16

Laparoscopic Hysterectomy
Cezary Dejewski
Center of minimally invasive gynecological surgery
Amper Kliniken AG, 85221 Dachau
Germany

1. Introduction
The first hysterectomy was performed by Charles Clay in November 1843. It was
performed due to a large myomatosus uterus. The operation was successful, however, the
patient died on the fifteenth postoperative day. The first patient who survived a
hysterectomy was in 1853 and it was performed by Walter Burnham. Out of his
subsequent 15 patients, three patients did not survive. These early hysterectomies were all
subtotal hysterectomies.
The complete abdominal hysterectomy was recommended in 1929 by Richardson to
the prevention of the cervical cancer. Supracervical hysterectomies were preferred
for prevention of peritoneal contamination with vaginal bacterial flora and for prevention
of peritonitis. However, in the 1950's, when penicillin and other antibiotics became
available, Dr. Richardson’s technique of total abdominal hysterectomy started to become
popular.
Since the first in 1989 from Reich described laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) the laparoscopic
assisted vaginal hysterectomy had spread first in the medical centres (LAVH).
In 1991 Kurt Semm was first who reported about first laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy.
He called his version "CASH" (Classic Abdominal Semm Hysterectomy) and combined the
Morcellement of the uterus with the coring out of the cervix. The Semm hysterectomy never
became popular due to technical difficulties.

Fig. 1.

www.intechopen.com
240 Advanced Gynecologic Endoscopy

2. Indications and contraindications

The indications for laparoscopic hysterectomy are the same, as those which are count to the
abdominal hysterectomy – symptomatic uterine fibroids, in the treatment of genital prolaps,
endometriosis and adenomyosis, dysmenorrhoe, hypermenorrhoe or dysfunctional uterine
bleeding.
After 23 years of development of laparoscopic approach for hysterectomy we haven’t any
major contraindications to the LH. The removal of very large uterus has become possible by
technical development. With clear benefits of LH versus AH, the time-consuming
morcellation isn’t also a contraindication any more. Patients benefit from less complications
and faster convalescence. The author takes the laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH or LASH)
routine even with large uterus (1603 G, the largest uterus until now).
Slightly different is the indication position for supracervikal hysterectomy (LASH), because
of preservation of the Cervix. As main indications for the LASH are the symptomatic uterus
myomatosus, the adenomyosis uteri with discomfort and dysfunctionally bleeding
disturbances which are resistant to therapy. Missing premalignant or malignant changes of
the cervix or the body uteri are counted as essential conditions for the realisation of a LASH.
Cervixmyoma and recto-vaginal endometriosis show relative contraindications.
For women after LASH lies the risk to fall ill with an invasive cervical cancer, in countries
with early diagnosis programs for the cervical cancer, between 0.1 and 0.2%. It is
comparable with the risk, reported in the literature of 0.17 %, to develop a carcinoma of the
vaginal butt after abdominal hysterectomy. Early lesions can be removed without problems
by a specific biopsy or cervixconisation.
The LASH isn’t suitable as a standard operation or as a randomly alternative to the
hysterectomy in countries without existing early diagnosis programs because of the lack of
guaranteed screening examinations before and after a LASH.

3. Operating room setup

The preparing for the laparoscopic case is the most important factor to get a successful
laparoscopic procedure. This includes; the ergonomic position of the lights, video screens,
and the power supply tower. In order to proceed with the procedure, there should be given
functioning monitors/screens for the surgeon and all assistants.
The patient is placed in the dorsolithotomy position on the operating table. A nosogastric tube
have to be placed to decompress the stomach. The patient should be moved downwards on
the table so that the uterine manipulator can be moved in all directions. The patient`s arms
must be tucked alongside the body to allow the surgeon a moving ability without restrictions.
The shoulder bolster are very important. They are centred on the acromnion process, over a
gel pad, and clipped to the sidebar of the table to prevent upward slippage during
Trendelenburg position. A foley catheter should be placed in the bladder to allow to drainage
before trocars are inserted. Both; a disposable and reusable uterine manipulator can be used.
The surgeon is positioned on the left side of the patient while the first assistant is placed at
the right side and the second assistant stands between the legs. Each surgeon must have a
monitor/screen in front of him which he can adjust to his needs. The power supply tower
should be positioned close to the patient.
A very important aspect by the acquisition of instruments for the laparoscopic surgery is the
choice of the coagulation and preparation technique. The industry courts with little smoke
production and OP shortening (LigaSure, Harmonic scalpel).

www.intechopen.com
Laparoscopic Hysterectomy 241

Fig. 2. Operating room setup.

