BMJ  2005;330:1478 (25 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7506.1478

Paper

Methods of hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

¹ University of Auckland, National Women's Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Auckland Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand, ² Nuffield Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, ³ Cochrane Oral Health Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, ⁴ University of Western Australia Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Perth, Australia

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the most appropriate surgical method of hysterectomy (abdominal, vaginal, or laparoscopic) for women with benign disease.

Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and Biological Abstracts.

Selection of studies Only randomised controlled trials were selected; participants had to have benign gynaecological disease; interventions had to comprise at least one hysterectomy method compared with another; and trials had to report primary outcomes (time taken to return to normal activities, intraoperative visceral injury, and major long term complications) or secondary outcomes (operating time, other immediate complications of surgery, short term complications, and duration of hospital stay).

Results 27 trials (total of 3643 participants) were included. Return to normal activities was quicker after vaginal than after abdominal hysterectomy (weighted mean difference 9.5 (95% confidence interval 6.4 to 12.6) days) and after laparoscopic than after abdominal hysterectomy (difference 13.6 (11.8 to 15.4)) days, but was not significantly different for laparoscopic versus vaginal hysterectomy (difference -1.1 (-4.2 to 2.1) days). There were more urinary tract injuries with laparoscopic than with abdominal hysterectomy (odds ratio 2.61 (95% confidence interval 1.22 to 5.60)), but no other intraoperative visceral injuries showed a significant difference between surgical approaches. Data were notably absent for many important long term patient outcome measures, where the analyses were underpowered to detect important differences, or they were simply not reported in trials.

Conclusions Significantly speedier return to normal activities and other improved secondary outcomes (shorter duration of hospital stay and fewer unspecified infections or febrile episodes) suggest that vaginal hysterectomy is preferable to abdominal hysterectomy where possible. Where vaginal hysterectomy is not possible, laparoscopic hysterectomy is preferable to abdominal hysterectomy, although it brings a higher chance of bladder or ureter injury.

Introduction

Three main types of hysterectomy are now used—abdominal, vaginal, and laparoscopic. The proportion performed laparoscopically has gradually increased, and, although the procedure takes longer than abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy, proponents have emphasised several advantages: the opportunity to diagnose and treat other pelvic diseases and to carry out adnexal surgery; the ability to secure thorough intraperitoneal haemostasis at the end of the procedure; and a rapid recovery time.¹

Three subcategories of laparoscopic hysterectomy have been described.² In laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH), the procedure is done partly laparoscopically and partly vaginally, but the laparoscopic component does not involve uterine vessel ligation. In uterine vessel ligation laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH(a)), although the uterine vessels are ligated laparoscopically, part of the operation is done vaginally. In total laparoscopic hysterectomy, the entire operation is done laparoscopically; this requires the highest degree of surgical skill and is currently done only by a very small proportion of gynaecologists. It has been unclear whether total laparoscopic hysterectomy offers benefits over other forms of hysterectomy.

The introduction of laparoscopic approaches in hysterectomies has prompted a much greater interest in the proper scientific evaluation of all forms of hysterectomy. This review aims to assess the most beneficial and least harmful surgical method.

Methods

In March 2004 we searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and Biological Abstracts. We performed data extraction and quantitative data synthesis according to Cochrane guidelines.³ We selected trials according to the following eligibility criteria: randomised controlled trials for benign gynaecological disease; interventions comprising at least one surgical approach to hysterectomy compared with another (excluding subtotal hysterectomy); and trials had to report primary outcomes (time it took participants to return to normal activities, intraoperative visceral injury, and major long term complications) or secondary outcomes (operating time, other immediate complications of surgery, short term complications, and duration of hospital stay).

Results

Trial flow
We identified 42 trials, of which we included 27 with a total of 3643 participants. (For details of the included and excluded trials, see the full version of this article on bmj.com.) Two trials compared vaginal with abdominal hysterectomy, 16 compared laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, four compared laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy, one compared LAVH with LH(a), one compared laparoscopic with abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy, and three compared laparoscopic, vaginal, and abdominal hysterectomy.

Study characteristics and validity assessment
Quality criteria are presented in detail elsewhere.³ Trial authors might have selectively reported "interesting" results, potentially jeopardising the reliability of conclusions.

We used Richardson's classification⁴ to categorise 22 of the 25 included studies that involved laparoscopic hysterectomy according to the amount of laparoscopic content. We also subcategorised these 22 trials as either LAVH, LH(a) or total, depending on the extent of the surgery performed laparoscopically and vaginally.

Meta-analysis results
All meta-analysis graphs are published electronically in the Cochrane Library.³

Primary outcomes
Return to normal activities—The meta-analysis in the figure shows that patients returned to normal activities sooner after vaginal than after abdominal hysterectomy (weighted mean difference 12.3 (95% confidence interval 4.8 to 19.9) days); although statistical heterogeneity was present for this outcome (P value 0.02, ² test; I² = 75.3%), similar results were obtained with both fixed and random effects models. Return to normal activities was also quicker after laparoscopic than after abdominal hysterectomy (difference 13.3 (9.9 to 16.8) days); although statistical heterogeneity was present (P value 0.004, ² test; I² = 71.2%), similar results were obtained using both fixed and random effects models. We found no significant difference between laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy in return to normal activities (-1.1 (-4.2 to 2.1) days).

View larger version (45K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Meta-analysis of return to normal activities (number of days). Statistical pooling used random effects statistical model for vaginal versus abdominal hysterectomy and for laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy, and fixed effects statistical model for laparoscopic versus vaginal hysterectomy. AH=abdominal hysterectomy; VH=vaginal hysterectomy; LH=laparoscopic hysterectomy; LAVH=laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy; LH(a)=laparoscopic hysterectomy where laparoscopic procedures include uterine artery ligation; TLH=total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Reference numbers refer to reference numbers cited in the full version of this article on bmj.com

 

Intraoperative visceral injury—Where bladder and ureter injuries were pooled as "urinary tract injury," we found a significant increase in urinary tract injury for laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy (odds ratio 2.61 (95% confidence interval 1.22 to 5.60)) but no significant differences in urinary tract injury for laparoscopic versus vaginal hysterectomy (1.00 (0.36 to 2.75)) or for LH(a) versus LAVH (1.60 (0.29 to 7.83)) (see bmj.com). No other intraoperative visceral injuries showed a significant difference between surgical approaches.

Major long term complications—We found no significant differences in fistula formation, urinary dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, or patient satisfaction. For most of these outcomes the analyses were underpowered and for other important long term outcome measures, data were not reported.

Secondary outcomes
Operation time—Abdominal hysterectomies were performed significantly faster than laparoscopic hysterectomies (weighted mean difference 18.0 (95% confidence interval 1.0 to 35.1) minutes), although this difference was not apparent in trials where the subcategory LAVH was compared with abdominal hysterectomy. Statistical heterogeneity was present for operation time for laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy (P value < 0.0001, ² test; I² = 96.2%), but similar results were obtained with fixed and random effects models, except for a significantly shorter operation time for the LAVH subcategory versus abdominal hysterectomy, apparent with a fixed effects model (difference 7.6 (3.0 to 12.2) minutes). Vaginal hysterectomy also had a shorter operation time than laparoscopic hysterectomy (difference 44.5 (26.2 to 62.8) minutes), and, although statistical heterogeneity was present (P value 0.001, ² test; I² = 80.6%), similar results were obtained with fixed and random effects models. LAVH had a significantly shorter operation time than LH(a) (difference 25.3 (10.0 to 40.6) minutes).

Other intraoperative complications—The number of women with substantial bleeding and the incidence of unintended laparotomy did not differ significantly between surgical approaches.

Short term outcomes and complications—Hospital stay was significantly shorter for women who had had vaginal rather than abdominal hysterectomy (weighted mean difference 1.0 (0.7 to 1.2) days) or laparoscopic rather than abdominal hysterectomy (difference 2.0 (1.9 to 2.2) days); statistical heterogeneity was present (P value < 0.0001, ² test; I² = 95.0%), but similar results were obtained with a random effects model. Duration of hospital stay was not significantly different for laparoscopic versus vaginal hysterectomy or for LH(a) versus LAVH. For vaginal versus abdominal hysterectomy, there were significantly fewer unspecified infections or febrile episodes (odds ratio 0.42 (95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.83)). For laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy, there were significantly fewer wound or abdominal wall infections (0.32 (0.12 to 0.85)) and significantly fewer unspecified infections or febrile episodes (0.65 (0.49 to 0.87)). There were no significant differences between surgical approaches in the need for blood transfusion, although laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a significantly lower mean blood loss than abdominal hysterectomy (weighted mean difference 45.3 ml (95% confidence interval 17.9 ml to 72.7 ml)) and a smaller drop in haemoglobin (0.55 g/l (0.28 g/l to 0.82 g/l)). We found no evidence of a significant difference between surgical approaches for occurrence of pelvic haematoma, vaginal cuff infection, urinary tract infection, chest infection, or thromboembolic events.

Sensitivity analyses
Exclusion of the three trials in which surgeons for one intervention were unequivocally different from those performing the other intervention did not alter the significance of any meta-analysis results.

When laparoscopic hysterectomy was subcategorised, the longer operating time compared with abdominal hysterectomy was not apparent for LAVH. All other subcategory meta-analyses of laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy and laparoscopic versus vaginal hysterectomy showed results that were similar to the respective meta-analysis of laparoscopic hysterectomy as a pooled group.

Data not included in meta-analysis
Lower postoperative pain scores were found for laparoscopic than for abdominal hysterectomy, in addition to improved quality of life, body image scores, and increased sexual frequency at six weeks, but these differences disappeared by one year. Mean total hospital cost was significantly higher for laparoscopic than vaginal hysterectomy.

Discussion

Our data suggest that vaginal hysterectomy is preferable to abdominal hysterectomy, provided that it can be done safely. Claims that laparoscopic hysterectomy can allow identification of pelvic disease that might otherwise lead to complications during vaginal hysterectomy and that the meticulous haemostasis achievable during laparoscopic hysterectomy might reduce pelvic haematomas or vaginal cuff infections have not been borne out in this review. However, a laparoscopic approach may be appropriate if an oophorectomy is needed. Whether the increased detection of unexpected disease at laparoscopic hysterectomy (compared with vaginal hysterectomy) affects subsequent clinical outcomes remains uncertain.

What is already known on this topic Abdominal hysterectomy has been regarded as the most invasive approach to hysterectomy for women with benign disease Laparoscopic hysterectomy requires greater surgical expertise Previous reviews have reached different conclusions about the relative merits of laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal hysterectomy What this study adds Important gaps in outcome data have been highlighted, especially for long term outcomes No outcomes are significantly worse for vaginal hysterectomy than for any other method of hysterectomy—vaginal is preferable to abdominal hysterectomy where possible No evidence supports the use of laparoscopic hysterectomy rather than vaginal hysterectomy if the latter can be done safely Compared with abdominal hysterectomy, laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, speedier return to normal activities, and fewer abdominal wall infections or febrile episodes, but it takes longer and urinary tract injuries are more likely

Operating time
Operating time is longer for laparoscopic than for both abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. However, LAVH had a significantly shorter operating time than abdominal hysterectomy, and LAVH had a significantly shorter mean operating time than LH(a), the latter being the lengthiest operation.

Urinary tract injury
The increased incidence of urinary tract injury from laparoscopic hysterectomy seen in our review supports that reported elsewhere in non-randomised studies.^{5 6} Our study was not powerful enough to detect an increase in ureteric injury independently. The largest randomised controlled trial included in this review found a significant increase in this outcome for laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy (but not laparoscopic versus vaginal hysterectomy). It could be speculated that laparoscopic uterine artery ligation is the manoeuvre most likely to increase the risk of ureteric injury, especially by an unskilled surgeon. But we were unable to confirm this as trials of LAVH versus abdominal hysterectomy did not report on ureteric injury.

Methodological challenges and surgical training
Until the past few years, the vast majority of hysterectomies for benign disease were still performed abdominally,² and this is likely still to be the case in most settings.⁷ Although many gynaecologists in training are now exposed to laparoscopic hysterectomy, very few newly trained gynaecologists will have sufficient expertise and confidence to tackle total laparoscopic hysterectomy, which requires the highest level skills. More surgeons will be trained to do LAVH (and indeed some gynaecologists who have not received specific training have acquired the skills to perform LAVH and LH(a)).

One important benefit of the introduction of LAVH and LH(a) into gynaecology training has been to increase surgeons' confidence and skill with vaginal surgery, thus making vaginal hysterectomy a more feasible option for many.

Conclusions
Our review found no important disadvantages of vaginal hysterectomy compared with any other surgical approach, thus it remains an excellent option. Avoiding abdominal hysterectomy accelerates recovery, diminishes postoperative pain, and avoids abdominal wall infections and general postoperative febrile illness. Finally, with laparoscopic hysterectomy, urinary tract injury is a genuine concern.

---

This is the abridged version. The full version is on bmj.com

Editorial by Edozien and p 1482

We thank staff at the editorial base of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group in Auckland, especially Cindy Farquhar and Michelle Proctor.

Contributors: See bmj.com

Competing interests: RG is the principal investigator in a United Kingdom based multicentre randomised trial comparing laparoscopic hysterectomy with both abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy.

Ethical approval: Not needed.

