Objective To compare and assess the effectiveness between total vaginal hysterectomy (TVH), Laproscopical hysterectomy (LH) and minilaporotomy hysterectomy (MiniLPT). Methods We searched CBM, CKNJ, MEDLINE, EMbase, Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE, CCTR, CMR, HTA, and NHSEED to screen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one surgical approach to another of extrafascial hysterectomy (between TVH, LH and miniLPT) which were done to those women with benign gynecological diseases. As to economy assessment, studies of cost-effective analysis were also included. Those observational studies reporting rare or important long-term outcome were also included. The quality of the included studies was evaluated by GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and principle of Cochrane Reviewer Handbook 4.2.3 RCT. Results Finally, we identified 12 trials including 10 RCTs, 1 retrospective cohort study and 1 respective cohort study. Cost-effective analy- sis showed when in indication of VH, TVH was more cost-effective than LH. When TVH was less but still accessible, metaanalysis showed TVH had significant advantages than the other two approaches in many sides. Compared with LH arm, operation time was shorter at a WMD 47.2 min and 95%CI 32.2 to 62.3 min, blood loss was less at a WMD 158.7 ml and 95%CI – 190.9 to – 126.4 ml, hospital stay was shorter at a WMD 23.9 h and 95%CI – 25.4 to – 13.9 h, and the first stool or to break wind was quicker at a WMD – 8.1 h and 95%CI – 10.8 to – 5.3 h in TVH arm. But on the other side, the incidence rates of bad wound healing (such as vaginal cuff infection, abdominal wall infection, wound dehiscence, etc.), of secondary infection (such as UTI, URI, unknown infection, etc.), and of febrility were less common in LH arm than those in TVH arm with no significant difference. Meanwhile, ratio of sexual hypofunction, declined marital life quality and worse body image were more in TVH arm than those in LH arm, implying LH arm provided a better post-operation sexual life recovery. Operation time was longest in miniLPT arm at a WMD 37.0 h and 95%CI 13.5 to 60.5 h and blood loss was most at a WMD 208.5 ml and 95%CI 141.4 to 375.7 ml, too. The febrility rate was also the most common in miniLPT arm at a Peto OR 3.8 and 95% CI 1.1 to 12.6. The differences were significant. Conclusion TVH is the least invasive approach and better in cost-effectiveness when accessible. However, when inaccessible, the limitations remain unclear, depending on surgeons’ own techniques and experience as well as patients’ individual conditions. LH does better in improving quality of life and body image. Cost-effectiveness of LH may become much better by reducing blood loss during operation through improving techniques or instruments of hemostasis. Limited application of non-reproducible instrument or cost and promotion of their recycle may help a lot in bringing down LH operation cost, too. Owing to limited studies, the advantage of miniLPT should be evaluated more precisely by its technical development and more penetrating researches. There are huge gaps in standardized high-quality RCTs, performance and research of long-term outcomes and health economy comparing different approaches to total hysterectomy in China.