The influence of different operation technologies within the long enduring operation is low.
However, the operation duration is significantly influenced by the size of the uterus and not
by the used instruments.
A work of the Hessler and al (13) examines and compares the application of different
instruments.
172 patients obtained from the same surgeon a total laparoscopic hysterectomy. 60 patients
were operated with SonoSurg™, 60 with Ultracision™, 34 with BiClamp™, 11 with BiSect™
and 7 with classical bipolar instruments. Every hysterectomy were executed with standardised
Op steps. There were no determining differences between the several technologies considering
of the whole operation duration and the pure hysterectomy duration.
The advantages of the classical bipolar instruments with the coagulation of bigger vessels
are qualified through the obligatory instrument change to the scissors and the worse
preparation qualities, in particular in the area of the cervix, bladder and bowel.
The disadvantages of the ultrasonic technology with the coagulation of the bigger vessels
are compensated by the good preparations qualities in this area again. Therefore, the
economic aspects, in particular the costs per operation, remain decisively for the equipment
purchasing choice.

4. Positioning the trocars

The typical placement of the laparoscope is umbilical (Figure 3). Most surgeons use 10mm
instruments with 0 degree. At a large uterus (16 weeks and exceeding) a 30 degree optic is
often helpful to present uterine vessels and ureters. If the the uterine fundus reached the
umbilicus or beyond, the umbilical optic insertion is impossible. In such cases we used the
left subcostal access. We place the trocar on the left below the ribs with two fingers-width
and medially 1-2 cm to the epigastric line. The preparation is carried out openly.

www.intechopen.com
242 Advanced Gynecologic Endoscopy

Fig. 3.
We perform all hysterectomies with two ports. On the right lower abdomen is always a
5 mm port placed and on the left lower abdomen, a 12 mm port. The left access will be
extended to 15 mm for the morcellation. When peritoneal Adhesions is suspected primary,
we choose a left subcostal access also.

Fig. 4. Very large uterus makes the use of navel trokar-optics impossible.

www.intechopen.com
Laparoscopic Hysterectomy 243

umbilicus

Fig. 5. The same patient. Subcostal access on the left for the optic and very big uterus.

5. Classic laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH)



LAVH - laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy


LASH - laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy


TLH - total laparoscopic hysterectomy
TLIH - total laparoscopic intrafascial hysterectomy
All hysterectomies made by us are proceeded with standardised methods. Depending on
the chosen technique, the operations conduct to a certain point always same.
We always use a uterine manipulator. We are convinced that this is a very important
component of surgical technique. By the manipulator, the uterus is pushed anteriorly and
laterally. This saves us one laparoscopic port. Additionally, the distance between the uterine
vessels and the ureter is amplified. The distance to the ureter allows low-risk vessel
coagulation.

Fig. 5. Uterine Cohen manipulator which we use for LASH, LAVH, TLIH.

www.intechopen.com
244 Advanced Gynecologic Endoscopy

Fig. 6. Uterine Hohl manipulator for TLH, TLIH.

Single standardised surgical technique steps of the LH in our clinic are:
1. Cauterization and transection of the round ligament (“liga sure” or bipolar).
After cutting the round ligament the retroperitoneal space is opened. Now the ovarian
ligament can be presented with ovarian vessels and it can be better targeted to achieve a
coagulation. At large uterus, depending on the situation, we cut sometimes the fallopian
tube or ovarian ligament first.

1.a. Small uterus. 1.b. Big uterus.

www.intechopen.com
Laparoscopic Hysterectomy 245

2. Ligation of the tube and of the ovarian ligament with the vessels.

2.a. Small uterus. 2.b. Big uterus

The retroperitoneal space is wide open by the blunt preparation. All anatomical structures
are clearly visible. If necessary, the ureter can already be now grounded and identified on
the back page of the broad ligament.
3. Dissection of the anterior broad ligament peritoneum to cervix level.

