Clermont-Ferrand versus Vectec uterine manipulator for total laparoscopic hysterectomy

Abstract Objective: To compare the operation time and performance of two uterine manipulators used for total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH). Material and methods: Design: Retrospective cohort analysis. Design classification: Canadian Task Force Classification II-2. Setting: Tertiary-care university-based teaching hospital and academic affiliated private hospital. Patients: All consecutive patients who underwent for TLH between January 2014 and June 2017. All operations were performed by two expert endoscopic surgeons using one of the following uterine manipulators depending on surgeon preferences: Clermont-Ferrand (CF) or Vectec (VT) MAUT60. Patients were excluded if additional surgeries such as urogynecological procedures were performed, TLH was converted to laparotomy prior to colpotomy, and when their operation records could not be obtained. A total of 169 patients were added to final analysis. Operation time, colpotomy time and the subjective performance of manipulators such as movement of the uterus, visualization of the vaginal fornices, and maintenance of pneumoperitoneum were evaluated by watching un-edited operation videos. Results: A total of 169 patients (83 patients in CF group; 86 patients in VT group) were included in the final analysis. Patients’ baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Operation time and time required for colpotomy were significantly shorter in the VT group. Lateral movements of the manipulators and elevation of the uterus were better with VT compared to CF (p = .001 for both). Compared to the CF, VT was superior for visualization of the vaginal fornices (p = .004) and maintenance of pneumoperitoneum (p < .001). Both surgeons had perfect agreement on the performance grading of manipulators (p < .001, Kappa values were between 0.86–0.92). There was no difference between groups in estimated blood loss and duration of hospital stay. Reinsertion or the need to change the manipulator was not required in either group. No pelvic or vaginal abscess, cuff cellulitis, dehiscence, or hematoma formations were noted. Conclusion: Laparoscopic hysterectomy assisted with the VT uterine manipulator is associated with shorter operation and colpotomy time. Furthermore, the movements of uterus, visualization of the vaginal fornices, and maintenance of pneumoperitoneum were significantly better with VT compared to the CF manipulator.

[1]  E. Latta,et al.  Comparing two Uterine Manipulators During Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. , 2017, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[2]  F. Ghezzi,et al.  The effect of a uterine manipulator on the recurrence and mortality of endometrial cancer: a multi‐centric study by the Italian Society of Gynecological Endoscopy , 2017, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[3]  C. Hegde Mangeshikar Uterine Manipulator , 2016, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India.

[4]  J. Black,et al.  Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. , 2016, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[5]  C. Alleblas,et al.  Efficacy and safety of uterine manipulators in laparoscopic surgery: a review , 2015, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[6]  A. Akdemir,et al.  Iatrogenic uterine perforation and bowel penetration using a Hohlmanipulator: A case report☆ , 2014, International journal of surgery case reports.

[7]  Jae Hoon Kim,et al.  Effects of Uterine Manipulation on Surgical Outcomes in Laparoscopic Management of Endometrial Cancer: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial , 2012, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[8]  M. Lux,et al.  The Hohl instrument for optimizing total laparoscopic hysterectomy: results of more than 500 procedures in a university training center , 2011, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[9]  J. Nassif,et al.  Clermont Ferrand uterine manipulator. , 2010, Surgical technology international.

[10]  H. Reich,et al.  López-Zepeda uterine manipulator: device description and its application in the total laparoscopic hysterectomy. , 2010, Surgical technology international.

[11]  M. Beckmann,et al.  Feasibility and safety of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) using the Hohl instrument in nonobese and obese women , 2010, The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research.

[12]  B. Mol,et al.  Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease (Review) , 2009 .

[13]  R. Coleman,et al.  Modified uterine manipulator and vaginal rings for total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy , 2007, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[14]  D. Chou,et al.  A review of total laparoscopic hysterectomy: role, techniques and complications , 2006, Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology.

[15]  Y. Nikam,et al.  A comparative survey of various uterine manipulators used in operative laparoscopy , 2006, Gynecological Surgery.

[16]  M. Beckmann,et al.  The Hohl instrument for optimizing total laparoscopic hysterectomy procedures. , 2005, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[17]  Hsin-Hung Wu,et al.  Iatrogenic uterine rupture caused by overinflation of RUMI manipulator balloon. , 2005, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[18]  R. Keriakos,et al.  The RUMI manipulator and Koh colpotomiser system for total laparoscopic hysterectomy , 2000, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.