Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-bkbbk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-09T00:11:37.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 15 - Hysterectomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2025

Camran R. Nezhat
Affiliation:
Stanford University School of Medicine, California
Farr R. Nezhat
Affiliation:
Nezhat Surgery for Gynecology/Oncology, New York
Ceana Nezhat
Affiliation:
Nezhat Medical Center, Atlanta
Nisha Lakhi
Affiliation:
Richmond University Medical Center, New York
Azadeh Nezhat
Affiliation:
Nezhat Institute and Center for Special Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, California
Get access

Summary

Hysterectomy continues to be the most common gynecologic surgery in the US, as an estimated 600000 women undergo hysterectomy for benign indications each year. For women who require hysterectomy, the appropriate route of surgery is determined by anatomic considerations, the type of pathologic condition expected, patient preference, and physician experience and training. Since the first laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed by Reich in 1988, laparoscopic hysterectomy has emerged as an alternative to the traditional abdominal or vaginal hysterectomy.[1] In 1990, Nezhat et al. described the first laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with the GIA multifire stapler.[2] Minimally invasive approaches to hysterectomy have gained favor over the traditional abdominal approach because of their various benefits, which include decreased blood loss, less adhesion formation, fewer complications, shorter hospital stay, faster recovery, and improved cosmesis. Even some of the earliest studies regarding laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy have shown favorable outcomes when compared to an abdominal approach.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Nezhat's Textbook of Minimally Invasive Surgery
Including Hysteroscopy, Vaginoscopy and Robotic-Assisted Procedures
, pp. 428 - 459
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References

Reich, H. New techniques in advanced laparoscopic surgery. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1989;3(3):655681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, C, Nezhat, F, Silfen, SL. Laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy using multifile GIA surgical stapler. J Gynecol Surg 1990;6(4):287288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nezhat, F, Nezhat, CH, Admon, D, Gordon, S, Nezhat, C. Complications and results of 361 hysterectomies performed at laparoscopy. J Am Coll Surg 1995;180(3):307316.Google ScholarPubMed
Summitt, RL, Stovall, TG, Steege, JF, Lipscomb, GH. A multicenter randomized comparison of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy in abdominal hysterectomy candidates. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92(3):321326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, F, Nezhat, C, Gordon, S, Wilkins, E. Laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy. J Reprod Med 1992;37(3):247250.Google ScholarPubMed
Garry, R, Reich, H, Liu, CY. Laparoscopic hysterectomy: definitions and indications. Gynaecol Endosc 1994;3:13.Google Scholar
Reich, H, Roberts, L. Laparoscopic hysterectomy in current gynecological practice. Rev Gynaecol Pract 2003;3(1):3240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, H, McGlynn, F, Sekel, L. Total laparoscopy hysterectomy. Gynaecol Endosc 1993;2:5963.Google Scholar
Reich, H. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. In Surgical Laparoscopy and Endoscopy. New York: Raven Press; 1992: 8588.Google Scholar
Reich, H. Laparoscopic oophorectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy in the treatment of benign tubo-ovarian disease. Int J Fertil 1987;32(3):233236.Google ScholarPubMed
Reich, H, DJ, MF. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Gynecol Surg 1989;5:213216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nezhat, CH, Nezhat, F, Roemisch, M, Seidman, DS, Nezhat, C. Laparoscopic trachelectomy for persistent pelvic pain and endometriosis after supracervical hysterectomy. Fertil Steril 1996;66(6):925928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Visco, AG, Advincula, AP. Robotic gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112(6):13691384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz, ADE. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy. In Gharagozloo, F, Najam, F, eds. The Textbook of Robotic Surgery, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2008.Google Scholar
Nezhat, C, Lavie, O, Lemyre, M, et al. Laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without a robot: Stanford experience. JSLS 2009;13(2):125128.Google ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, C, Nezhat, F, Nezhat, C, Admon, D, Alex Nezhat, A. Proposed classification of hysterectomies involving laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1995;2(4):427429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alkatout, İ, Mettler, L. Hysterectomy a comprehensive surgical approach. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2017;18(4):221223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mettler, L, Nikam, YA. A comparative survey of various uterine manipulators used in operative laparoscopy. Gynecol Surg 2006;3:239243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karl Storz GmbH & Co. [Internet]. www.karlstorz.comGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, JA. HOHL Uterine Manipulator. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2011;4(1):PMC3103192.Google Scholar
Laborie Medical Technologies Corp. ClearView Uterine Manipulator.www.laborie.com/blog/product/clearview-uterine-manipulator/.Google Scholar
Clinical Innovations, LLC.c2016. www.clinicalinnovations.com.Google Scholar
Yanazume, S, Yanazume, Y, Iwamoto, I, et al. Severe leg compartment syndrome associated with dorsal lithotomy position during radical hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2006;32(6):610612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper Surgical, Connecticut. Cooper Surgical Inc. www.coopersurgical.com.Google Scholar
CooperSurgical Inc. RUMI® II System with Koh-Efficient Technology. www.coopersurgical.com/detail/rumi-ii-system-with-koh-efficient-technology/.Google Scholar
Balmer Médical SA. Uterine Manipulator of Hourcabie. www.balmermedical.ch/gynecology/uterine-manipulator/53-hystero-swing.Google Scholar
CONMED Corporation. ©2018. www.CONMED.comGoogle Scholar
Hegde, C v. Mangeshikar Uterine Manipulator. J Obstet Gynecol India 2016;66:134136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 104: Antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113(5):11801189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwiche, F, Swain, S, Kallingal, G, et al. Operative technique and early experience for robotic-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (RALNU) using da Vinci Xi. SpringerPlus 2015;4(1):298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gargiulo, AR. The role of robotics in reproductive surgery. In Reproductive Surgery: The Society of Reproductive Surgeons Manual. 2018: Chapter 11, 96121.Google Scholar
Nezhat, CH, Katz, A, Dun, EC, Kho, KA, Wieser, FA. Novel port placement and 5-mm instrumentation for robotic-assisted hysterectomy. JSLS 2014;18(2):PMC4035625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, K, Caceres, A. Vaginal cuff closure in minimally invasive hysterectomy: a review of training, techniques, and materials. Cureus 2017;9(10):e1766.Google ScholarPubMed
Reich, H, OI, ST. Reich modification of the McCall culdeplasty to prevent and/or repair prolapse during total laparoscopic hysterectomy. In Jain, N, ed. Laparoscopic Suturing. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers; 2006: 7882.Google Scholar
Powers, K, Lazarou, G, Grigorescu, B. Suspension of the cervix during laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. J Pelvic Med Surg 2006;12(5):273275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uccella, S, Ghezzi, F, Mariani, A, et al. Vaginal cuff closure after minimally invasive hysterectomy: our experience and systematic review of the literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205(2):119e112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uccella, S, Malzoni, M, Cromi, A, et al. Laparoscopic vs transvaginal cuff closure after total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized trial by the Italian Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;218(5):500e1–500e13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hur, HC, Guido, RS, Mansuria, SM, et al. Incidence and patient characteristics of vaginal cuff dehiscence after different modes of hysterectomies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007;14(3):311317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, C, Grace, LA, Razavi, GM, Mihailide, C, Bamford, H. Reverse vesicouterine fold dissection for laparoscopic hysterectomy after prior cesarean deliveries. Obst Gynecol 2016;128(3):629633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bogliolo, S, Nadalini, C, Iacobone, AD, Musacchi, V, Carus, AP. Vaginal cuff closure with absorbable bidirectional barbed suture during total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013;170(1):219221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cong, L, Li, C, Wei, B, et al. V-LocTM 180 suture in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a retrospective study comparing Polysorb to barbed suture used for vaginal cuff closure. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;207:1822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einarsson, JI, Cohen, SL, Gobern, JM, et al. Barbed versus standard suture: a randomized trial for laparoscopic vaginal cuff closure. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013;20(4):492498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, JH, Byun, SW, Song, JY, et al. Barbed versus conventional 2-layer continuous running sutures for laparoscopic vaginal cuff closure. Medicine (United States). 2016;95(39):e4981.Google ScholarPubMed
