medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2025, Number 8

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2025; 93 (8)

Current overview of gynecological hysterectomy for benign pathology in a public hospital

López EL, Delgado OMA, Guzmán AMA, Orozco CR, Pérez RÓ, Orozco I

Language: Spanish
References: 34
Page: 314-323
PDF size: 201.22 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: Analyze the landscape of gynecological hysterectomies for benign conditions in a public hospital.
Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective, descriptive, observational, cross-sectional study of patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign conditions at the Women's Hospital in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2023. Records were provided by the clinical archive, and data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet. The study variables were clinical and sociodemo- graphic information, surgical indications, surgical time, intraoperative bleeding, length of hospital stay, and complications. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed, including calculation of measures of central tendency, frequencies, and percentages for qualitative variables and mean and standard deviation for quantitative variables. The information was processed using SPSS software.
Results: Of the 345 files reviewed, 295 corresponded to hysterectomies indicated for benign pathology. A total of 231 (66.96%) were abdominal hysterectomies, 23 (6.67%) were laparoscopic hysterectomies, and 41 (11.88%) were vaginal hysterectomies. Intraoperative complications occurred in 3.05% of cases, with a higher incidence in the abdominal approach (68.18%). Abdominal hysterectomy was associated with higher rates of infection and postoperative pain. Laparoscopic and vaginal techniques had lower compliction rats and faster recovery times.
Conclusions: Laparoscopy and the vaginal approach were the safest and most effective techniques with the lowest risk of complications. However, abdominal hysterectomy remains the most commonly performed procedure, highlighting the need to promote less invasive techniques to improve outcomes and reduce hospital costs.


REFERENCES

  1. Schlitt NJF, Gómez CR. Vías de abordaje quirúrgico dela histerectomía en el tratamiento de la enfermedadbenigna del útero en el Hospital Ángeles Pedregal.Acta Méd Grupo Áng 2019; 17 (3). http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1870-72032019000300218&lng=es&tlng=

  2. Gorina Y, Elgaddal N, Weeks JD. Hysterectomy amongwomen age 18 and older: United States, 2021. NCHSData Brief 2024; (494). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db494.pdf

  3. Aurioles-Quintana LD, Pedraza-González LA, López-JuradoJC, et al. Tendencias de la histerectomía y riesgo de complicaciones. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2024; 92 (7): 295-302.https://doi.org/10.24245/gom.v92i7.9794

  4. Yang J, Fan X, Gao J, et al. Análisis de la relación costeeficacia de la histerectomía laparoscópica total frente a lahisterectomía abdominal total para los fibromas uterinosen el oeste de China: una perspectiva social. BMC HealthServ Res 2022; 22: 252. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07644-9

  5. Aarts JWM, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (8): CD003677. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5

  6. Gallardo-Martínez J, Brenner-Anidjar RD, Palomo-Rodríguez MF, Pantoja-Garrido M. ¿Cómo decidir el abordajemás adecuado para realizar una histerectomía por patología benigna? Revisión bibliográfica. Rev Chil ObstetGinecol 2022; 87 (6): 396-403. https://doi.org/10.24875/rechog.22000014

  7. Pickett CM, Seeratan DD, Mol BWJ, et al. Surgical approachto hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; (8): CD003677. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub6

  8. Lenfant L, Canlorbe G, Belghiti J, et al. Robotic-assistedbenign hysterectomy compared with laparoscopic, vaginal,and open surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JRobot Surg 2023; 17 (6): 2647-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01724-6

  9. Chinolla-Arellano ZL, Bañuelos-Rodríguez JL, MartínezSevilla V, García-Bello JA. Complicaciones de la histerectomía total laparoscópica en pacientes de un hospital dealta especialidad. Cir Cir 2021; 89 (3): 347-53. https://doi.org/10.24875/CIRU.20000374

  10. Brun JL, Chauvin G, Griton M, et al. Histerectomía porvía abdominal por lesiones benignas. EMC Ginecol Obstet. 2022;58(2):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1283-081x(22)46466-6

  11. Björkström LM, Wodlin NB, Nilsson L, Kjølhede P. Theimpact of preoperative assessment and planning on theoutcome of benign hysterectomy: A systematic review.Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2021; 81 (2): 200-13. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1263-0811

  12. Gallardo-Martínez J, Brenner-Anidjar RD, Palomo-RodríguezMF, Pantoja-Garrido M. ¿Cómo decidir el abordaje másadecuado para realizar una histerectomía por patología benigna? Revisión bibliográfica. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol 2022;87 (6): 396-403. https://doi.org/10.24875/rechog.22000014

  13. Singh SK, Chauhan K, Tripathi V. Key drivers of hysterectomy among women of reproductive age in three statesin India: Comparative evidence from NFHS-4 and NFHS5. BMC Women’s Health 2024; 24 (1): 107. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-02886-7

  14. Buderath P, Kimmig R, Dominowski L, et al. Hysterectomyin bening conditions: a 20-year single-center retrospectiveon the development of surgical techniques. Arch GynecolObstet 2023; 307 (3): 807-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06821-9

