DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20214325
Published: 2021-10-27

Uterine volume measurement as a determinant in route of hysterectomy

Dudekula Hanifa, Nandita A. Thakkar, R. Premalatha

Abstract


Background: Objectives of the study were to determine the role of uterine volume rather than uterine length in assessing the route of hysterectomy; to estimate the cut-off of uterine volume for route of hysterectomy; and to correlate uterine volume measured preoperatively by ultrasound with post-operative uterine weight.

Methods: This was a prospective observational study including a total of 101 women who underwent hysterectomies (vaginal, laparascopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH), total laparascopic hysterectomy (TLH), abdominal) in a period of 2 years 2 months from July 2018 to August 2020 in Mehta Multispeciality Hospital, Chetpet, Chennai. Uterine size was measured by clinical examination. Ease of the procedure with various uterine volume and routes of hysterectomy were studied.

Results: 51 (50.49%) underwent vaginal route (including laparascopic hysterectomy), 50 (49.50%) underwent abdominal hysterectomy. Mean uterine volume leading to removal vaginally was 168.09±139.28 cc whereas 309.12±182.47 cc for abdominal hysterectomy (p=0.001) which was statistically significant. vaginal hysterectomy was done without difficulty up to 300 cc. Postoperative complications were less with vaginal hysterectomy compared to abdominal hysterectomy was statistically significant (p=0.0001).Uterine volume measured pre operatively by ultrasound showed positive correlation (r=0.82) with post-operative uterine weight proved that uterine volume measurements was superior to the clinical estimate of uterine size in assessing the route of hysterectomy.

Conclusions: Uterine volume on ultrasonography (USG) can be a good predictor in deciding whether hysterectomy via vaginal route is possible.

 


Keywords


Vaginal hysterectomy, Abdominal hysterectomy, Uterine volume

Full Text:

PDF

References


Casikar I, Mongelli M, Reid S, Condous G. Estimation of uterine volume: A comparison between Viewpoint and 3D ultrasound estimation in women undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy. Australas J Ultrasound Med. 2015;18(1):27-32.

Kovac SR, Cruikshank SH, Patwari A, O’Meara P. 28 Years of Using Hysterectomy Guidelines to Determine the Feasibility of Vaginal Hysterectomy. Gynecol Obstet (Sunnyvale). 2016;6:375.

Sheth SS, Hajari AR, Lulla CP, Kshirsagar D. Sonographic evaluation of uterine volume and its clinical importance. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017;43:185-9.

Kung FT, Chang SY. The relationship between ultrasonic volume and actual weight of pathologic uterus. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1996;42(1):35-8.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Committee Opinion No. 701. Obstet Gynecol. 2017:129:155-9.

Wong FWS, Lim DCE. Factors influencing the choice of hysterectomy approach for the management of fibroid uterus. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2013;2:61-4.

Hwang JL, Seow KM, Tsai YL, Huang LW, Hsieh BC, Lee C. Comparative study of vaginal, laparoscopically assisted vaginal and abdominal hysterectomies for uterine myoma larger than 6 cm in diameter or uterus weighing at least 450 g: a prospective randomized study. Act Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81(12):1132-8.

Seth SS, Shah NM. Preoperative sonographic estimation of uterine volume; an aid to determine the route of Hysterectomy. J Gynecolo Surg. 2002;18(1):13-22.

Kung FT, Chang SY. The relationship between ultrasonic volume and actual weight of pathologic uterus. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1996;42(1):35-8.

Chen B, Ren DP, Li JX, Li CD. Comparison of vaginal and abdominal hysterectomy: A prospective non-randomized trial. Pak J Med Sci. 2014;30(4):875-9.

Mehta K, Prakash O, Fatehpuriya DS, Verma L. Comparative study of abdominal hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy in non-descent cases a prospective study. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6:1265-70.

Balakrishnan D, Dibyajyoti GA. Comparison Between Non-Descent Vaginal Hysterectomy and Total Abdominal Hysterectomy J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(1):11-4.

Chandrakar K, Singh N, Charla S. Comparative study on non-descent vaginal hysterectomy verses abdominal hysterectomy for benign uterine conditions. Int J Med Res Rev. 2016;4(11):2071-6.