4. Search and localisation of the ureters.

5. Dissection of the posterior broad ligament peritoneum to uterosacral ligament. The
broad ligament peritoneum is skeletonized to expose the uterine vessels.

www.intechopen.com
246 Advanced Gynecologic Endoscopy

6. Ligation and incision of the uterine vessels with „bi-clamp“ or bipolar coagulation.

It is extremely important that the uterus will be strongly positioned anteriorly and laterally
to the opposite direction with the uterine manipulator.
Alternatively, the uterine vessels can be torn down after a titan clip supply or a suturing.
The Bi-clamp or bipolar coagulation is the safest and fastest option.

www.intechopen.com
Laparoscopic Hysterectomy 247

7. Dissection of the bladder.

First the vesicouterine fold must be identified, afterwards elevated prior to incise it. This
space must be dissected carefully, especially in the case at surgery, in particular previous
caeserean section.

8. The skeletonized uterus.

All surgical steps of these hysterectomy techniques (LAVH, LASH, TLH, TLIH) were until
now identical.
If the LAVH technique is chosen, you have to start the vaginal part of the operation. The
uterus body will be removed from the cervix within the LASH operation.
Further preparations shall be conducted within the TLH and TLIH (total laparoscopic
intrafascial hysterectomy) technique (14).
9. The excision of the cervix (LASH) or the uterus from the vagina can be made
laparoscopically (TLH) , as well as the dissection of the vagina through a vaginal route
(LAVH).

www.intechopen.com
248 Advanced Gynecologic Endoscopy

9.a. The uterine body is removed with the monopolar loop from the cervix.
The cervix stump and the cervical canal are now bipolar coagulated. This is made to avoid
the cyclical residual bleeding after surgery.

The severed
uterine vessels

The edge of the

cap of uterine
manipulator

9.b. The uterine vessels are divided. The cap of uterine manipulator shows the edge where
the cut must be made. We use for this mono-polar power.

9.c. The uterus is removed from the vagina. In the vagina the cap from the manipulator is
visible.

www.intechopen.com
Laparoscopic Hysterectomy 249

10. Vaginal closure with PDS suture (ethicon). When possible remove the uterus through
the vagina.

10.a. In the vagina a thick Foley catheter is placed for CO2 sealing.

10.b. The vaginal stump is closed with sutures.

11. Closure of the peritoneum over cervix or over vaginal cuff with PDS – “Lahodny –
Clip” suture or PDS – “Endosuture” (both-Ethicon).

www.intechopen.com
250 Advanced Gynecologic Endoscopy

12. Morcellation of uterus.

6. Comparison of abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomies

There are not so many prospective, randomized studies to compare the different technique
of hysterectomy. A recent meta-analysis of 27 randomized trials showed that patients after
laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) compared to the abdominal (AH) has less blood loss, had
suffered less perioperative infections and had a significantly shorter recovery time (15). In
contrast, was the AH operation duration shorter and the injuries to the urinary tract
(bladder and ureter) significantly higher after LH. The LH has comparing to the VH

www.intechopen.com
Laparoscopic Hysterectomy 251

significantly longer operating durations. It is noted that most studies compare various
modifications of LAVH to the VH. The operating endurances depend in the LH significantly
more from the operational skills of the surgeon-dependent than in the VH. In english-
speaking countries, the vaginal surgery is less operated, and the percentage of vaginal
hysterectomies in all uteri removed due to benign indications is accordingly lower. In the
USA amounts the percentage 25% (16) and in UK one-third (17).
A major advantage of the VH over the LH is its feasibility in the spinal anaesthesia and the
lower costs.
The LH implicates perfect anatomical overview and the image magnification of the video
camera. This is for example in the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis of prime
importance. It delivers also enormously further development of nerve-sparing surgical
techniques.
After the LH the hospitalization was at the shortest. In Germany, the TLH and LASH is an
outpatient procedure. Outpatient means that the patients are able to leave the clinic after
approximately 6 hours. All patients were cared for at the operating evening by telephone.
The results are similar to the process in the hospital (6).
Meta analyse: vaginal hysterectomy (VH) vs. abdominal hysterectomy, (AH), vs.
laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH/LAVH) delivered in 2009 in a Cochrane overview Nieboer
et al (18).

Hospitalisation:

VH vs. AH -1,1 Days [0,92-1,92]

LH vs. AH -2,0 Days [1,86-2,17]

VH vs. LH No difference

Febrile episodes or unclear infections:

VH vs. AH OR :0,42

LH vs. AH OR: 0,65

VH vs. LH No difference

Operative middle blood loss:

LH vs. AH MD: -45 ml

LH vs. VH OR: 2,76 (significant blood loos)

Resumption of normal activities:

VH vs. AH 9,5 Tage (95% CI: 6,4-12,6)

LH vs. AH 13,6 Tage (95% CI: 11,8-15,4)

www.intechopen.com
252 Advanced Gynecologic Endoscopy

Wound infections:

LH vs. AH OR: 0,31

Injury of the urinary ways:

LH vs. AH OR: 2,41

LH vs. VH No difference

Operating time:

LH vs. AH 20,3 minutes

LH vs. VH 39,3 minutes

7. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy

A pioneer of laparoscopic oncologic gynaecology was Daniel Dargent. Laparoscopic
lymphadenectomy was described by him in 1989. His greatest achievement however, was
the involvement of Schauta radical vaginal hysterectomy according to laparoscopy.
Developed by Dargent laparoscopically assisted radical hysterectomy (LAVRH) was
successfully used in the treatment of cervical cancer. The work of Querleu on pelvic lymph
node dissection were very important as well (22).
The LAVH was more frequently performed with lymph node dissection in the endometrial
carcinoma. Thanks to technological developments, the TLH displaced the LAVH not only
as hysterectomy management, but also as part of the surgical treatment of endometrial
cancer. Today it is a standard therapy of endometrial carcinoma and not too large uterus.
Afterwards the laparoscopic way was performed entirely by the radical hysterectomies - the
laparoscopic Wertheim operations (TLRH - total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy)(23,24).

a. b.
Fig. 7. a. Dissected cardinal ligament left after pelvic lymph node dissection - laparoscopic
Wertheim operation. b. Cardinal ligament left after the division of the pars vaskularis. The
pars nervosa of the ligament is spared.

www.intechopen.com
Laparoscopic Hysterectomy 253

Ureter

Fig. 8. Situs after TLRH (laparoscopic Wertheim operation).

a. b.
Fig. 9. a. Wertheim preparation (Piver III radicalness). b. Schauta preparation.
1992 Netzhat refereed to the para-aortic lymphadenectomy (23). The feasibility of
lymphadenectomy by laparoscope were combined with the trachelectomy when the wish to
conceive existed beside an early cervical cancer. The process can be carried out vaginal,
abdominal or laparoscopically assisted. Between 40% and 70% patients after trachelectomy
were pregnant (26).

Fig. 10. Para aortic lymph nodes dissection.

www.intechopen.com
254 Advanced Gynecologic Endoscopy

Laparoscopy in comparison to open surgery:

- Perfect anatomical overview. Magnifying glass enlargement permits nerves-spare
surgery.
- Patients with high BMI and endometrium carcinoma profited from the laparoscopy by
the reduction of perioperativ complications like incisional hernia, ileus and due to
quicker mobilisation - thrombosis and embolism.
Early endometrial cancer: the comparison of laparotomy and laparoscopy (27):

Middle Middle Removed

Complications
Patient Op- blood lymph Hospitalisation
Procedure all together
(n) duration loss nodes (Days)
(%)
(min) (ml) (n)
Laparotomy 1458 123 402 17,7 7,5 31,3
Laparoscopy 1023 176 236 18,3 4,1 14,9


Result:


Laparoscopic onkosurgery offers the same oncological security like the open surgery.
Laparoscopy is associated with less blood loss and less complications. There was less


need of blood transfusions.


The post surgical morbidity can be reduced.
High-price equipment and a long training curve are facing reduced hospitalization
costs and a lower morbidity.
Similar results were shown by other studies (28). Laparoscopic therapy for early cervical
and endometrial cancer is the open approach in oncological point of view equivalent. There
are nearly identical numbers of lymph nodes obtained via laparotomy (pelvic 18, 7
paraaortal inframesenterial) or laparoscopy (pelvic 17, 7 paraaortal inframesenterial) (27).

8. New laparoscopic device – transumbilical endoscopy (TUE)

In 2004 is the origin year of the N.O.T.E.S. - Treatment (Natural Orifice Transluminal
Endoscopic Surgery) of the study group around Anthony Kallo. The technology uses as
access roads the so-called natural body openings like stomach, large intestine, bladder or the
vagina. From that movement also comes the surgery through the navel – e . N.O.T.E.S.
(Embryonic Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoskopic Surgery). All ports required by the
surgeon are positioned in the navel pit. In addition are mostly used so-called "single ports".
The best well known technologies are the SILS - technology (single Incision Laparoscopic
Surgery) of the company Covidien and the LESS – technology (Laparo-Endoscopic single
site Surgery) from the company Olympus as disposable ports.
Endoscopic umbilical techniques (Embryonic – N.O.T.E.S.) get in the gynaecology more
common. The LAVH, LTH, LASH and the colposacropexie are among, beside the adnexal
surgery, this treatment. Some years previously a rapid development could have been
followed in the visceral surgery which came along with a wide range of operations
opportunities within this technique. In 1995 the first cholecystectomy were accomplished in
Ferrara. Today nephrectomy, gastric sleeve – resections, inguinal hernia operations,
sigmaresection, colectomy, fundoplication, RY – gastric bypass and pancreas head resections
are carried out.

www.intechopen.com
Laparoscopic Hysterectomy 255

The first e.N.O.T.E.S. Hysterectomy was reported in Juli 2007, in the USA by Dr. Kate
O'Hanlan (20). In Europe the first TLH, with SILS - port on 08.05.2009 and the first SILS –
LASH on 30.06.2009 by Dr. Cezary Dejewski in Bremerhaven, Germany (19).


Synonyms of the transumbilical laparoscopic surgery:


Transumbilical single port surgery – TUSPS


Transumbilical multi port surgery – TUMPS


Embryonic NOTES – e.N.O.T.E.S.


Transumbilical Endoscopic Surgery - TUES


One Port Umbilical Surgery – OPUS


Natural orifice trans-umbilical surgery - NOTUS


Single Port Access (SPA) surgery


Single-Access-Site (SAS) laparoscopic surgery


Single-Site-Access (SSA) laparoscopic surgery


Trans-Umbilical Laparoscopic Assisted (TULA) surgery


Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery - SILS™
Laparo-Endoscopic Single-site Surgery – LESS™
The minimization of the access trauma results in less postoperative pain, reduced
postoperative intestinal atony, less strain on the lung function and provides a better
cosmetic scar results. Patients benefit from quicker recovery and improved quality of life.
All the benefits of laparoscopy compared with conventional open surgery are embraced by
the e.N.O.T.E.S. technology.
The less postoperative wound pain results from that navel access in which no abdominal
muscle were injured. The reduction of two or three trokars on the lower abdomen reduces
the intraoperative risk of injury to epigastric vessels (Figur 6).

Fig. 6. Abdomen anatomy.

www.intechopen.com
256 Advanced Gynecologic Endoscopy

The size of the umbilical scar after the "single port" is from 2 to 3.5 cm.

Fig. 7. Various disposable ports (Ethicon, Covidien, Olympus).

Fig. 8. Single ports from Storz (reusable).

The author had performed about 60 e.N.O.T.E.S. operations between the 1st june 2008 and
the 30th april 2010. Including 18 total and 22 supracervical hysterectomies, 1 appendectomy,
11 ovarial surgery, 5 adnexectomy and 6 laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.
The technique has significant advantages over N.O.T.E.S. surgery. First it is clinically proven
and allow on any time to switch to conventional laparoscopy, and many procedures can be
performed without quality loss.
Our position is that the ovarial surgery (cystenenukleation with suture ovarian
reconstruction) cannot be regarded as an entry in the transumbilical endoscopy because
present technology doesn`t allow us a non tissue sparing surgery as a result of confined
space conditions and optic collisions. Loss of substance on the ovary at awkward surgery
exercises are the result. The transumbilical surgical technique inflicts the surgeon a greater
challenge than the conventional technique. The prerequisite for the application of the TUE
presume the training and experience in traditional endoscopy. Everything else would
discredit the entire development.

www.intechopen.com
Laparoscopic Hysterectomy 257

Fig. 9. Several curved endoscopic instruments for transumbilical endoscopy.

Fig. 10. Problem of limited space and instruments collision.

