route were: large size of the uterus (47%), pelvic background (30%), tubo-ovarian pathology (6%), multiple elements (6%), unknown (11%). Operation time depended on the surgical route, parity, pelvic background and associated techniques (prolapse, oophorosalpingectomy, uterine segmentation). Morbidity was very low and the same for both routes: 1.8% operative accidents (mainly bladder wounds), 1% reoperation, only one case of thromboembolism and less than 0.5% postoperative fever.
DISCUSSION: There is no absolute contraindication to vaginal hysterectomy. It would appear unreasonable to an unexperienced surgeon to use the vaginal route for a fixed uterus with an estimated weight over 400 g in nulliparous patients with a pelvic background. In a department with vaginal training, 84% of all hysterectomies could be performed by vaginal route, because half of the indications for the abdominal route are excessive or a matter for laparoscopic assistance.