For those who don't know, hysterectomy means surgical removal of the uterus. When the body of the uterus is removed and the lower part called cervix is left behind, it is called as subtotal hysterectomy. In general it is recommended that the cervix be not left behind, because a cancer may develop in it at a later date, and then the treatment of that cancer becomes difficult. Only in difficult situations does one leave he cervix behind, such as when the urinary bladder or rectum is densely adherent to the cervix.
That woman came from a place in north India. Some surgeon had removed her uterus.
"Why was a hysterectomy done on you?" I asked her.
"The doctor said it was the beginning of a cancer in the cervix of my uterus" she said, and showed me her case paper. "But he did not remove the cervix." I checked her papers. A subtotal hysterectomy had indeed been done for cervical intraepithelial cancer.
"But if it was done for the beginning of a cancer of the cervix, the cervix had to be removed" I said with amazement.
"Yes, doctor" she said tearfully, "but he did not remove it. It seems they do hysterectomy like this on all patients there."
I checked the doctor's prescription. His degree was MS in general surgery. I could not understand why a general surgeon would perform a hysterectomy these days. It was the job of a gynecologist.
"Doctor, save me" she said. "I have two small children."
"Don't worry" I said. "We will remove that cervix. It does not look like it is cancerous." It wasn't. I performed a vaginal removal of the cervix. It was a little difficult, because the abdominal structures were stuck to its top, and they had to be protected during its removal. Later on when I related this story to a friend, he said,
"If a young woman has cervical cancer and she desires to have more babies, they perform a radical removal of the cervix and keep the body of the uterus behind. This seems to be exactly opposite. The surgeon removed the body and left behind the cervix which he believed to have a cancer."
"Yes. This is a reverse trend in hysterectomy for cervical cancer. I hope he does not get any more patients like this."
That woman came from a place in north India. Some surgeon had removed her uterus.
"Why was a hysterectomy done on you?" I asked her.
"The doctor said it was the beginning of a cancer in the cervix of my uterus" she said, and showed me her case paper. "But he did not remove the cervix." I checked her papers. A subtotal hysterectomy had indeed been done for cervical intraepithelial cancer.
"But if it was done for the beginning of a cancer of the cervix, the cervix had to be removed" I said with amazement.
"Yes, doctor" she said tearfully, "but he did not remove it. It seems they do hysterectomy like this on all patients there."
I checked the doctor's prescription. His degree was MS in general surgery. I could not understand why a general surgeon would perform a hysterectomy these days. It was the job of a gynecologist.
"Doctor, save me" she said. "I have two small children."
"Don't worry" I said. "We will remove that cervix. It does not look like it is cancerous." It wasn't. I performed a vaginal removal of the cervix. It was a little difficult, because the abdominal structures were stuck to its top, and they had to be protected during its removal. Later on when I related this story to a friend, he said,
"If a young woman has cervical cancer and she desires to have more babies, they perform a radical removal of the cervix and keep the body of the uterus behind. This seems to be exactly opposite. The surgeon removed the body and left behind the cervix which he believed to have a cancer."
"Yes. This is a reverse trend in hysterectomy for cervical cancer. I hope he does not get any more patients like this."
