Uterine artery closure at the origin vs at the uterus level in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: A randomized controlled trial

Stefano Uccella, Simone Garzon, Gabriele Lanzo, Davide Gallina, Mariachiara Bosco, Irene Porcari, Salvatore Gueli-Alletti, Salvatore Gueli Alletti, Stefano Cianci, Massimo Franchi, Massimo Piergiuseppe Franchi, Pier Carlo Zorzato
Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2021 · vol. 100(10) , pp. 1840–1848 · doi:10.1111/aogs.14238 · PMID:34396512 · W3193912182
article OA: hybrid CC0
🔓 Open OA copy View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

Uterine artery closure at the origin during total laparoscopic hysterectomy reduced intraoperative blood loss compared to closure at the uterine level, with fewer conversions needed, especially in cases of endometriosis.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The transfusion rate in hysterectomies for benign pathology is almost 3%. However, despite the strong interest in reducing intraoperative bleeding, limited evidence is available regarding the technical aspects concerning uterine vessel management during a total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH). Uterine artery (UA) closure in TLH can be performed at the origin from the internal iliac artery or at the uterus level (UL). However, low-quality evidence is available regarding the superiority of one method over the other. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a single-blind randomized (1:1) controlled trial (NCT04156932) between December 2019 and August 2020. One hundred and eighty women undergoing TLH for benign gynecological diseases were randomized to TLH with UA closure at the origin from the internal iliac artery (n = 90), performed at the beginning of the procedure by putting two clips per side at the origin, vs closure at the UL (n = 90). Intraoperative blood loss estimated from suction devices was the primary outcome. Secondary end points were perioperative outcomes, the conversion rate from one technique to the other, and complication rates with 4 months of follow up. RESULTS: Uterine artery closure at the origin was completed in all 90 patients (0%), whereas closure at the UL was converted to closure at the origin in 11 cases (12.2%; p < 0.001); failures were mainly associated with the presence of endometriosis (81.8% [9/11] vs 10.1% [8/79]; p < 0.001). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the intraoperative blood loss was higher in the group assigned to the closure at the UL (108.5 mL) than in the group with closure at the origin (69.3 mL); the mean difference was 39.2 mL (95% CI 13.47-64.93 mL; p = 0.003). Other perioperative outcomes and complications rates did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Uterine artery closure at the origin reduces intraoperative blood loss during a TLH and appears to be more reproducible than closure at the UL without higher complication rates. However, the absent translation in clinical benefits impedes the support of a clinical superiority in all women. Closure at the origin may provide clinical advantages in the presence of severe preoperative anemia or pelvic anatomic distortion.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

mesh:D004715endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Hysterectomy Laparoscopy Uterine Artery Uterus Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Blood Loss, Surgical Endometriosis Endometriosis Female Humans Hysterectomy Laparoscopy Middle Aged Postoperative Complications Treatment Outcome Uterine Artery Uterus

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (31)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-06-04T01:30:01.192114+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-04T00:00:01.174412+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:24:26.422845+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK