L Lowell1, A A Kessler. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare short-term clinical results in a retrospective case-control review of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) versus total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). STUDY DESIGN: One hundred seventeen women undergoing laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy were compared to 117 women undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy, with or without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The perioperative and postoperative courses of the matched groups were compared. RESULTS: The time intraoperatively was longer in the LAVH group. The mean blood loss was increased in the LAVH group. The need for blood transfusion was higher in the LAVH group. The number of women with intraoperative complications differed significantly between LAVH and TAH. The number of postoperative complications did not. Postoperative time in the hospital was shorter in the LAVH group. The cost of the average case, including operating room time, instruments and hospital stay, did not differ. CONCLUSION: LAVH offers benefits to patients in the form of less time in the hospital and presumably, therefore, faster recovery, though at the expense of potentially longer intraoperative time, increased risk of blood transfusion and increased risk of intraoperative complications.
OBJECTIVE: To compare short-term clinical results in a retrospective case-control review of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) versus total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). STUDY DESIGN: One hundred seventeen women undergoing laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy were compared to 117 women undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy, with or without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The perioperative and postoperative courses of the matched groups were compared. RESULTS: The time intraoperatively was longer in the LAVH group. The mean blood loss was increased in the LAVH group. The need for blood transfusion was higher in the LAVH group. The number of women with intraoperative complications differed significantly between LAVH and TAH. The number of postoperative complications did not. Postoperative time in the hospital was shorter in the LAVH group. The cost of the average case, including operating room time, instruments and hospital stay, did not differ. CONCLUSION:LAVH offers benefits to patients in the form of less time in the hospital and presumably, therefore, faster recovery, though at the expense of potentially longer intraoperative time, increased risk of blood transfusion and increased risk of intraoperative complications.