A further development of instruments and optics for establishing the transumbilical
endoscopy are urgently needed. The industry attract currently their biggest attention on the
"single port" technology (SPA - single port access). The previously developed SILS (single
incision laparoscopic surgery – Covidien) and LESS (Laparo Endoscopic Single Site Surgery
– Olympus) are followed by reusable items such as “Endocone” and “X-Cone” ports from
Storz. The Wolf and the Esculap company announced now their own ports.
The scar after the cut for the insertion of singel-ports is 2.5 to 3 cm.

Fig. 11. SILS Single-Port (Covidien) and the umbilical scar 8 weeks after.

www.intechopen.com
258 Advanced Gynecologic Endoscopy

We have next to the TUSPS also the "multi-port" technology (TUMPS – transumbilical multi
port surgery) applied. We place in the navel instead of a single port three 5 mm trocars
(flexible, reusable - from Wolf).

Fig. 12. Transumbilical multi-port endoscopic surgery (TUMPS) – three 5,5 mm ports
umbilical.

a. 4 weeks after b. 4 days after (another patient)

Fig. 13. Umbilical scars after TUMPS.
Our operating experience has not shown any advantage of "Single Port" (TUSPS –
transumbilical single port surgery) technique against the “multi-port” method (TUMPS –
transumbilical multi port surgery). Because of placing more ports through the navel, you
achieve a wider operating radius so that optic and instruments collisions are much rarer in
contrary to the single port technique. In addition with curved instruments it is easily to use the
the conventional laparoscopic instruments. The operation is not as cost intensive, and leaves
only three 5.5 mm wide scars. The grooves are with the "skin bridge" separated, so a lower risk
of hernia can be expected. The pain is being investigated by us, but appears to be lower.
It is possible for the morcellator to expand a 5,5 mm tip to 15 mm and to morcellate it
parallel to the camera. The transvaginal morcellation must be used with "single-port", but
working with a mirror inverted camera, operations appear much more difficult and assume
a longer training curve.
The tumoraseptic extraction of ovarian masses by the rear colpotomy is more convenient for
large-adnexal findings, so we use this management in TUSPS and TUMPS technique.

www.intechopen.com
Laparoscopic Hysterectomy 259

Fig. 14. Morcelation with the rear colpotomy.

Fig. 15. The umbilical morcelation, multi-port umbilical surgery.

Fig. 16. Recovery of 16 cm big cystoma through the vagina with endo bag.
The total or supracervical hysterectomy by transumbilical access was made, according to the
standards of the laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), with conventional technique. All the
individual steps of those procedures remained identical.

9. Complications
In review of Hurd (15), which includes over 1.5 million gynaecological patients, is reported
that complications in 0.1 to 10 percent of procedures and 20 to 25 percent of complications
were not recognized until the postoperative period.

www.intechopen.com
260 Advanced Gynecologic Endoscopy

Between 1980 and 1999 the incidence of entry access injury was 5 to 30 per 10,000
procedures. Bowel and retroperitoneal vascular injuries comprised 76 percent of all injuries
and almost 50 percent of small and large bowel injuries were unrecognised for at least 24
hours. The type and proportion of organ injury during entry was: small bowel (25 percent),
iliac artery (19 percent), colon (12 percent), iliac or other retroperitoneal vein (9 percent),
secondary branches of a mesenteric vessel (7 percent), aorta (6 percent), inferior vena cava (4
percent), abdominal wall vessels (4 percent), bladder (3 percent), liver (2 percent), other (less
than 2 percent).
A literature review of procedures performed from 1975 to 2002 reported entry-related
visceral lesions occurred in 0.3 to 1.3 per 1000 procedures and entry-related vascular lesions
occurred in 0.07 to 4.7 per 1000 procedures. The open technique was not associated with
fewer complications than the closed technique; however, this result likely reflects the high
risk status of patients undergoing the open procedure.