Medina, BC, Giraldo, CH, Riaño, G, Hoyos, LR, Otalora, C. Barbed suture for vaginal cuff closure in laparoscopic hysterectomy. JSLS 2014;18(1):8388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nawfal, AK, Eisenstein, D, Theoharis, E, Dahlman, M, Wegienka, G. Vaginal cuff closure during robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy: comparing Vicryl to barbed sutures. JSLS 2012;16(4):525529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neubauer, NL, Schink, PJ, Pant, A, et al. A comparison of 2 methods of vaginal cuff closure during robotic hysterectomy. Intl J Gynecol Obstet 2013;120(1):99101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rettenmaier, MA, Abaid, LN, Brown, JL, et al. Dramatically reduced incidence of vaginal cuff dehiscence in gynecologic patients undergoing endoscopic closure with barbed sutures: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg 2015;19:2730CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siedhoff, MT, Yunker, AC, Steege, JF. Decreased incidence of vaginal cuff dehiscence after laparoscopic closure with bidirectional barbed suture. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011;18(2):218223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhou, Y, Guthrie, G, Chuang, A, Faro, JP, Ali, V. Unidirectional barbed suture versus interrupted Vicryl suture in vaginal cuff healing during robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Robot Surg 2014;8(3):201205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ardovino, M, Castaldi, MA, Fraternali, F, et al. Bidirectional barbed suture in total laparoscopic hysterectomy and lymph node dissection for endometrial cancer: technical evaluation and 1-year follow-up of 61 patients. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2013;23(4):347350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bassi, A, Tulandi, T. Evaluation of total laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without the use of barbed suture. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013;35(8):718722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Song, T, Lee, SH. Barbed suture vs traditional suture in single-port total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014;21(5):825829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chi, AM, Curran, DS, Morgan, DM, Fenner, DE, Swenson, CW. Universal cystoscopy after benign hysterectomy: examining the effects of an institutional policy. Obstet Gynecol 2016;127(2):369375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teeluckdharry, B, Gilmour, D, Flowerdew, G. Urinary tract injury at benign gynecologic surgery and the role of cystoscopy. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:11611169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ACOG Committee Opinion No. 372: the role of cystourethroscopy in the generalist obstetrician-gynecologist practice. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:221224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, SA, Carberry, CL, Smilen, SW. American Urogynecologic Society consensus statement: cystoscopy at the time of prolapse repair. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2018;24(4):258259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, C, Nezhat, F, Bess, O, Nezhat, CH. Injuries associated with the use of a linear stapler during operative laparoscopy: review of diagnosis, management, and prevention. J Gynecol Surg 1993;9(3):145150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, CY, Reich, H. Complications of total laparoscopic hysterectomy in 518 cases. Gynaecol Endosc 1994;3(4):203206.Google Scholar
Wallis, CJD, Cheung, DC, Garbens, A, et al. Occurrence of and risk factors for urological intervention during benign hysterectomy: analysis of the national surgical quality improvement program database. Urology 2016;97:6672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ibeanu, OA, Chesson, RR, Echols, KT, et al. Urinary tract injury during hysterectomy based on universal cystoscopy. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113(1):610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferro, A, Byck, D, Gallup, D. Intraoperative and postoperative morbidity associated with cystoscopy performed in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189(2):354357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dun, ENC. Complications of laparoscopic surgery. In Pasic, R, Brill, A, eds. Practical Manual of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic and Robotic Surgery, 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2018: 355365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redan, JA, McCarus, SD. Protect the ureters. JSLS 2009;13(2):139141.Google ScholarPubMed
Manoucheri, E, Cohen, SL, Sandberg, EM, Kibel, AS, Einarsson, J. Ureteral injury in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2012;5(2):106111.Google ScholarPubMed
