TY - JOUR
T1 - AAGL Practice Report
T2 - Practice Guidelines for Laparoscopic Subtotal/Supracervical Hysterectomy (LSH)
AU - Bajzak, Krisztina I.
AU - Green, Isabel C.
AU - Jacobs, Volker R.
AU - Johnson, Neil P.
AU - Lieng, Marit
AU - Munro, Malcolm G.
AU - Singh, Sukhbir
AU - Sokol, Eric R.
AU - Abbott, Jason A.
AU - Lyons, Thomas
AU - Zupi, Errico
PY - 2014/1/1
Y1 - 2014/1/1
N2 - The first subtotal abdominal hysterectomy was described by Charles Clay in 1843, and the first laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy (LSH) was described by Semm [1] in 1991. Whether to retain or remove the cervix remains controversial, with surgeons citing sexual satisfaction and prevention of pelvic organ prolapse as indicators for retention [2]. Because the only absolute indication for cervical removal is malignancy or its precursors, debate has continued as to the optimum surgical approach to hysterectomy for other indications. The evidence obtained from evaluating the effects of retaining the cervix, via any surgical approach, on sexual, urinary, and bowel function remains controversial [3-11]. The literature evaluating LSH is limited, and only 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including 342 women, have reported psychologic outcomes, complications, and additional cervical procedures [4,12,13]. For the abdominal equivalent, there are 9 RCTs, including 1553 women, and a Cochrane review reported few important differences between the 2 approaches [8]. No such comparative data are available for LSH. This practice guideline will evaluate the evidence for LSH. This report was developed under the direction of the Practice Committee of the AAGL as a service to their members and other practicing clinicians.
AB - The first subtotal abdominal hysterectomy was described by Charles Clay in 1843, and the first laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy (LSH) was described by Semm [1] in 1991. Whether to retain or remove the cervix remains controversial, with surgeons citing sexual satisfaction and prevention of pelvic organ prolapse as indicators for retention [2]. Because the only absolute indication for cervical removal is malignancy or its precursors, debate has continued as to the optimum surgical approach to hysterectomy for other indications. The evidence obtained from evaluating the effects of retaining the cervix, via any surgical approach, on sexual, urinary, and bowel function remains controversial [3-11]. The literature evaluating LSH is limited, and only 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including 342 women, have reported psychologic outcomes, complications, and additional cervical procedures [4,12,13]. For the abdominal equivalent, there are 9 RCTs, including 1553 women, and a Cochrane review reported few important differences between the 2 approaches [8]. No such comparative data are available for LSH. This practice guideline will evaluate the evidence for LSH. This report was developed under the direction of the Practice Committee of the AAGL as a service to their members and other practicing clinicians.
KW - Cervical amputation
KW - Laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomy
KW - Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy
KW - Pelvic organ prolapse
KW - Total laparoscopic hysterectomy
KW - Uterine corpus
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84891143983&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84891143983&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.08.001
DO - 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.08.001
M3 - Article
C2 - 23954691
AN - SCOPUS:84891143983
SN - 1553-4650
VL - 21
SP - 9
EP - 16
JO - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
JF - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
IS - 1
ER -