S R Kovac1, S H Cruikshank. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wright State University School of Medicine, Dayton, OH 45409-2793, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to determine whether there is adequate visibility and access for transvaginal oophorectomy in most patients and the success rate of the transvaginal approach. The final goal was to establish objective guidelines for choosing the route of oophorectomy with hysterectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Patients underwent laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (n = 91) or vaginal hysterectomy (n = 875). Ovarian removal, either unilateral (n = 97) or bilateral (n = 187), was carried out for clinical or prophylactic reasons. The accessibility of the ovaries for transvaginal removal was assessed by stretching the infundibulopelvic ligament and grading the position of the ovaries from 0 (no descent) to III (descent past the hymenal ring with traction). RESULTS: In 158 patients transvaginal bilateral oophorectomy was performed without laparoscopic assistance. In another 29 patients bilateral transvaginal oophorectomy was performed with laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy, and prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy by the transvaginal route was successful in all but 1 of 143 patients with ovaries of grade I or higher. In 20 patients laparoscopic lysis of adhesions was necessary to permit transvaginal oophorectomy. Ninety-seven patients underwent transvaginal unilateral oophorectomy, 74 with conventional vaginal hysterectomy and 23 with laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Among the patients not having oophorectomy, all ovaries had sufficient mobility to have been removed transvaginally. CONCLUSION: Good surgical practice dictates that visibility and accessibility be the primary criteria for selecting the route of oophorectomy with hysterectomy. In most patients the ovaries are visible and accessible to transvaginal removal.
OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to determine whether there is adequate visibility and access for transvaginal oophorectomy in most patients and the success rate of the transvaginal approach. The final goal was to establish objective guidelines for choosing the route of oophorectomy with hysterectomy. STUDY DESIGN:Patients underwent laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (n = 91) or vaginal hysterectomy (n = 875). Ovarian removal, either unilateral (n = 97) or bilateral (n = 187), was carried out for clinical or prophylactic reasons. The accessibility of the ovaries for transvaginal removal was assessed by stretching the infundibulopelvic ligament and grading the position of the ovaries from 0 (no descent) to III (descent past the hymenal ring with traction). RESULTS: In 158 patients transvaginal bilateral oophorectomy was performed without laparoscopic assistance. In another 29 patients bilateral transvaginal oophorectomy was performed with laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy, and prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy by the transvaginal route was successful in all but 1 of 143 patients with ovaries of grade I or higher. In 20 patients laparoscopic lysis of adhesions was necessary to permit transvaginal oophorectomy. Ninety-seven patients underwent transvaginal unilateral oophorectomy, 74 with conventional vaginal hysterectomy and 23 with laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Among the patients not having oophorectomy, all ovaries had sufficient mobility to have been removed transvaginally. CONCLUSION: Good surgical practice dictates that visibility and accessibility be the primary criteria for selecting the route of oophorectomy with hysterectomy. In most patients the ovaries are visible and accessible to transvaginal removal.