Advertisement
JOGC
Advanced searchSave search
SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline| Volume 32, ISSUE 1, P62-68, January 2010

Download started.

Ok

Supracervical Hysterectomy

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34407-3
Supracervical Hysterectomy
Previous ArticleUse of Umbilical Cord Blood for Stem Cell Research
Next ArticleHystérectomie supracervicale
      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.

      Abstract

      Objective

      This guideline reviews the evidence relating to the potential benefits of the vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and supracervical hysterectomy (SCH) versus total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) with respect to postoperative sexual function, urinary function, and peri- and postoperative complications. Laparoscopic options are not included in this guideline.

      Options

      Women considering hysterectomy for benign disease can be given the option of retaining the cervix or proceeding with a total hysterectomy.

      Outcomes

      The outcomes measured are postoperative sexual function and urinary function, and peri- and postoperative complications.

      Evidence

      The Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase were searched for articles published in English from January 1950 to March 2008 specifically comparing VH and SCH with TAH in the prevention of sexual dysfunction, urinary dysfunction, and peri- and postoperative complications. Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. Additional publications were identified from the bibliographies of these articles. Randomized controlled trials were considered evidence of the highest quality, followed by cohort studies.
      Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology assessment-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies.

      Values

      The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (Table).

      Recommendations

      • 1.
        Vaginal hysterectomy is generally considered the first choice of surgical approach for most benign indications for hysterectomy, as it is associated with lower rates of morbidity, fewer postoperative complications, and a faster recovery time than abdominal hysterectomy. (I-A)
      • 2.
        Women contemplating a vaginal, laparoscopic, or abdominal hysterectomy for the management of benign uterine disease should be reassured that hysterectomy is usually associated with improved quality of life, including improved sexual function, whether or not the cervix is removed. (I-B)
      • 3.
        Supracervical hysterectomy should not be recommended as a superior technique to total abdominal hysterectomy for the prevention of postoperative lower urinary tract symptoms. (I-B)
      • 4.
        Although supracervical hysterectomy may be associated with less blood loss and a shorter surgical time, these parameters have not been found to be clinically significant, and supracervical hysterectomy should not be recommended as a superior technique to total abdominal hysterectomy for the prevention of peri- and postoperative complications. (I-B)
      • 5.
        Women considering a supracervical hysterectomy should be counselled that they may continue experiencing cyclic vaginal bleeding following the surgery. (I-B)
      • 6.
        Women must be advised that they require routine cytological screening following a supracervical hysterectomy. (II-B)
      • 7.
        Women who require a hysterectomy and who have a current or significant history of abnormal cervical cytological results should be counselled on the advantages of vaginal hysterectomy or total abdominal hysterectomy over supracervical hysterectomy. (I-B)

      Key Words

      REFERENCES

        • Gentleman J.F.
        • Parsons G.F.
        • Walsh M.N.
        • Vayda E.
        High and low surgical procedure rates in census divisions across Canada.
        Health Reports. 1994; 6 ([published erratum appears in Health Reports 1995;7(1):64].(Statistics Canada Cat 82–003)): 403-440

