Abstract
Objective
NDVH is a minimally invasive, safe, effective, and economical surgery. Still AH is preferred for benign gynaecological indications. Our study aims to promote NDVH in all technically possible cases by adequate counselling of the patient.
Methods
This prospective observational study enrolled 100 women seeking hysterectomy for benign gynaecological conditions (excluding prolapse) in a teaching hospital. Women were counselled on the basis of ‘PREPARED’ questionnaire to assess their awareness about NDVH and were offered NDVH as the proposed surgery and result is analysed.
Results
We observed that there was a little awareness about NDVH and its outcome among the subjects. Ten out of 100 patients refused to perform NDVH after counselling and underwent TAH. Rest of the 90 patients opted for NDVH. Forty out of 90 patients were aware about NDVH, but they were sceptical about the outcome, and 50 were totally unaware. After applying ‘PREPARED’ questionnaire and counselling, we could motivate them to accept NDVH. It was successful in all cases except one where laparotomy was done for ovarian artery retraction. With no significant post-operative complications, early return to routine activity and low cost of surgery, all patients were satisfied with surgical outcome and improved quality of life.
Conclusion
We conclude that patients accept the surgery with open mind after proper counselling and detailing of the procedure. Most of the abdominal hysterectomy can be converted successfully to NDVH in technically feasible cases by experienced hands so adequate training to gynaecology residents is the need of the time. NDVH is economical to the patient as well as for the healthcare system.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kovac SR, Barhan S, Lister M, et al. Guidelines for the selection of the route of hysterectomy: application in a resident clinic population. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:1521–7.
Kovac SR. Hysterectomy outcomes in patients with similar indications. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:787–93.
Maresh MJ, Metcalf MA, McPherson K, et al. The VALUE national hysterectomy study: description of the patient and their surgery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;109:302–12.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(5):1156–8.
Sheth SS. Vaginal or abdominal hysterectomy? In: Sheth SS, editor. Vaginal hysterectomy. 2nd ed. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd: New Delhi, India; 2014. p. 273–93.
Moen MD, Richter HE. Vaginal hysterectomy: past, present, and future. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1161–5.
Garry R. Health economics of hysterectomy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;19:451–65.
Barton-Smith P. Clinical practice: Modernizing hysterectomy surgery—is robotics the answer? RCOG Membersh Matters. 2011;1(1):14–5.
Dicker RC, Greenspan JR, Strauss LT, et al. Complications of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy among women of reproductive age in the United States. The Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;144:841–8.
Ray A, Pant L, Magon N. Deciding the route for hysterectomy: Indian triage system. JOGI. 2015;65(1):39–44.
Ransom SB, McNeeley SG, Malone JM Jr. A cost-effectiveness evaluation of preoperative type-and-screen testing for vaginal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(5):1201–3.
Sharma C, Sharma M, Raina R, et al. Gynecological diseases in rural India: a critical appraisal of indications and route of surgery along with histopathology correlation of 922 women undergoing major gynecological surgery. J Midlife Health. 2014;5(2):55–61.
Singh A (2007) Profile of hysterectomy cases in rural North India. Internet J Gynecol Obstet 7(1).
Callen M, Lettenmaier C, Green CP. Counselling makes a difference. In: Population Reports, Series J. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins School of public health, Publication Information Programme 2001 No. 1.
Dayaratna S, Goldberg J, Harrington C, et al. Hospital costs of total vaginal hysterectomy compared with other minimally invasive hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:120.e1–6.
Dorsey JH, Holtz PM, Griffiths RI. Cost and changes associated with three alternative techniques of hysterectomy. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:476–82.
Rogo-Gupta LJ, Lewin SN, Kim JH, et al. The effect of surgeon volume on outcomes and resource use for vaginal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1341–7.
Tohic AL, Dhainaut C, Yazbeck C, et al. Hysterectomy for benign uterine pathology among women without previous vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(4):829–37.
Agostine A, Bretelle F, Cravello L, et al. Vaginal hysterectomy in nulliparous women without prolapse: a prospective comparative study. Int J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;110:515–8.
Sheth SS, Malpani AN. Vaginal hysterectomy following previous caesarean section. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1995;50:165–9.
Khung TTG. An approach to Vesico uterine peritoneum through a new surgical space for vaginal hysterectomy in a patient with history of caesarean section. Malays J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;4:39–42.
Sheth SS. The scope of vaginal hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;115:224–30.
Garg PK, Deka D, Malhotra N. Non descent vaginal hysterectomy for benign condition. A better proposition than abdominal hysterectomy. Obs and Gynae Today. 2002;6:345–6.
Penketh R, Griffiths A, Chawath S. A prospective observational study of the safety and acceptability of vaginal hysterectomy performed in a 24-hour day case surgery setting. BJOG. 2007;114(4):430–6.
Silva Filho AL, Andrade R, de Magalhaes RS, et al. Abdominal vs vaginal hysterectomy: a comparative study of the postoperative quality of life and satisfaction. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2006;274(1):21–4.
Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;8(3):CD003677.
Zakaria MA, Levy BS. Outpatient vaginal hysterectomy: optimizing perioperative management for same-day discharge. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1355–61.
Ocheke AN, Ekwempu CC, Musa J. Underutilization of vaginal hysterectomy and its impact on residency training. West Afr J Med. 2009;28(5):323–6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors of the article Sapna B. Jain and Kshma D. Chandrakar declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human Rights and Ethical Statements
All procedures followed were in compliance with the ethical requirements of this journal.
Informed Consent
Written informed consent was taken from the subjects.
Additional information
Sapna B. Jain, M.D. (OBG) is an Assistant Professor in Department of OBG at L.N. Medical College and J.K. Hospital; Kshma D. Chandrakar, D.N.B. (OBG), Senior Resident in Department of OBG at L.N. Medical College and J.K. Hospital.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jain, S.B., Chandrakar, K.D. Non-decent Vaginal Hysterectomy in Rural Setup of MP: A Poor Acceptance. J Obstet Gynecol India 66 (Suppl 1), 499–504 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-016-0858-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-016-0858-2