References

1. Garry R. Towards evidence-based hysterectomy. Gynaecol Endosc 1998;7: 225 -33.[CrossRef]
2. Reich H, Roberts L. Laparoscopic hysterectomy in current gynaecological practice. Rev Gynaecol Pract 2003;3: 32 -40.
3. Johnson N, Barlow D, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;(2): CD003677 .
4. Richardson RE, Bournas N, Magos AL. Is laparoscopic hysterectomy a waste of time? Lancet 1995;345: 36 -41.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
5. Garry R, Phillips G. How safe is the laparoscopic approach to hysterectomy? Gynaecol Endosc 1995;4: 77 -9.
6. Härkki-Sirén P, Sjoberg J, Makinen J. Finnish national register of laparoscopic hysterectomies: a review and complications of 1165 operations. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;176: 118 -22.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
7. Farquhar CM, Steiner CA. Hysterectomy rates in the United States 1990-1997. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99: 229 -34.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

(Accepted 9 May 2005)

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Methods of hysterectomy: should women have a say?

Vikki A Entwistle, Graeme MacLennan, Zoe Skea, Siladitya Bhattacharya, and Brian Williams
BMJ 2005 331: 351-352. [Extract] [Full Text]

Methods of hysterectomy: the hierarchy is clear
BMJ 2005 330: 0. [Full Text]

Hysterectomy for benign conditions

Leroy C Edozien
BMJ 2005 330: 1457-1458. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy

Ray Garry, Jayne Fountain, Su Mason, Jeremy Hawe, Vicky Napp, Jason Abbott, Richard Clayton, Graham Phillips, Mark Whittaker, Richard Lilford, Stephen Bridgman, and Julia Brown
BMJ 2004 328: 129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Chopin, N., Malaret, J. M., Lafay-Pillet, M.-C., Fotso, A., Foulot, H., Chapron, C. (2009). Total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign uterine pathologies: obesity does not increase the risk of complications. Hum Reprod 24: 3057-3062 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Tu, X., Huang, G., Tan, S. (2009). Chinese Herbal Medicine for Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding: a Meta-analysis. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 6: 99-105 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Brummer, T. H.I., Seppala, T. T., Harkki, P. S.M. (2008). National learning curve for laparoscopic hysterectomy and trends in hysterectomy in Finland 2000-2005. Hum Reprod 23: 840-845 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Johnson, N.P., Selman, T., Zamora, J., Khan, K.S. (2008). Gynaecologic surgery from uncertainty to science: evidence-based surgery is no passing fad. Hum Reprod 23: 832-839 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Leonard, F., Fotso, A., Borghese, B., Chopin, N., Foulot, H., Chapron, C. (2007). Ureteral complications from laparoscopic hysterectomy indicated for benign uterine pathologies: a 13-year experience in a continuous series of 1300 patients. Hum Reprod 22: 2006-2011 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• David-Montefiore, E., Rouzier, R., Chapron, C., Darai, E., the Collegiale d'Obstetrique et Gynecologie de Par, (2007). Surgical routes and complications of hysterectomy for benign disorders: a prospective observational study in French university hospitals. Hum Reprod 22: 260-265 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Miller, D. C., Wei, J. T., Dunn, R. L., Hollenbeck, B. K. (2006). Trends in the diffusion of laparoscopic nephrectomy.. JAMA 295: 2480-2482 [Full text]  
• Entwistle, V. A, MacLennan, G., Skea, Z., Bhattacharya, S., Williams, B. (2005). Methods of hysterectomy: should women have a say?. BMJ 331: 351-352 [Full text]  
• Edozien, L. C (2005). Hysterectomy for benign conditions. BMJ 330: 1457-1458 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

More specialised gynaecological surgeons needed

David J R Hutchon
bmj.com, 28 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Progression to Vaginal Hysterectomy a personal Odyssey

Peter R. Pedlow, et al.
bmj.com, 29 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Methods of hysterectomy: should women have a say?

Vikki A Entwistle, et al.
bmj.com, 29 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Methods of hysterectomy

Adam Magos, et al.
bmj.com, 7 Jul 2005 [Full text]

Interesting Perspectives on Level 1 Evidence for Surgical Approach to Hysterectomy

Neil P Johnson
bmj.com, 28 Jul 2005 [Full text]

Oophorectomy at vaginal hysterectomy ?

David JR Hutchon
bmj.com, 31 Jul 2005 [Full text]

Re: Oophorectomy at vaginal hysterectomy ?

Adam Magos
bmj.com, 1 Aug 2005 [Full text]

Methods of hysterectomy and ureteric injury.

Roger A. McMaster-Fay
bmj.com, 8 Jan 2006 [Full text]

Surgical Approach to Hysterectomy and Ureteric Injury

Neil P Johnson
bmj.com, 5 Mar 2006 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more>>