Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Print publication year: 2018
  • Online publication date: February 2018

11 - Abdominal Hysterectomy

from Section 2 - Gynecologic Surgery



Each year in the United States, approximately 500,000 hysterectomies are performed. The main indications for hysterectomy are symptomatic uterine leiomyomas (40.7 percent), endometriosis (17.7 percent), and prolapse (14.5 percent). With the advances in skill and technology, this once predominantly abdominal surgery has moved to be much more commonly performed in a minimally invasive fashion. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) recommends performing hysterectomy using the most minimally invasive route possible. The preferred route has always been vaginal hysterectomy; however, with advances in laparoscopic skills and instruments as well as the addition of robotics to the field, many hysterectomies that once needed to be performed abdominally due to size, adhesions, or other complicating factors can now be done without a large abdominal incision. Given the nature of large fibroid uteri and other associated conditions, there are still many women who will continue to need abdominal hysterectomies. The approach to and care of these women will be the scope of this chapter.

Scope of the Problem

It is hard to completely identify the numbers of hysterectomies done minimally invasively versus open given changes in billing codes over time. Recent data looking at trends from 2000 to 2010 on the mode of hysterectomy was published by Magee-Womens Hospital. This report demonstrated a 43.4 percent rate of laparoscopic hysterectomy in 2010 compared to 3.3 percent in 2000, which paralleled a decrease in abdominal hysterectomy from 74.5 percent in 2000 to 36.3 percent in 2010.

There are many implications for these decreasing abdominal hysterectomy numbers, many of them positive in the form of more rapid return to normal activity, decreased length of hospital stay, decreased number of wound infections, and intraoperative blood loss. However, the majority of the decrease in numbers is due to increased laparoscopic cases, which also have associated increased surgical length and higher rates of urinary tract injury. A potentially negative implication of decreased rates of abdominal hysterectomy due to advances in minimally invasive technique and equipment as well as improved medical management options (i.e., progesterone IUD) is the decreased exposure in residency training to gain the skills needed to perform complicated cases. Recent analysis of ACGME resident training numbers showed that while the total number of hysterectomies performed did not decrease significantly between 2002 and 2012, the median number of abdominal hysterectomies decreased from 85 to 56.

1. Whiteman, MK, Hillis, SD, Jamieson, DJ, Morrow, B, Podgornik, MN, Brett, KM et al. Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000–2004. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2008;198(1):34.e1–7.
2. Choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. ACOG Committee Opinion No 444: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstetrics Gynecology. 2009. p. 1156–8.
3. Turner, LC, Shepherd, JP, Wang, L, Bunker, CH, Lowder, JL. Hysterectomy surgery trends: a more accurate depiction of the last decade? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2013;208(4):277.e1–7.
4. Nieboer, TE, Johnson, N, Lethaby, A, Tavender, E, Curr, E, Garry, R et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2009(3):CD003677.
5. Gaba, ND, Polite, FG, Keller, JM, Young, AE. To err is human; to provide safe, quality, and cost-effective hysterectomy is divine! Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2014;57(1):128–39.
6. Hampton, T. Use of morcellation to remove fibroids scrutinized at FDA hearings. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2014;312(6):588.
7. Barron, KI, Richard, T, Robinson, PS, Lamvu, G. Association of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration morcellation warning with rates of minimally invasive hysterectomy and myomectomy. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015;126(6):1174–80.
8. Po, L, Lee, P. The unintended consequences of an FDA warning: the case of power morcellation in fibroid surgery. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2016; 23(4):597–602.
9. Lum, DA, Sokol, ER, Berek, JS, Schulkin, J, Chen, L, McElwain, CA et al. Impact of the 2014 FDA warnings against power morcellation. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2016; 23(4):548–56.
10. Hankinson, SE, Hunter, DJ, Colditz, GA, Willett, WC, Stampfer, MJ, Rosner, B et al. Tubal ligation, hysterectomy, and risk of ovarian cancer. A prospective study. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1993;270(23):2813–8.
11. Salpingectomy for Ovarian Cancer Prevention. Committee Opinion No. 620. American College of Obstetrics and Gyncology. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015(125):279–81.
12. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian, [accessed on January 16, 2016].
13. Parker, WH, Feskanich, D, Broder, MS, Chang, E, Shoupe, D, Farquhar, CM et al. Long-term mortality associated with oophorectomy compared with ovarian conservation in the nurses’ health study. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2013;121(4):709–16.
14. Geerts, WH, Heit, JA, Bergqvist, D, Lassen, MR, Colwell, CW et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest. 2004;126(suppl):338S–400S.
15. Prevention of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 84. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2007;110:429–40.
16. Solutions for surgical preparation of the vagina. Committee Opinion No. 571. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2013(122):718–20.
17. Meeks, GR. Clinical anatomy of incisions. In: Mann, WJ Jr ST, editor. Gynecologic Surgery. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1996. p. 137.
18. Clarke-Pearson, DL, Geller, EJ. Complications of hysterectomy. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2013;121(3):654–73.
19. Boesch, CE UW. Effects of wound closure on wound healing in gynecologic surgery: a systematic literature review. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 2009;54(3):139–44.
20. Chelmow, D RE, Sabatini, MM. Suture closure of subcutaneous fat and wound disruption after cesarean delivery: a meta-analysis, Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2004;103(5):974–80.
21. Basha, SL, Rochon, ML, Quinones, JN, Coassolo, KM, Rust, OA, Smulian, JC. Randomized controlled trial of wound complication rates of subcuticular suture vs staples for skin closure at cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2010;203(3):285.e1–8.
22. Makinen, J, Johansson, J, Tomas, C, Tomas, E, Heinonen, PK, Laatikainen, T et al. Morbidity of 10 110 hysterectomies by type of approach. Human Reproduction. 2001;16(7):1473–8.
23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthcare-associated infections (HAI). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012.
24. Soper, DE BD, Hurt, WG. Bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis vaginitis are risk factors for cuff cellulitis after abdominal hysterectomy. American Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology. 1990;163:1016–21.
25. Aaronson, DS, Wu, AK, Blaschko, SD, McAninch, JW, Garcia, M. National incidence and impact of noninfectious urethral catheter related complications on the Surgical Care Improvement Project. The Journal of Urology. 2011;185(5):1756–60.
26. Gilmour, DT, Dwyer, PL, Carey, MP. Lower urinary tract injury during gynecologic surgery and its detection by intraoperative cystoscopy. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1999;94(5 Pt 2):883–9.