      2. Statistics Canada, Hospital Morbidity File, 1981/82; Canadian Institute for Health Information, 1996/97.

        • Ottosen C.
        • Lingman G.
        • Ottosen L.
        Three methods for hysterectomy: a randomized, prospective study of short term outcome.
        BJOG. 2000; 107: 1380-1385
        • Lefebvre G.
        • Allaire C.
        • Jeffrey J.
        • Vilos G.
        SOGC Clinical Practice Gynaecology Committee. Clinical practice guidelines for hysterectomy. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline No. 109, January 2002.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2002; 24: 37-48
        • Brown A.D.
        • Magistretti A.I.
        • Ferris L.
        • Steward D.E.
        Hospital Report 2001: Preliminary study.
        Exploring women’s health. 2001; 2
        • Cohen M.M.
        • Young W.
        Costs of hysterectomy: does surgical approach make a difference?.
        J Womens Health. 1998; 7 (Sep): 885-892
        • Kilkku P.
        • Grönroos M.
        • Hirvonen T.
        • Rauramo L.
        Supravaginal uterine amputation vs. hysterectomy. Effects on libido and orgasm.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1983; 62: 147-152
        • Vervest H.A.
        • Kiewiet de Jonge M.
        • Vervest T.M.
        • Barents J.W.
        • Haspels A.A.
        Micturition symptoms and urinary incontinence after non-radical hysterectomy.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1988; 67: 141-146
        • Sills E.S.
        • Saini J.
        • Steiner C.A.
        • McGee 3rd, M.
        • Gretz 3rd., H.F.
        Abdominal hysterectomy practice patterns in the United States.
        Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1998; 63 (Dec): 277-283
        • Kuppermann M.
        • Summitt Jr., R.L.
        • Varner R.E.
        • McNeeley S.G.
        • Goodman-Gruen D.
        • Learman L.A.
        • et al.
        Total or Supracervical Hysterectomy Research Group. Sexual functioning after total compared with supracervical hysterectomy: a randomized trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105 (Jun): 1309-1318
        • Thakar R.
        • Ayers S.
        • Georgakapolou A.
        • Clarkson P.
        • Stanton S.
        • Manyonda I.
        Hysterectomy improves quality of life and decreases psychiatric symptoms: a prospective and randomised comparison of total versus subtotal hysterectomy.
        BJOG. 2004; 111 (Oct): 1115-1120
        • Flory N.
        • Bissonnette F.
        • Amsel R.T.
        • Binik Y.M.
        The psychosocial outcomes of total and subtotal hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial.
        J Sex Med. 2006; 3 (May): 483-491
        • Zobbe V.
        • Gimbel H.
        • Andersen B.M.
        • Filtenborg T.
        • Jakobsen K.
        • Sørensen H.C.
        • et al.
        Sexuality after total vs. subtotal hysterectomy.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004; 83 (Feb): 191-196
        • Lalos O.
        • Bjerle P.
        Bladder wall mechanics and micturition before and after subtotal and total hysterectomy.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1986; 21 (Mar): 143-150
        • Gimbel H.
        • Zobbe V.
        • Andersen B.J.
        • Sørensen H.C.
        • Toftager-Larsen K.
        • Sidenius K.
        • et al.
        Lower urinary tract symptoms after total and subtotal hysterectomy: results of a randomized controlled trial.
        Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005; 16 (Jul-Aug): 257-266
        • Thakar R.
        • Ayers S.
        • Clarkson P.
        • Stanton S.
        • Manyonda I.
        Outcomes after total versus subtotal abdominal hysterectomy.
        N Engl J Med. 2002; 347 (Oct 24): 1318-1325
        • Learman L.A.
        • Summitt Jr., R.L.
        • Varner R.E.
        • McNeeley S.G.
        • Goodman-Gruen D.
        • Richter H.E.
        • et al.
        • Total or Supracervical Hysterectomy (TOSH) Research Group
        A randomized comparison of total or supracervical hysterectomy: surgical complications and clinical outcomes.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 102 (Sep): 453-462
        • Gimbel H.
        • Zobbe V.
        • Andersen B.M.
        • Filtenborg T.
        • Gluud C.
        • Tabor A.
        Randomised controlled trial of total compared with subtotal hysterectomy with one-year follow up results.
        BJOG. 2003; 110 (Dec): 1088-1098
        • Storm H.H.
        • Clemmensen I.H.
        • Manders T.
        • Brinton L.A.
        Supravaginal uterine amputation in Denmark 1978–1988 and risk of cancer.
        Gynecol Oncol. 1992; 45 (May): 198-201
        • Oats J.J.
        Carcinoma of the cervical stump.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1976; 83 (Nov): 896-899
        • Eaker E.D.
        • Vierkant R.A.
        • Konitzer K.A.
        • Remington P.L.
        Cervical cancer screening among women with and without hysterectomies.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 91 (Apr): 551-555
        • Hannoun-Lévi J.M.
        • Peiffert D.
        • Hoffstetter S.
        • Luporsi E.
        • Bey P.
        • Pernot M.
        Carcinoma of the cervical stump: retrospective analysis of 77 cases.
        Radiother Oncol. 1997; 43 (May): 147-153
        • van der Stege J.G.
        • van Beek J.J.
        Problems related to the cervical stump at follow-up in laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy.
        JSLS. 1999; 3 (Jan-Mar): 5-7
        • Showstack J.
        • Kuppermann M.
        • Lin F.
        • Vittinghoff E.
        • Varner R.E.
        • Summitt Jr., R.L.
        • et al.
        Resource use for total and supracervical hysterectomies: results of a randomized trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103 (May): 834-841
      25. ACOG Committee Opinion No.388 November 2007: supracervical hysterectomy.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110 (Nov): 1215-1217
        • Woolf S.H.
        • Battista R.N.
        • Angerson G.M.
        • Logan A.G.
        • Eel W.
        Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. New grades for recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.
        CMAJ. 2003; 169: 207-208

      Article info

      Footnotes

      This guideline has been reviewed by the Clinical Practice Gynaecology Committee and approved by the Executive and Council of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada.

      Disclosure statements have been received from all members of the committee.

      This document reflects emerging clinical and scientific advances on the date issued and is subject to change. The information should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed. Local institutions can dictate amendments to these opinions. They should be well documented if modified at the local level. None of these contents may be reproduced in any form without prior written permission of the SOGC.

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34407-3

      Copyright

      © 2010 Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect
      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the for this site.
      Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties. The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      RELX