Schimpf, MO, Gottenger, EE, Wagner, JR. Universal ureteral stent placement at hysterectomy to identify ureteral injury: a decision analysis. BJOG 2008;115(9):11511158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuno, K, Menzin, A, Kauder, HH, Sison, C, Gal, D. Prophylactic ureteral catheterization in gynecologic surgery. Urology 1998 Dec;52(6):10041008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chou, MT, Wang, CJ, Lien, RC. Prophylactic ureteral catheterization in gynecologic surgery: a 12-year randomized trial in a community hospital. Int Urogynecology J 2009;20(6):689693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baggish, MKM. Atlas of Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders; 2011.Google Scholar
Guimares Gonalves, MA, Anschau, F, Martins, D, Silva Marc, C da. Ureter: how to avoid injuries in various hysterectomy techniques. In Al-Handy, A, Sabry, M, eds. Hysterectomy. IntechOpen; 2012: Chapter 18, 285292.Google Scholar
Chan, JK, Morrow, J, Manetta, A. Prevention of ureteral injuries in gynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188(5):12731277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, CR, Nezhat, FR. Laparoscopic segmental bladder resection for endometriosis: a report of two cases. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81(5):882884.Google ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, C, Nezhat, F, Nezhat, C, Admon, D. Endometriosis of the intestine and genitourinary tract. In Nezhat, CR, Berger, GS, Nezhat, FR, Buttram, VC, Nezhat, CH, eds. Endometriosis. New York: Springer; 1995: 137158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, CH, Malik, S, Nezhat, F, Nezhat, C. Laparoscopic ureteroneocystostomy and vesicopsoas hitch for infiltrative endometriosis. JSLS 2004;8(1):37.Google ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, C, Falik, R, McKinney, S, King, LP. Pathophysiology and management of urinary tract endometriosis. Nat Rev Urol 2017;14:359372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Farquhar, CM, Steiner, CA. Hysterectomy rates in the United States 1990–1997. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:229234.Google ScholarPubMed
Lepine, LA, Hillis, SD, Marchbanks, PA, et al. Hysterectomy surveillance – United States, 1980–1993. MMWR CDC Surveill Summ 1997;46:l–15.Google ScholarPubMed
Reich, H, Decaprio, J, McGlynn, F. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. Gynecol Surg 1989;5:213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nezhat, C, Nezhat, F, Silfen, SL. Laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy using multifire GIA surgical stapler. Gynecol Surg 1990;6:185.Google Scholar
Brummer, TH, Seppala, TT, Harkki, PS. National learning curve for laparoscopic hysterectomy and trends in hysterectomy in Finland 2000–2005. Hum Reprod 2008;23:840845.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boehm, DH, Reichenspumer, H, Gulbins, H, et al. Early experience with robotic technology for coronary artery surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 1999;68:15421546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Binder, J, Brautigam, R, Jonas, D, Bentas, W. Robotic surgery in urology: fact or fantasy? BJU Int 2004;94:11831187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melvin, WS, Needleman, BJ, Krause, KR, et al. Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery. Initial experience in fibregut surgery. Surg Endosc 2002;16:17901792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bargar, WL. Robots in orthopaedic surgery: past, present, and future. Clin Orthop 1998;354:8291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, DY, Cringle, SJ, Constable, U. Robotic ocular ultramicrosurgery. Aust N ZJ Ophthalmol 1998;26:S6S8.Google ScholarPubMed
Spetzger, U, Gilsbach, JM, Mosges, R, Schlondorff, G, Laborde, G. The computer-assisted localizer, a navigational help in microneurosurgery. Eur Surg Res 1997;29:481487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, C, Lavie, O, Hsu, S, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy – a retrospective matched control study. Fertil Steril 2009;91(2):556559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falcone, T, Goldberg, JM, Margossian, H, Stevens, L. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis: a human pilot study. Fertil Steril 2000;73:10401042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falcone, T, Steiner, CP. Robotically assisted gynaecological surgery. Hum Fertil 2002;5:7274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falcone, T, Goldberg, JM. Robotics in gynecology. Surg Clin North Am 2003;83:14831489, xii.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, C, Saberi, NS, Shahmohamacly, B, Nezhat, F. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy in gynecological surgery. JSLS 2006;10:317320.Google ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, FR, Datta, MS, Liu, C, Chuang, L, Zakashansky, K. Robotic radical hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic: radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer. JSLS 2008;12:227237.Google ScholarPubMed
Field, JB, Benoit, MF, Dinh, TA, az-Arrastia, C. Computer-enhanced robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Surg Endosc 2007;21:244246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, RK, Advincula, AP. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg 2006;191:555560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mettler, L, Ibrahim, M, Jonat, W. One year of experience working with the aid of a robotic assistant (the voice-controlled optic holder AESOP) in gynaecological endoscopic surgery. Hum Reprod 1998;13:27482750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diaz-Arrastia, C, Jurnalov, C, Gomez, G, Townsend, C Jr. Laparoscopic hysterectomy using a computer-enhanced surgical robot. Surg Endosc 2002;16:12711273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, C, Lavie, 0, Lemyre, M, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: scientific dream or reality? Fertil Steril 2009;1(6):26202622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Advincula, AP. Surgical techniques: robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system. Int Med Robot 2006;2:305311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kho, RM, Hilger, WS, Hentz, JG, Magtibay, PM, Magrina, JF. Robotic hysterectomy: technique and initial outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:113.el-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Payne, TN, Dauterive, FR. A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008;15:286291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodgers, AK, Goldberg, JM, Hammel, JP, Falcone, T. Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:13751380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, JL, Beste, TM, Nelson, KH, Daucher, JA. Making the transition from standard gynecologic laparoscopy to robotic laparoscopy. JSLS 2004;8:326328.Google ScholarPubMed
Lenihan, JP Jr, Kovanda, C, Seshadri-Kreaden, U. What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008;15(5):589594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aid, MN, Magrina, JF, Kho, RM, et al. Incidence and patient characteristics of vaginal cuff dehiscence after robotic hysterectomy. Paper presented at the SGI 24th Scientific Meeting; March 26–29, 2008; San Diego, CA.Google Scholar

References

The American Fertility Society classifications of the adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancy, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1998;49:944955.Google Scholar
Fedele, L, Bianchi, S, Zanconato, G, et al. Laparoscopic removal of the cavitated noncommunicating rudimentary uterine horn: surgical aspects in 10 cases. Fertil Steril 2005;83:432436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johansen, K. Pregnancy in a rudimentary uterine horn. Obstet Gynecol 1983;61:565567.Google Scholar
Elsayegh, A, Nwosu, EC. Rupture of pregnancy in the communicating rudimentary uterine horn at 34 weeks. Human Reprod 1998;13:35663568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinonen, PK. Unicornuate uterus and rudimentary horn. Fertil Steril 1997;68:224230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daskalakis, G, Pilalis, A, Lykeridou, K, et al. Rupture of noncommunicating rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:11081110.Google ScholarPubMed
Oral, B, Guney, M, Ozsoy, M, et al. Placenta accreta associated with a ruptured pregnant rudimentary uterine horn. Case report and review of the literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2001;265:100102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panayotidis, C, Abdel-Fattah, M, Leggott, M. Rupture of rudimentary uterine horn of a unicornuate uterus at 15 weeks’ gestation. J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;24:323324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shinohara, A, Yamada, A, Imai, A. Rupture of noncommunicating rudimentary uterine horn at 27 weeks’ gestation with neonatal and maternal survival. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005;88:316317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Leary, JL, O’Leary, JA. Rudimentary horn pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1963;22:371375.Google ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, F, Nezhat, C, Bess, O, et al. Laparoscopic amputation of a noncommunicating rudimentary horn after a hysteroscopic diagnosis: a case study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percut Techn 1994;4:155156.Google ScholarPubMed
Cutner, A, Saridogan, E, Hart, R, et al. Laparoscopic management of pregnancies occurring in noncommunicating accessory uterine horns. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004;113:106109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giatras, K, Licciardi, FL, Grifo, JA. Laparoscopic resection of a non- communicating rudimentary uterine horn. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1997;4:491493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadir, RA, Hart, J, Nagele, F, et al. Laparoscopic excision of a noncommunicating rudimentary uterine horn. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:371372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perrotin, F, Bertrand, J, Body, G. Laparoscopic surgery of unicornuate uterus with rudimentary uterine horn. Hum Reprod 1999;14: 931933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silva, PD, Welch, HD. Laparoscopic removal of a symptomatic rudimentary uterine horn in a perimenarchal adolescent. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 2002;6:377379.Google Scholar
