When is Laparotomy Needed in Hysterectomy for Benign Uterine Disease?

Laparoscopic entry techniques: Which should you prefer?

BACKGROUND

Despite a debate spanning two decades, no consensus has been achieved about the safest laparoscopic entry technique.

OBJECTIVES

To update the evidence about the safety of the main different laparoscopic entry techniques.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Six electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different laparoscopic entry techniques were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Entry-related complications and total time for entry were compared among the different methods of entry calculating pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); P < 0.05 was considered significant.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, 25 RCTs (6950 patients) were included. Complications considered were vascular, visceral and omental injury, failed entry, extraperitoneal insufflation, bleeding and infection at the trocar site bleeding, and incisional hernia. Compared to direct trocar, the OR for Veress needle was significantly higher for omental injury (OR 3.65, P < 0.001), for failed entry (OR 4.19, P < 0.001), and for extraperitoneal insufflation (OR 5.29, P < 0.001). Compared to the open method, the OR for Veress needle was significantly higher for omental injury (OR 4.93, P = 0.001), for failed entry (OR 2.99, P < 0.001), for extraperitoneal insufflation (OR 4.77; P = 0.04), and for incisional hernia. Compared to the open method, the OR for direct trocar was significantly lower for visceral injury (OR 0.17, P = 0.002) and for trocar site infection (OR 0.27, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The direct trocar method may be preferred over Veress needle and open methods as a laparoscopic entry technique since it appears associated to a lower risk of complications.

Low vs standard pneumoperitoneum pressure during laparoscopic hysterectomy: prospective randomized trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the use of low pneumoperitoneum pressure (LPP; 8 mm Hg) vs standard pneumoperitoneum pressure (SPP; 12 mm Hg) during mini-laparoscopic hysterectomy (MLH).

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial (Canadian Task Force classification I).

SETTING

Tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

Forty-two consecutive women scheduled to undergo MLH to treat benign uterine disease.

INTERVENTIONS

Women were randomly selected to undergo MLH using LPP (n = 20) or SPP (n = 22). MLH was performed via 3-mm ancillary ports.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was to evaluate changes in abdominal and shoulder-tip pain via a 100-mm visual analog scale at 1, 3, and 24 hours postoperatively. All procedures were completed via mini-laparoscopy without the need to increase intra-abdominal pressure or convert to conventional laparoscopy or open surgery. Intraoperatively, 1 episode of severe bradycardia occurred in the LPP group, whereas no intraoperative complications were recorded in the SPP group (p = .47). No postoperative complications were recorded (p > .99). Abdominal pain was similar between groups at each time point. Incidence and intensity of shoulder-tip pain at 1 and 3 hours postoperatively was lower in the LPP group than in the SPP group (p < .05), whereas no between-group differences were observed at 24 hours (p > .05). Rescue analgesic requirement did not differ statistically between the LPP and SPP groups (20% vs 41%, respectively; p = .19; odds ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-11.08).

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, use of LPP is safe and feasible. During performance of MLH, compared with SPP, LPP is a simple method that offers advantages of less shoulder-tip pain.

Retroperitoneal and retrograde total laparoscopic hysterectomy as a standard treatment in a community hospital

OBJECTIVE

To report our experience with a modified procedure for total laparoscopic hysterectomy based on a retrograde and retroperitoneal technique. This surgical approach is analyzed on a consecutive series of patients in a community hospital and theoretical educational advantages are proposed.

STUDY DESIGN

All patients undergoing hysterectomy from January 2012 to April 2013 were included in the study. A detailed description of the technique is given. As main outcome measures we evaluated: the number and rate of patients excluded from laparoscopic approach, the rate of late complications need readmission, the rate of transfusions, the rate of conversion to laparotomy and the number of minor complications. The main concern of the study was ureteral complications.

RESULTS

Overall 174 patients underwent hysterectomy in our unit. The rate of patients submitted to laparoscopic hysterectomy was 97.5%. The number of complications needing re-admission was three (2%). The rate of conversion was 2.7%. In the study period, two (1.2%) ureteral complications were observed (late fistulae). There were four bladder lesions but the patients were released on the same day as the patients with no lesion.

CONCLUSIONS

Opening the retroperitoneum allows rapid control of the main uterine vessels by coagulation, and constant checks on the ureter. Difficult benign situations can be managed. Even in a non-referral center about 94% of hysterectomies can be performed by laparoscopic surgery. This approach is helpful and may be reproducible in gynecological procedures.

Vaginal cuff closure after minimally invasive hysterectomy: our experience and systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence of vaginal cuff dehiscence after minimally invasive hysterectomy, we reported our series of total laparoscopic hysterectomies with transvaginal colporraphy.

STUDY DESIGN

We then conducted a systematic search of PubMed to retrieve published series of laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies, in which different techniques for vaginal cuff closure were used.

RESULTS

In our study group, vaginal cuff dehiscence occurred in 2 of 665 (0.3%) patients. Our literature search identified 57 articles, for a total of 13,030 endoscopic hysterectomies. Ninety-one postoperative vaginal separations were reported (0.66%). The pooled incidence of vaginal dehiscence was lower for transvaginal cuff closure (0.18%) than for both laparoscopic (0.64%; odds ratio [OR], 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-0.65) and robotic (1.64%; OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.26) colporraphy. Laparoscopic cuff closure was associated with a lower risk of dehiscence than robotic closure (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.28-0.6).

CONCLUSION

Current evidence indicates that transvaginal colporraphy after total laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with a 3- and 9-fold reduction in risk of vaginal cuff dehiscence compared with laparoscopic and robotic suture, respectively.