Is vaginal hysterectomy outdated? A systematic overview of reviews with future perspectives
- PMID: 40345622
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2025.102968
Is vaginal hysterectomy outdated? A systematic overview of reviews with future perspectives
Abstract
Background: Hysterectomy is the second most common surgical procedure in women. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) historically represents the preferred approach for benign conditions due to its minimally invasive nature. However, with advances in endoscopic techniques, the role of VH has been questioned. This review aims to systematically summarize existing evidence coming from currently available systematic reviews and meta-analyses which compare VH with other techniques such as laparotomy, laparoscopy and robotics.
Methods: We systematically searched Pubmed, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane library from 1st January 1996 to 31st July 2024. We conducted a systematic overview of reviews to compare VH with abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic hysterectomy, focusing on procedural parameters, complications and patient outcomes. The quality of evidence and certainty of findings were critically assessed.
Results: Our findings suggest that VH has shorter operative time compared to all the other approaches. Compared to laparotomy, VH is associated with reduced time from hospital admission to recovery. No differences were found concerning intra- and post-operative complications demonstrating VH as a safe superimposable technique. The quality of the evidence ranged from critical to moderate, with high heterogeneity among the studies, requiring cautious interpretation.
Conclusion: VH offers reduced operating times and faster recovery in comparison to alternative techniques, with comparable complication rates. These data support the clinical relevance of VH as a valuable option for benign gynecological conditions. However, a nuanced comparison with alternative and innovative techniques are essential for personalized surgical decisions and a potential renaissance of this approach.
Keywords: Gynaecologic surgery; Notes; Overview of reviews; State-of-the-art; Vaginal hysterectomy; Vaginal surgery.
Copyright © 2025. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Similar articles
-
The impact of obesity on vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopically-assisted vaginal hysterectomy outcomes: A randomised control trial.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023 Aug;287:227-231. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.06.001. Epub 2023 Jun 5. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023. PMID: 37390756 Clinical Trial.
-
A randomized control trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopically-assisted vaginal hysterectomy in the absence of uterine prolapse in a South African tertiary institution.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021 Dec;267:73-78. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.10.018. Epub 2021 Oct 22. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021. PMID: 34731640 Clinical Trial.
-
Randomized comparison of total laparoscopic, laparoscopically assisted vaginal and vaginal hysterectomies for myomatous uteri.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014 Sep;290(3):485-91. doi: 10.1007/s00404-014-3228-2. Epub 2014 Apr 8. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014. PMID: 24710800 Clinical Trial.
-
Hysterectomy Using Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery Compared with Classic Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A New Advantageous Approach? A Systematic Review on Surgical Outcomes.Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2023;88(4):187-196. doi: 10.1159/000530797. Epub 2023 May 3. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2023. PMID: 37231836
-
Comparison of vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopic hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC Womens Health. 2019 Jun 24;19(1):83. doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0784-4. BMC Womens Health. 2019. PMID: 31234852 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Prophylactic and Therapeutic Usage of Drains in Gynecologic Oncology Procedures: A Comprehensive Review.J Pers Med. 2025 Jun 16;15(6):254. doi: 10.3390/jpm15060254. J Pers Med. 2025. PMID: 40559116 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources