{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,7]],"date-time":"2026-10-07T08:02:45Z","timestamp":1791360165877,"version":"4.3.1"},"reference-count":22,"publisher":"Galenos Yayinevi","issue":"2","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Facts Views Vis ObGyn"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2024,6]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>Background: Abdominal hysterectomy has been largely replaced by minimally invasive surgery. Nevertheless, in some situations, a minimally invasive intervention must be converted to laparotomy. Factors associated with conversion to laparotomy are still a matter of debate.\n\nObjective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinicopathological factors associated with the conversion of laparoscopic hysterectomy to laparotomy.\n\nMaterial and Methods: The risk factors for conversion of a preplanned laparoscopic procedure to laparotomy were retrospectively evaluated in 441 patients undergoing a hysterectomy for a benign indication between 2016 and 2020. Associations between the clinical factors were analysed using Pearson\u2019s chi-square and Fisher\u2019s exact test, and predictive values for conversion were assessed through multivariate logistic regression.\n\nResult: Conversion occurred in 32 (7.3%) of the cases. Significant differences were detected for uterus weight (576.9gr vs 174.6gr, p&lt;0.001), myoma size (7.0 cm vs. 1.8 cm, p&lt;0.001), and presence of triple diagnosis consisting of leiomyoma, adenomyosis uteri, and pathological adnexal findings (p&lt;0.013). The conversion resulted in prolonged surgery time (181.6 min vs. 119.6 min, p&lt;0.001) and hospital stay (4.0 vs. 3.1 days, p&lt;0.001), as well as an increased rate of wound infection (15.6% vs. 3.4%, p&lt;0.001). A 10g increase in uterus weight raised the risk of conversion by 7.0%, and a 1cm increase in myoma diameter by 7.3%, while adnexal pathologies and extensive adhesions increased the odds of conversion to laparotomy threefold (ORs of 3.2, 1.09-9.6 and 3.6, 1.3-10.0, respectively).\n\nConclusion: Uterus weight, myoma size, the coexistence of pathological adnexal findings, and non-physiological adhesions are independent risk factors for conversion.\n\nWhat is new? This study provides data regarding the risk and factors increasing this risk for conversion to laparotomy during laparoscopic hysterectomy.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.52054\/fvvo.16.2.020","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2024,7,1]],"date-time":"2024-07-01T20:24:36Z","timestamp":1719865476000},"page":"185-193","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":5,"title":["Predictive factors for conversion to laparotomy in women undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy. A re-evaluation of clinicopathological factors in the era of minimally invasive gynaecology"],"prefix":"10.52054","volume":"16","author":[{"given":"L","family":"Lamersdorf","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"M","family":"Tahmasbi Rad","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"T","family":"Karn","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"B","family":"Gasimli","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"A","family":"Bachmann","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"S","family":"Becker","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"K","family":"Gasimli","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"2811","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,6]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref0","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Ayachi A, Bouchahda R, Derouich S et al. Accuracy of preoperative real-time dynamic transvaginal ultrasound sliding sign in prediction of pelvic adhesions in women with previous abdominopelvic surgery: Prospective, multicenter, double-blind study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51:253\u20138.","DOI":"10.1002\/uog.17465"},{"key":"ref1","unstructured":"Becker CM, Bokor A, Heikinheimo O et al. ESHRE guideline: Endometriosis. Hum Reprod Open. 2022;2022:hoac009."},{"key":"ref2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Dekel A, Farhi J, Levy T et al. Pre-operative ultrasonographic evaluation of nongravid, enlarged uteri \u2014 correlation with bimanual examination. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1998;80:205\u20137.","DOI":"10.1016\/s0301-2115(98)00118-3"},{"key":"ref3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Harb TS, Adam RA. Predicting uterine weight before hysterectomy: Ultrasound measurements versus clinical assessment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:2122\u20135.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2005.07.014"},{"key":"ref4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Hellebrekers BW, Kooistra T. Pathogenesis of postoperative adhesion formation. Br J Surg. 2011;98:1503\u201316.","DOI":"10.1002\/bjs.7657"},{"key":"ref5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Ichikawa M, Akira S, Kaseki H et al. Accuracy and clinical value of an adhesion scoring system: A preoperative diagnostic method using transvaginal ultrasonography for endometriotic adhesion. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020;46:466\u201378.","DOI":"10.1111\/jog.14191"},{"key":"ref6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Keurentjes JH, Bri\u00ebt JM, de Bock GH de et al. Surgical volume and conversion rate in laparoscopic hysterectomy: Does volume matter? A multicenter retrospective cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:1021\u20136.","DOI":"10.1007\/s00464-017-5780-x"},{"key":"ref7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Kung FT, Chang SY. The relationship between ultrasonic volume and actual weight of pathologic uterus. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1996;42:35\u20138.","DOI":"10.1159\/000291886"},{"key":"ref8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Leonard F, Chopin N, Borghese B et al. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy: Preoperative risk factors for conversion to laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12:312\u20137.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2005.05.015"},{"key":"ref9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Lim CS, Mowers EL, Mahnert N et al. Risk Factors and Outcomes for Conversion to Laparotomy of Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in Benign Gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:1295\u2013305.","DOI":"10.1097\/aog.0000000000001743"},{"key":"ref10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Madhvani K, Fernandez-Felix BM, Zamora J et al. Personalising the risk of conversion from laparoscopic to open hysterectomy in benign conditions: Development and external validation of risk prediction models. BJOG. 2022;129:1141\u201350.","DOI":"10.1111\/1471-0528.17043"},{"key":"ref11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Neis KJ, Zubke W, R\u00f6mer T et al. Indications and Route of Hysterectomy for Benign Diseases. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3 Level, AWMF Registry No. 015\/070, April 2015). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2016;76:350\u201364.","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0042-104288"},{"key":"ref12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"O\u2019Hanlan KA, Emeney PL, Frank MI et al. Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: Making It Safe and Successful for Obese Patients. JSLS. 2021;25:e2020.00087.","DOI":"10.4293\/jsls.2020.00087"},{"key":"ref13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Park SH, Cho HY, Kim HB. Factors determining conversion to laparotomy in patients undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2011;71:193\u20137.","DOI":"10.1159\/000317520"},{"key":"ref14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Richards L, Healey M, Cheng C et al. Risk Factors and Outcomes of Conversion to Open Surgery in Benign Gynecologic Laparoscopies: A Case-Control Study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28:1786\u201394.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2021.03.013"},{"key":"ref15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Rovio PH, Luukkaala T, Vuento M et al. Ultrasonographic assessment of weight of the myomatous uterus: A pilot study using a new combined geometrical formula. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;137:193\u20137.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2007.02.013"},{"key":"ref16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Sandberg EM, Cohen SL, Jansen FW et al. Analysis of Risk Factors for Intraoperative Conversion of Laparoscopic Myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:352\u20137.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2015.10.017"},{"key":"ref17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Sokol AI, Chuang K, Milad MP. Risk Factors for Conversion to Laparotomy During Gynecologic Laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2003;10:469\u201373.","DOI":"10.1016\/s1074-3804(05)60146-6"},{"key":"ref18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Song T, Kim TJ, Kang H et al. Factors associated with complications and conversion to laparotomy in women undergoing laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:620\u20134.","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1600-0412.2012.01376.x"},{"key":"ref19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Stang A, Merrill RM, Kuss O. Hysterectomy in Germany: A DRG-based nationwide analysis, 2005-2006. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108:508\u201314.","DOI":"10.3238\/arztebl.2011.0508"},{"key":"ref20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Twijnstra ARH, Blikkendaal MD, van Zwet EW et al. Clinical relevance of conversion rate and its evaluation in laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:64\u201372.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2012.09.006"},{"key":"ref21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Warren L, Ladapo JA, Borah BJ et al. Open abdominal versus laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy: Analysis of a large United States payer measuring quality and cost of care. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16:581\u20138.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2009.06.018"}],"container-title":["Facts, Views and Vision in ObGyn"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,14]],"date-time":"2025-02-14T05:56:12Z","timestamp":1739512572000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/fvvo.eu\/articles\/doi\/FVVO.16.2.020"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2024,6]]},"references-count":22,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,5]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2024,6]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.52054\/fvvo.16.2.020","relation":{},"ISSN":["2684-4230","2032-0418"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2684-4230","type":"electronic"},{"value":"2032-0418","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2024,6]]}}}