Amara, DP, Nezhat, F, Giudice, L, et al. Laparoscopic management of a noncommunicating uterine horn in a patient with an acute abdomen. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1997;7:5659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneiderman, M, Tulandi, T. The importance to exclude the existence of a rudimentary uterine horn in women with unicornuate uterus. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2018;40:143144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sawada, M, Kakigano, A, Matsuzaki, S, et al. Obstetric outcome in patients with a unicornuate uterus after laparoscopic resection of a rudimentary horn. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2018;44:10801086.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Flyckt, RL, Farrell, RM, Perni, UC, Tzakis, AG, Falcone, T. Deceased donor uterine transplantation: innovation and adaptation. Obstet Gynecol 2016 Oct;128(4):837842.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arian, S, Flyckt, R, Farrell, R, Falcone, T, Tzakis, A. Characterizing women with interest in uterine transplant clinical trials in the United States: who seeks information on this experimental treatment? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:190191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, EG, Agatisa, PK, Davis, AC, et al. Framing the diagnosis and treatment of absolute uterine factor infertility: insights from in-depth interviews with uterus transplant trial participants. AJOB Empir Bioeth 2019 Jan-Mar;10(1):2335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brännström, M, Johannesson, L, Bokström, H, et al. Livebirth after uterus transplantation. Lancet 2015 Feb 14;385(9968):607616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fageeh, WRH, Jabbad, H, Marzouki, A. Transplantation of the human uterus. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2002;76:245251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ozkan, O, Akar, ME, Erdogan, O, Ozkan, O, Hadimioglu, N. Uterus transplantation from a deceased donor. Fertil Steril 2013;100:e41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brännstrom, M, Diaz-Garcia, C, Hanafy, A, Olausson, M, Tzakis, A. Uterus transplantation: animal research and human possibilities. Fertil Steril 2012;97:12691276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brännstrom, M, Johannesson, L, Dahm-Kahler, P, et al. First clinical uterus transplantation trial: a six-month report. Fertil Steril 2014;101:12281236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvarnström, N, Järvholm, S, Johannesson, L, et al. Live donors of the initial observational study of uterus transplantation-psychological and medical follow-up until 1 year after surgery in the 9 cases. Transplantation. 2017 Mar;101(3):664670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brännström, M, Enskog, A, Kvarnström, N, Ayoubi, JM, Dahm-Kähler, P. Global results of human uterus transplantation and strategies for pre-transplantation screening of donors. Fertil Steril 2019 Jul;112(1):310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flyckt, R, Kotylar, A, Arian, S, et al. Deceased donor uterine transplantation. Fertil Steril 2017;107:e13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Testa, G, McKenna, GJ, Gunby, RT Jr, et al. First live birth after uterus transplantation in the United States. Am J Transplant 2018 May;18(5):12701274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ejzenberg, D, Andraus, W, Baratelli Carelli Mendes, LR. et al. Livebirth after uterus transplantation from a deceased donor in a recipient with uterine infertility. Lancet 2019; 392(10165):26972704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleveland Clinic first in North America to deliver baby from deceased-donor uterine transplant. Cleveland Clinic Newsroom. July 9, 2019. https://newsroom.clevelandclinic.org/2019/07/09/cleveland-clinic-first-in-north-america-to-deliver-baby-from-deceased-donor-uterine-transplant/Google Scholar
Hariton, E, Bortoletto, P. Goldman, RH, et al. A survey of public opinion in the United States regarding uterine transplantation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;25(6):980985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bortoletto, P, Hariton, E, Farland, LV, Goldman, RH, Gargiulo, AR. Uterine transplantation: a survey of perceptions and attitudes of American reproductive endocrinologists and gynecologic surgeons. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;25(6):974979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. American Society for Reproductive Medicine position statement on uterus transplantation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2018 Sep;110(4):605610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, RM, Flyckt, R, Falcone, T. The call for a closer examination of the ethical issues associated with uterine transplantation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018 Sep–Oct;25(6):933935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Testa, G, Koon, EC, Johannesson, L, et al. Living donor uterus transplantation: a single center’s observations and lessons learned from early setbacks to technical success. Am J Transplant 2017 Nov;17(11):29012910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shockley, M, Arnolds, K, Beran, B, et al. Uterine viability in the baboon after ligation of uterine vasculature: a pilot study to assess alternative perfusion and venous return for uterine transplantation. Fertil Steril 2017;107:10781082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flyckt, R, Farrell, RM, Falcone, T. Advancing the science of uterine transplantation: minimizing living donor risk on a path to surgical innovation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2019 May–Jun;26(4):577579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flyckt, R, Davis, A, Farrell, R, et al. Uterine transplantation: surgical innovation in the treatment of uterine factor infertility. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2018 Jan;40(1):8693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, EG, Flyckt, R, Tzakis, A, Falcone, T. Uterus transplantation: organ procurement in a deceased donor model. Fertil Steril 2018 Jul 1;110(1):183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, L, Xue, T, Tao, K-S, et al. Modified human uterus transplantation using ovarian veins for venous drainage: the first report of surgically successful robotic-assisted uterus procurement and follow-up for 12 months. Fertil Steril 2017;108(2):346356.e1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Puntambekar, S. Puntambekar, S, Telang, M, et al. Novel anastomotic technique for uterine transplant using utero-ovarian veins for venous drainage and internal iliac arteries for perfusion in two laparoscopically harvested uteri. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;26(4):628635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Puntambekar, S, Telang, M, Kulkarni, P. et al. Laparoscopic-assisted uterus retrieval from live organ donors for uterine transplant: our experience of two patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;25(4):622631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johannesson, L, Wall, A, Putman, JM, et al. Rethinking the time interval to embryo transfer after uterus transplantation – DUETS (Dallas UtErus Transplant Study). BJOG 2019;126(11):13051309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, C, Crowgey, SR, Garrison, CP. Surgical treatment of endometriosis via laser laparoscopy. Fertil Steril 1986;45:778783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, C, Nezhat, F, Nezhat, CH. Operative laparoscopy (minimally invasive surgery): state of the art. J Gynecol Surg 1992;8(3):111141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brännström, M. Current status and future direction of uterus transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2018 Oct;23(5):592597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The PDF of this book conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Hysterectomy
  • Edited by Camran R. Nezhat, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, Farr R. Nezhat, Nezhat Surgery for Gynecology/Oncology, New York, Ceana Nezhat, Nezhat Medical Center, Atlanta, Nisha Lakhi, Richmond University Medical Center, New York, Azadeh Nezhat, Nezhat Institute and Center for Special Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, California
  • Book: Nezhat's Textbook of Minimally Invasive Surgery
  • Online publication: 06 November 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108561440.017
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Hysterectomy
  • Edited by Camran R. Nezhat, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, Farr R. Nezhat, Nezhat Surgery for Gynecology/Oncology, New York, Ceana Nezhat, Nezhat Medical Center, Atlanta, Nisha Lakhi, Richmond University Medical Center, New York, Azadeh Nezhat, Nezhat Institute and Center for Special Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, California
  • Book: Nezhat's Textbook of Minimally Invasive Surgery
  • Online publication: 06 November 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108561440.017
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Hysterectomy
  • Edited by Camran R. Nezhat, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, Farr R. Nezhat, Nezhat Surgery for Gynecology/Oncology, New York, Ceana Nezhat, Nezhat Medical Center, Atlanta, Nisha Lakhi, Richmond University Medical Center, New York, Azadeh Nezhat, Nezhat Institute and Center for Special Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, California
  • Book: Nezhat's Textbook of Minimally Invasive Surgery
  • Online publication: 06 November 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108561440.017
Available formats
×