Extending the limits of vaginal hysterectomy under local anesthesia and conscious sedation.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: In this video we present the surgical management of a 58-year-old woman presenting with a large prolapsed myomatous uterus treated with vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and pelvic floor repair (PFR) (uterosacral ligament suspension and posterior colporraphy) under local anesthesia and conscious sedation. METHODS: The patient underwent VH and PFR by using an infiltration of a local anesthetic solution of lidocaine, ropivacaine and adrenaline in combination with intravenous (iv) conscious sedation. Debulking techniques, such as intramyometrial coring, uterine bisection, myomectomy and wedge resection, were used to facilitate VH. The final weight of the removed uterus was 870 g. RESULTS: This video demonstrates that performing a surgically challenging VH under local anesthesia is feasible. CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal uterine morcellation can be performed to debulk the enlarged uterus so that hysterectomy can be accomplished under local anesthesia. The use of local anesthesia may safely be offered as an alternative to patients undergoing a complex vaginal hysterectomy and reconstructive surgery.

Vaginal hysterectomy with anterior and posterior repair for pelvic organ prolapse under local anesthesia: results of a pilot study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and pelvic floor repair (PFR) for the surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) are usually performed under regional anesthesia. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of performing VH and PFR under local anesthesia and to compare postoperative pain and patient recovery parameters with patients undergoing the same surgical procedure under regional anesthesia. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective cohort study of women with advanced POP. The standard care group consisted of 20 patients who underwent VH and PFR under a combined spinal-epidural (CSE) block, whereas the local anesthesia group consisted of 20 patients who underwent VH and PFR under local anesthesia and intravenous sedation. Primary outcomes included the intensity of postoperative pain and the percentage of patients with moderate/severe pain. Secondary outcomes included percentage of patients who used opioids, incidence of nausea/vomiting, level of sedation, and patient satisfaction rate. RESULTS: The median pain intensity at rest was significantly lower in the local anesthesia group at 2 h, 4 h, and 8 h postoperatively (median values: 0 vs 1.9, 0 vs 4.1, and 1 vs 2.7 respectively). The percentage of patients needing opioids was significantly lower for the local anesthesia group (35% vs 95%, p = 0.002). The proportion of patients presenting nausea and vomiting symptoms in the two groups was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Local anesthesia for patients undergoing VH and PFR has been shown to be a viable alternative to regional anesthesia, offering reduced postoperative pain and less opioid use for the first 8 h.