  15. González R. La histerectomía laparoscópica: Un abordaje necesario. Prog Obstet Ginecol 2008; 51 (9): 409-14.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-5013(08)76302-7

  16. Vargas Sánchez L, Vargas M. Complicaciones intra y posoperatorias de las histerectomías laparoscópicas, abdominales yvaginales en mujeres adultas. MQR Investigar 2023; 7 (2): 45-52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373402727

  17. Gebhart JB. Route of hysterectomy for beningn indications. J Gynecol Surg 2021; 37 (2): 98-100. https://doi.org/10.1089/gyn.2021.0015

  18. Agarwal M, Sinha S, Singh S, et al. Surgical morbidity oflaparoscopic hysterectomy vs abdominal hysterectomy: Aretrospective overview. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther 2023;12 (3): 161-5. https://doi.org/10.4103/gmit.gmit_30_23

  19. Leyva-Vázquez FY, García-Rodríguez ME. Histerectomíavaginal convencional y vaginal asistida por laparoscopia enpacientes sin prolapso uterino. Rev Arch Med Camagüey

  20. 2021; 25 (3). http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1025-0255202100030000420. Machado Bernal JA, Lozada Ríos A, Gómez Castro AR. Subtotal vaginal hysterectomy with cervical ring preservationand cervical stump suspension to the sacrospinous ligament in women with pelvic organ prolapse: An exposedcohort study. Rev Colomb Obstet Ginecol 2024; 75 (3):4219. https://doi.org/10.18597/rcog.4219

  21. NRS, Rao BD, Zubair SM. Analyzing the short term and longterm complication of hysterectomy: A prospective study.Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2021; 10 (4): 1478-83. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20211124

  22. Ashraf M, Zahid L, Ahmad F, et al. Intra-operative andpost-operative common complications of hysterectomy.Pak J Med Health Sci 2023; 16 (11): 371. https://doi.org/10.53350/pjmhs20221611371

  23. Espinoza-Balseca LK, Loor-Valenzuela FJ, Carvajal-CañarteKA, Parra-Conforme WG. Factores asociados a incidencia decomplicaciones transoperatorias y postoperatorias en pacientes histerectomizadas por patología benigna. Dominio Cienc2021; 7 (4): 1163-78. https://doi.org/10.23857/dc.v7i4.2472

  24. Gracia Segovia M, Coronado Martín PJ, Herraiz MA. Cirugíaginecológica en la paciente obesa. Clin Investig GinecolObstet 2021; 48 (1): 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gine.2020.03.004

  25. Vázquez-Rodríguez JG, Ángel-García G del, Santos Hernández OC. Complicaciones de la cirugía ginecológica enpacientes mayores de 60 años. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2021;89 (7): 540-48. https://doi.org/10.24245/gom.v89i7.4473

  26. Monterrosa-Castro A, Castilla-Casalins A, Rincón-Teller D.Histerectomía abdominal y deterioro de la función físicaen mujeres adultas mayores colombianas. Ginecol ObstetMex 2024; 92 (3): 114-26. https://doi.org/10.24245/gom.v92i3.9346

  27. Morales Fiol M, Usandizaga Calparsoro M. Histerectomíapor mioma: ¿un asunto de anemia y tamaño uterino?Prog Obstet Ginecol 2015; 58 (7): 301-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pog.2015.02.010

  28. Wesevich V, Webster EM, Baxley SE. Overcoming challenges in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. GynecolPelvic Med 2020; 3: 35. https://doi.org/10.21037/gpm2020-pfd-01

  29. Yang Q, Ciebiera M, Bariani MV, et al. Comprehensivereview of uterine fibroids: Developmental origin, pathogenesis, and treatment. Endocr Rev 2022; 43 (4): 678-719.https://doi.org/10.1210/endrev/bnab039

  30. Giuliani E, As-Sanie S, Marsh EE. Epidemiology and management of uterine fibroids. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2020; 149(1): 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13102

  31. Balaya V, Guani B, Leblanc E, et al. Técnicas quirúrgicasdel tratamiento del cáncer del cuello uterino por víalaparoscópica-vaginal. EMC Cir Gen 2024; 24 (1): 1-21.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1634-7080(24)49040-X

  32. Romero-Matas M, Pantoja-Garrido M, Frías-Sánchez Z, etal. Neoplasia cervical intraepitelial tipo III poshisterectomíasupracervical laparoscópica: Ventajas e inconvenientes dela conservación del cuello uterino en pacientes histerectomizadas. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2020; 88 (3): 187-93. https://doi.org/10.24245/gom.v88i3.3511

  33. Clair KH, Tewari KS. Robotic surgery for gynecologiccancers: Indications, techniques, and controversies. JObstet Gynaecol Res 2020; 46 (6): 828-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.14228

  34. Arslan S, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K, Parviainen A. How doesrobotic surgery affect gynecology patient care? J RobotSurg 2024; 18 (1): 256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-01955-1




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com