9.1 Patient risk factors

A very important patient risk factors displays obesity. Increased weight takes on a special
significance for laparoscopy. Placement of laparoscopic instruments becomes much more
difficult. Bleeding from abdominal wall vessels may be more common because these vessels
become difficult to locate. Many intra-abdominal procedures become increasingly difficult
because of a restricted operative field secondary to retroperitoneal fat deposits in the pelvic
side walls and increased bowel excursion into the operative field. This second problem is
probably related to increased volume of bowel, decreased elevation of a heavier anterior
abdominal wall by the pneumoperitoneum, and the inability to place many patients who are
obese in steep Trendelenburg position because of ventilation considerations.
Another well-described surgical risk factor is age. As the population ages, more women of
increased age will have indications for laparoscopy. Older patients are at increased risk of
having concomitant disease processes that affect their perioperative morbidity and
mortality. Probably the single most important consideration is age-associated increase in
cardiovascular disease. Of special importance is the increased susceptibility of elderly
persons to hypothermia. In older patients, even mild degrees of hypothermia may increase
the risk of cardiac arrhythmia.
As far as laparoscopic complications are concerned, one of the most important risk factors is
a history of previous abdominal surgery. The risk of adhesions of omentum and/or bowel
to the anterior abdominal wall after previous abdominal surgery is greater than 20%. The
most common of these strategies is the use of an open technique for laparoscopic trocar
placement, as first advocated by Hasson.
In patients with previous laparotomy in which the scar is located at the umbilicus, use of an
alternative location for trocar insertion is usually located in the left subcostal quadrant. The
closest organ to the left upper quadrant is the stomach. Therefore, an oral gastric tube is
recommended before.

9.2 Anaesthetic risk factors

One of the most critical time-dependent aspects of preparation is the degree to which the
patient's stomach is empty because both general anaesthesia and increased intra-abdominal
pressure may increase the risk of regurgitation and resultant aspiration.
Preoperative evaluation should include a search for evidence of underlying cardiac disease.
With a positive history or physical examination findings suggestive of cardiac disease,
preoperative evaluation by both a cardiologist and an anaesthesiologist is extremely important.

www.intechopen.com
Laparoscopic Hysterectomy 261

Finally, patients at risk for congestive heart failure should be evaluated carefully prior to
laparoscopy because a decrease in cardiac output may be related to decreased venous return
and increased peripheral vascular resistance.
Any patient with a significant history of pulmonary problems should be evaluated by both a
pulmonologist and an anaesthesiologist prior to laparoscopy. Hypercarbia and decreased
ventilation associated with laparoscopy may be especially deleterious in pulmonary patients
with chronic respiratory acidosis.
By example of bladder and ureter injuries by l total aparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH):

Number: 830 (1) 512 (2) 567 (3)

Uterus weight: 239 g 241 g 242 g
OP time: 132 min 133 min 104 min
Blood loss: 130 ml 309 ml 1,45 g/dl
Hospitalisation: 1,4 Tage 2,7 Tage 5,6 Tage
Conversion to LAP: 0,60% 1,80% 0,20%
Complications rate: 4,70% 4,80% 1,40%
Bladder injury: 12 (1,4%) 2 (0,4%) 4 (0,7%)
Ureter injury: 10 (1,3%) 1 (0,2%) 1 (0,2%)
Bowel injury: 3 (0,4%) 5 (0,97%) 1 (0,2%)

10. References
[1] O`Hantan et al „Total laparoscopic hysterectomy“, JSLS 2007
[2] Ng et al „Total laparoscopic hysterectomy“, Arch Gynecol Obstet 2007
[3] Mueller et al „Total laparoscopic hysterectomy“ ….submitted
[4] Lim et al „Lower urinary tract injurys“ J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2010
[5] Donnez et al „A serieas of 3190 laparoscopic hysterectomies“, BJOG 2008
[6] Salfelder A. et al „Hysterektiomie als Standarteingriff in der Tagesklinik – ein Wagnis?“,
Frauenarzt 48 (2007),954-958, 10.
[7] Müller A. et al „ Hysterektomie – ein Vergleich verschiedener Operationsverfahren“,
Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010; 107(20): 353-9
[8] Reich H. „Laparoscopic hysterectomy“, Surgical Laparoscopy & Endoscopy. Raven
Press, New York. 1992 ; 2: 85-88.
[9] Mettler L, Lutzewitch N, Dewitz T, Remmert K, Semm K. „From laparotomy to
pelviscopic intrafascial hysterectomy“. Gyn Endoscopy 1996; 5 : 203-209.
[10] Liu CY, Reich H. „Complications of Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in 518 Cases“.
Gynaecological Endoscopy 1994 ; 3 : 203-208.
[11] Stovall Th. Et al „Complications of gynecologic laparoscopic surgery“,UpToDate 18.3,
2011.
[12] Hurd W.W. „Gynecologic Laparoscopy“, eMedicine online 2009.
[13] Hessler P.-A., „Comparative Assesment of the Impact of Different Instruments in Total
Laparoscopic Hysterectomies" Geburtsh Frauenheilk in 2008; 68: 77-82.

