Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
The aim of this study was to evaluate the postoperative course after different methods of hysterectomy for benign diseases with special emphasis on time to recovery and patient-centred aspects such as postoperative quality of life and satisfaction.
Methods
A collective of 242 women who had undergone vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) or total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) for various benign conditions was studied in this retrospective investigation. Patients completed a standardised questionnaire addressing quality of life, recovery and sick leave as well as general questions on their postoperative course after hysterectomy.
Results
A total of 242 cases were analysed (82 VH, 92 LASH and 68 TLH). The data demonstrate significant differences in regard to age between groups. The present study shows shorter hospitalisation with laparoscopy, with LASH patients returning to work at least one week earlier on average. There were no relevant differences in the overall postoperative course during the index hospital stay. In the long run, laparoscopic patients were not more satisfied with their choice than VH patients.
Conclusion
No significant long-term differences could be observed in terms of quality of life and overall postoperative satisfaction between VH and LH groups. In regard to socioeconomic aspects, laparoscopic approaches were associated with shorter hospitalisation and LASH patients returning to work at least one week earlier on average. Contrary to these data on objective recovery; however, a laparoscopic approach did not lead to patient-perceived, i.e. subjective improvement of time to full recovery.
Funder
Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim der Universität Heidelberg
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Obstetrics and Gynecology,General Medicine
Reference32 articles.
1. Prutz F, Knopf H, von der Lippe E, Scheidt-Nave C, Starker A, Fuchs J (2013) Prevalence of hysterectomy in women 18 to 79 years old: results of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1). Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 56(5–6):716–722
2. Stang A, Merrill RM, Kuss O (2011) Hysterectomy in Germany: a DRG-based nationwide analysis, 2005–2006. Dtsch Arztebl Int 108(30):508–514
3. Aarts JW, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Tavender E, Garry R, Mol BW, Kluivers KB (2015) Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8:CD003677
4. Stang A, Merrill RM, Kuss O (2011) Nationwide rates of conversion from laparoscopic or vaginal hysterectomy to open abdominal hysterectomy in Germany. Eur J Epidemiol 26(2):125–133
5. Muller A, Thiel FC, Renner SP, Winkler M, Haberle L, Beckmann MW (2010) Hysterectomy-a comparison of approaches. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107(20):353–359