Klaus J Neis1, Wolfgang Zubke, Mathias Fehr, Thomas Römer, Karl Tamussino, Monika Nothacker. 1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Saarland University Medical Center, Germany, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tübingen University Hospital, Germany, Cantonal Hospital, Frauenfeld, Switzerland, Evangelisches Krankenhaus, Köln-Weyertal, Germany, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Graz, Austria, AWMF Institute of Medical Knowledge Management, c/o Philipps University Marburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hysterectomy is the second most common operation in obstetrics and gynecology after Cesarean section. Until now, there has not been any German clinical guideline with recommendations concerning the indications for hysterectomy for benign uterine conditions, in consideration of the available uterus-preserving alternative treatments. METHODS: We systematically searched the Medline database in 2013, in 2014, and in December 2015, focusing on aggregate evidence, and assessed the retrieved literature. The guideline recommendations were developed by a consensus process with structured independent moderation. RESULTS: 30 systematic reviews and 8 randomized controlled trials were analyzed. Among the study patients treated with either hysterectomy (by any technique) or an organ-preserving alternative, at least 75-94% were satisfied with their treatment. Vaginal hysterectomy was associated with lower complication rates, shorter procedure duration, and more rapid recovery than abdominal hysterectomy and is therefore the preferred technique. If vaginal hysterectomy is not possible, a laparoscopic approach should be considered. Abdominal hysterectomy should be reserved for special indications. In 2012, the frequency of abdominal hysterectomy in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland was lower than elsewhere in the world, at 15.7% , 28.0% , and 23.9% , respectively. Uterus-preserving techniques were associated with higher reintervention rates compared to hysterectomy (11-36% vs 4-10% ). CONCLUSION: The main objective is to reduce the frequency of abdominal hysterectomy. Patients should be counseled and made aware of uterus-sparing alternatives to hysterectomy so that they are able to make informed decisions.
BACKGROUND: Hysterectomy is the second most common operation in obstetrics and gynecology after Cesarean section. Until now, there has not been any German clinical guideline with recommendations concerning the indications for hysterectomy for benign uterine conditions, in consideration of the available uterus-preserving alternative treatments. METHODS: We systematically searched the Medline database in 2013, in 2014, and in December 2015, focusing on aggregate evidence, and assessed the retrieved literature. The guideline recommendations were developed by a consensus process with structured independent moderation. RESULTS: 30 systematic reviews and 8 randomized controlled trials were analyzed. Among the study patients treated with either hysterectomy (by any technique) or an organ-preserving alternative, at least 75-94% were satisfied with their treatment. Vaginal hysterectomy was associated with lower complication rates, shorter procedure duration, and more rapid recovery than abdominal hysterectomy and is therefore the preferred technique. If vaginal hysterectomy is not possible, a laparoscopic approach should be considered. Abdominal hysterectomy should be reserved for special indications. In 2012, the frequency of abdominal hysterectomy in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland was lower than elsewhere in the world, at 15.7% , 28.0% , and 23.9% , respectively. Uterus-preserving techniques were associated with higher reintervention rates compared to hysterectomy (11-36% vs 4-10% ). CONCLUSION: The main objective is to reduce the frequency of abdominal hysterectomy. Patients should be counseled and made aware of uterus-sparing alternatives to hysterectomy so that they are able to make informed decisions.
Authors: Julia C Radosa; Gabriele Meyberg-Solomayer; Christina Kastl; Christoph G Radosa; Russalina Mavrova; Stefan Gräber; Sascha Baum; Marc P Radosa Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Fréderic Caquant; Pierre Collinet; Philippe Debodinance; Juan Berrocal; Olivier Garbin; Claude Rosenthal; Henri Clave; Richard Villet; Bernard Jacquetin; Michel Cosson Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Res Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 1.730
Authors: Theodoor E Nieboer; Neil Johnson; Anne Lethaby; Emma Tavender; Elizabeth Curr; Ray Garry; Sabine van Voorst; Ben Willem J Mol; Kirsten B Kluivers Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: Johanna W M Aarts; Theodoor E Nieboer; Neil Johnson; Emma Tavender; Ray Garry; Ben Willem J Mol; Kirsten B Kluivers Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-08-12
Authors: Elizabeth A Pritts; David J Vanness; Jonathan S Berek; William Parker; Ronald Feinberg; Jacqueline Feinberg; David L Olive Journal: Gynecol Surg Date: 2015-05-19
Authors: Evelien M Sandberg; Wouter J K Hehenkamp; Peggy M Geomini; Petra F Janssen; Frank Willem Jansen; Andries R H Twijnstra Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Florian Ebner; Niko de Gregorio; Christiane Lato; Valerie Ohly; Wolfgang Janni; Jennifer Spohrs; Lucia Jerg-Bretzke; Steffen Walter Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2020-11-25
Authors: Chris-Henrik Wulfert; Christian Theodor Müller; Ahmed Farouk Abdel-Kawi; Wolfgang Schulze; Henning Schmidt-Seithe; Sonko Borstelmann; Gunnar Loske Journal: Innov Surg Sci Date: 2020-10-01
Authors: Greta Lisa Carlin; Barbara Bodner-Adler; Heinrich Husslein; Magdalena Ritter; Wolfgang Umek Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 2.894