Journal of the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy


Total surgical time in laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with laparoscopic in-bag-morcellation compared to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with uncontained morcellation

H. Krentel 1, G. Tchartchian 2, L.A. Torres de la Roche 3, R.L. De Wilde 3

1 Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Gynecological Oncology, Bethesda Hospital, Academic Teaching Hospital, Duisburg, Germany
2 MIC Clinic, Berlin, Germany
3 Clinic of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Gynecological Oncology, University Hospital for Gynecology, Pius-Hospital Oldenburg, Medical Campus University of Oldenburg, Germany.


Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy, electric power morcellation, in-bag-morcellation, cell dissemination, tissue retrieval

Published online: Apr 03 2022


Background: A possible solution to the problem of cell dissemination through laparoscopic uncontained morcellation during laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) is the use of laparoscopic in-bag morcellation. One criticism regarding the use of in-bag morcellation is the additional surgical time associated with this procedure.

Objectives: In this retrospective study we compared the total surgical time in LASH with laparoscopic in-bag morcellation (107 cases from 2016-2018) and LASH with uncontained morcellation (47 cases from 2015-2017).

Materials and Methods: All surgeries were performed in the same department of minimally invasive gynaecological surgery by a total of three experienced surgeons for the indication of bleeding disorder and / or dysmenorrhea.

Main outcome measures: We measured and compared total surgical time, surgical outcome, blood loss and complications in LASH with in-bag morcellation and with uncontained morcellation.

Results: Total surgical time in both procedures do not show a significant difference. Considering the learning curve in laparoscopic bag use, the total surgical time in LASH with laparoscopic in-bag morcellation is shorter than total surgical time in LASH with uncontained morcellation. Laparoscopic in-bag morcellation consumes time for bag use and handling, but saves time as it eliminates the need for meticulous sampling of lost tissue fragments and the complex lavage of the peritoneal cavity after morcellation. There is no difference between both groups in terms of blood loss, complications and surgical results.

Conclusion / What is new? We conclude that LASH with in-bag morcellation is not related to additional surgical time when compared to LASH with uncontained morcellation.