Laparoscopic Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy

Introduction: Hysterectomy is the commonest gynecologic operation, performed for malignant and benign conditions. There are many approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease. Studies comparing the techniques have showed that vaginal hysterectomy has benefits in terms of reduced hospital stay, faster recovery and less operating time. Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the surgical and immediate postoperative outcomes of Laparoscopic Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVH) with those of Vaginal Hysterectomy (VH). Methods: Retrospective descriptive study, comparing two groups of women who underwent LAVH or VH in our department during a 24 months period, from January 2009 to December 2010. The two groups were compared regarding age, vaginal deliveries, previous abdominal surgery, uterine and adnexal pathology, intra-operative and post-operative complications, uterus weight, blood loss and number of days until discharge. Results: In our study 42 LAVH and 99 VH were included, with a patient mean age of 47 and 59, respectively. The most frequent indication for hysterectomy was fibroids (80%) for LAVH and POP(58.6%) for HV. In LAVH group 47.6% of patients had previous abdominal surgery, vs 28.2% in VH group. The medium operative time was 167 minutes for LAVH vs 99 minutes for HV. The intra-operative complications were one case (2%) of accidental incision of rectum in LAVH, and one bladder incision in the VH (1%). There were 3 conversions to laparotomy for difficult technique (7%) in LAVH group. There were no significant post-operative complications for LAVH. In VH group there were 2 cases of haemoperitoneum (2%) and 1 case requiring blood transfusion (1%). The mean time for discharge was 4.23 days for LAVH and 4.46 days for VH. Conclusions: In our study, the main advantage for VH was the reduced operative time. In terms of time to discharge there was no difference between the 2 groups. The main intra-operative complication of LAVH was the risk of conversion to laparotomy, but post-operatively this procedure had fewer complications than VH. In conclusion, LAVH is a safe option for women requiring hysterectomy in cases where VH is anticipated to be technically difficult.

Clinical Outcome and Morphologic Determinants of Mural Thrombus in Abdominal Aortic Endografts

OBJECTIVE:Endograft mural thrombus has been associated with stent graft or limb thrombosis after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). This study aimed to identify clinical and morphologic determinants of endograft mural thrombus accumulation and its influence on thromboembolic events after EVAR. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of patients treated by EVAR at a tertiary institution from 2000 to 2012 was analyzed. Patients treated for degenerative infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms and with available imaging for thrombus analysis were considered. All measurements were performed on three-dimensional center-lumen line computed tomography angiography (CTA) reconstructions. Patients with thrombus accumulation within the endograft's main body with a thickness >2 mm and an extension >25% of the main body's circumference were included in the study group and compared with a control group that included all remaining patients. Clinical and morphologic variables were assessed for association with significant thrombus accumulation within the endograft's main body by multivariate regression analysis. Estimates for freedom from thromboembolic events were obtained by Kaplan-Meier plots. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (16.4%) presented with endograft mural thrombus. Median follow-up time was 3.54 years (interquartile range, 1.99-5.47 years). In-graft mural thrombus was identified on 30-day CTA in 22 patients (32.4% of the study group), on 6-month CTA in 8 patients (11.8%), and on 1-year CTA in 17 patients (25%). Intraprosthetic thrombus progressively accumulated during the study period in 40 patients of the study group (55.8%). Overall, 17 patients (4.1%) presented with endograft or limb occlusions, 3 (4.4%) in the thrombus group and 14 (4.1%) in the control group (P = .89). Thirty-one patients (7.5%) received an aortouni-iliac (AUI) endograft. Two endograft occlusions were identified among AUI devices (6.5%; overall, 0.5%). None of these patients showed thrombotic deposits in the main body, nor were any outflow abnormalities identified on the immediately preceding CTA. Estimated freedom from thromboembolic events at 5 years was 95% in both groups (P = .97). Endograft thrombus accumulation was associated with >25% proximal aneurysm neck thrombus coverage at baseline (odds ratio [OR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.3), neck length ≤ 15 mm (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.3-4.2), proximal neck diameter ≥ 30 mm (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.3-4.6), AUI (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.8-5.5), or polyester-covered stent grafts (OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.2-7.3) and with main component "barrel-like" configuration (OR, 6.9; 95% CI, 1.7-28.3). CONCLUSIONS: Mural thrombus formation within the main body of the endograft is related to different endograft configurations, main body geometry, and device fabric but appears to have no association with the occurrence of thromboembolic events over time.