www.intechopen.com
262 Advanced Gynecologic Endoscopy

[14] Lee PJ; Total Laparoscopic Intrafascial Hysterectomy, J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc.
1996 Aug;3(4, Supplement):S25.
[15] Johnson N et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; (2): CD 00 36 77.
[16] Farquhar CM et al Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99 (2). 229-34.
[17] Magos J Obstet Gynaecol AD et al 2001, 21 (2). 166-170
[18] Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease (Review), Nieboer
TE, Johason N, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R, van Voorst S., Mol BWJ,
Kluivers KB.
[19] Dejewski C et al „New Technique for Laparoscopic Hysterectomy – SILS (Single
Incision Laparoscopic Surgery) Hysterectomy“, Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2010; 70:
123–126.
[20] Pope Kerry, President and CEO Novare Surgical System Inc., Cupertino, CA 95014 United
States, Calif., July 25 2007 /PRNewswire/; 408/873-3161, [email protected]
[21] Steed H, Rosen B, Murphy J et al „A comparison of laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal
hysterectomy and radikal abdominal hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical
cancer“, Gynecol Oncol. 2004;93(3):588-593.
[22] Querleu D, Leblanc E, Castelain B „Laparoscopic pelvic lyphadenectomy in the staging
of early carcinoma of the cervix“, Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;164(2):579-581.
[23] Netzhat CR, Mahdavi A, Nagarseth NP et al „Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with
paraaortic and pelvic node dissection“, Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166(3):864-865.
[24] Canis M, Mage G, Wattiez A et al „Does endoscopic surgery have a role in radical
surgery of cancer of the cervix uteri?“, J Gynecol Biol Reprod (Paris).1990;19:921.
[25] Altgassen C et al „Trachelektomie – Indikationen und Operationsmetoden“,
Gynäkologe 2009.42:925-931.
[26] Solomayer E, Juhasz-Bösz I et al „Laparoskopische Therapie des frühen Endometrium-
und Zervixkarzinom“, Frauenarzt 50(2009)1:24-27.
[27] Walker Jl, Piedmonte MR et al „Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for
comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer“, Gynecologic Oncology Group
Study LAP2.J Clin Oncol 27(32):5331-5336.
[28] Meinhold-Heerlein I et al „Endoskopie in der gynäkologischen Onkologie – Chancen
und Grenzen“, Gynäkologe 2010.43:441-444.

www.intechopen.com
 Advanced Gynecologic Endoscopy
Edited by Dr. Atef Darwish

ISBN 978-953-307-348-4
Hard cover, 332 pages
Publisher InTech
Published online 23, August, 2011
Published in print edition August, 2011

The main purpose of this book is to address some important issues related to gynecologic laparoscopy. Since
the early breakthroughs by its pioneers, laparoscopic gynecologic surgery has gained popularity due to
developments in illumination and instrumentation that led to the emergence of laparoscopy in the late 1980's
as a credible diagnostic as well as therapeutic intervention. This book is unique in that it will review common,
useful information about certain laparoscopic procedures, including technique and instruments, and then
discuss common difficulties faced during each operation. We also discuss the uncommon and occasionally
even anecdotal cases and the safest ways to deal with them. We are honored to have had a group of world
experts in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery valuably contribute to our book.

How to reference
In order to correctly reference this scholarly work, feel free to copy and paste the following:

Cezary Dejewski (2011). Laparoscopic Hysterectomy, Advanced Gynecologic Endoscopy, Dr. Atef Darwish
(Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-348-4, InTech, Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/advanced-
gynecologic-endoscopy/laparoscopic-hysterectomy

InTech Europe InTech China

University Campus STeP Ri Unit 405, Office Block, Hotel Equatorial Shanghai
Slavka Krautzeka 83/A No.65, Yan An Road (West), Shanghai, 200040, China
51000 Rijeka, Croatia
Phone: +385 (51) 770 447 Phone: +86-21-62489820
Fax: +385 (51) 686 166 Fax: +86-21-62489821
www.intechopen.com