Display options
Cite
Hohl MK, Hauser N. Safe total intrafascial laparoscopic (TAIL) hysterectomy: a prospective cohort study. Gynecol Surg. 2010;7(3):231-239doi: 10.1007/s10397-010-0569-0.
Hohl, M. K., & Hauser, N. (2010). Safe total intrafascial laparoscopic (TAIL) hysterectomy: a prospective cohort study. Gynecological surgery, 7(3), 231-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-010-0569-0
Hohl, Michael K, and Hauser, Nik. "Safe total intrafascial laparoscopic (TAIL) hysterectomy: a prospective cohort study." Gynecological surgery vol. 7,3 (2010): 231-239. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-010-0569-0
Hohl MK, Hauser N. Safe total intrafascial laparoscopic (TAIL) hysterectomy: a prospective cohort study. Gynecol Surg. 2010 Sep;7(3):231-239. doi: 10.1007/s10397-010-0569-0. Epub 2010 Mar 02. PMID: 20700518; PMCID: PMC2914872.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Gynecol Surg. 2010 Sep;7(3):231-239. doi: 10.1007/s10397-010-0569-0. Epub 2010 Mar 02.

Safe total intrafascial laparoscopic (TAIL) hysterectomy: a prospective cohort study.

Gynecological surgery

Michael K Hohl, Nik Hauser

Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kantonsspital Baden, CH-5404 Baden, Switzerland.

PMID: 20700518 PMCID: PMC2914872 DOI: 10.1007/s10397-010-0569-0

Abstract

This study directly compares total intrafascial laparoscopic (TAIL) hysterectomy with vaginal (VH) and abdominal (AH) hysterectomy with regard to safety, operating time and time of convalescence. The study is a prospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2), including data from patients of a single university-affiliated teaching institution, admitted between 1997 and 2008 for hysterectomy due to benign uterus pathology. Patient data were collected pre-, intra- and postoperatively and complications documented using a standardised data sheet of a Swiss obstetric and gynaecological study group (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Schweizerische Frauenkliniken, Amlikon/Switzerland). Classification of complications (major complications and minor complications) for all three operation techniques, evaluation of surgeons and comparison of operation times and days of hospitalisation were analysed. 3066 patients were included in this study. 993 patients underwent AH, 642 VH and 1,431 total intrafascial hysterectomy. No statistically significant difference for the operation times comparing the three groups can be demonstrated. The mean hospital stay in the TAIL hysterectomy, VH and AH groups is 5.8 +/- 2.4, 8.8 +/- 4.0 and 10.4 +/- 3.9 days, respectively. The postoperative minor complications including infection rates are low in the TAIL hysterectomy group (3.8%) when compared with either the AH group (15.3%) or the VH group (11.2%), respectively. The total of minor complications is statistically significant lower for TAIL hysterectomy as for AH (O.R. 4.52, CI 3.25-6.31) or VH (O.R. 3.16, CI 2.16-4.62). Major haemorrhage with consecutive reoperation is observed statistically significantly more frequent in the AH group when compared to the TAIL hysterectomy group, with an O.R. of 6.13 (CI 3.05-12.62). Overall, major intra- and postoperative complications occur significant more frequently in the AH group (8.6%) when compared to the VH group (3%) and the TAIL hysterectomy group (1.8%). The incidence of major complications applying the standardised TAIL hysterectomy technique is not related to the experience of the surgeons. We conclude that a standardised intrafascial technique of total laparoscopic (TAIL) hysterectomy using an anatomically developed special uterine device is associated with a very low incidence of minor and major intra- and postoperative complications. The direct comparison of complication rates with either vaginal or abdominal hysterectomy favours the total laparoscopic technique, and therefore, this technique can be recommended as a relatively atraumatic procedure. The operation times are comparable for all three techniques without any statistically significant differences. This technique for laparoscopic hysterectomy is shown to be equally safe when applied by experienced gynaecologic surgeons or by residents in training. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10397-010-0569-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

  1. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007 Nov-Dec;14(6):724-8 - PubMed
  2. Hum Reprod. 2001 Jul;16(7):1473-8 - PubMed
  3. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Oct;193(4):1565-73 - PubMed
  4. Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Aug;104(2):308-13 - PubMed
  5. BJOG. 2004 Jul;111(7):688-94 - PubMed
  6. BJOG. 2009 Mar;116(4):492-500 - PubMed
  7. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008 Jan;136(1):3-8 - PubMed
  8. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000 Oct;79(10):866-71 - PubMed
  9. BMJ. 2004 Jan 17;328(7432):129 - PubMed
  10. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Apr 19;(2):CD003677 - PubMed
  11. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jan;198(1):34.e1-7 - PubMed
  12. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005 Sep-Oct;12(5):432-5 - PubMed
  13. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Jul;179(1):1-5 - PubMed
  14. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2002 Aug;9(3):339-45 - PubMed
  15. Hum Reprod. 2007 Jan;22(1):260-5 - PubMed
  16. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007 Sep;134(1):105-9 - PubMed
  17. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000 Dec;79(12):1100-4 - PubMed

Publication Types