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

Stefano Uccella, Fabio Ghezzi, Andrea Mariani, Antonella Cromi, Giorgio Bogani, Maurizio Serati, Pierfrancesco Bolis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

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], 0.120.65) and robotic (1.64%; OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.040.26) colporraphy. Laparoscopic cuff closure was associated with a lower risk of dehiscence than robotic closure (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.280.6). 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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume205
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2011

Keywords

  • laparoscopy
  • robotic hysterectomy
  • total laparoscopic hysterectomy
  • vaginal bleeding
  • vaginal cuff closure
  • vaginal dehiscence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Vaginal cuff closure after minimally invasive hysterectomy: Our experience and systematic review of the literature'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this