Literature DB >> 10831967

Hysterectomy outcomes in patients with similar indications.

S R Kovac1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost advantages and complication rates associated with surgical routes of uncomplicated hysterectomies in which uteri weigh less than 280 g and benign diseases are confined to the uterus.
METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from 1988 to 1993 from 4609 consecutive women who had hysterectomies at a single institution. Women who had abdominal hysterectomies, laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomies, or vaginal hysterectomies were selected if they had benign diseases confined to the uterus (adenomyosis, leiomyomas, abnormal uterine bleeding, cervical carcinoma in situ, and prolapse) and uterine weights less than 280 g. We compared length of stay, hospital charges, and associated complications between groups.
RESULTS: A total of 1427 women met the study criteria. Length of stay was longer after abdominal hysterectomies than laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomies or vaginal hysterectomies (3.99 +/- 1.16 days, 2.45 +/- 1.58 days, and 2.76 +/- 0.94 days, respectively; P <.001). Hospital charges for vaginal hysterectomies were significantly lower than for either abdominal or laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomies (P <.001). The median charge for vaginal hysterectomies was $4166; the median charges for laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomies and abdominal hysterectomies were 71% and 35% higher than this, respectively. There was a higher risk of one or more complications after abdominal hysterectomies (9.3%) than after laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomies (3.6%; P <.001) or vaginal hysterectomies (5.3%; P <.001). The incidence of postoperative infection or fever was higher after abdominal than after vaginal hysterectomies (4.0% versus 0.8%; P =.029).
CONCLUSION: This study supports the vaginal route of hysterectomy when disease is confined to the uterus and uterine weight is less than 280 g.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10831967     DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00641-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  16 in total

1.  Decreasing utilization of hysterectomy: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1965-2002.

Authors:  Ebenezer O Babalola; Adil E Bharucha; Cathy D Schleck; John B Gebhart; Alan R Zinsmeister; L Joseph Melton
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Completely transvaginal NOTES cholecystectomy using magnetically anchored instruments.

Authors:  Daniel J Scott; Shou-jiang Tang; Raul Fernandez; Richard Bergs; Mouza T Goova; Ilia Zeltser; Farid J Kehdy; Jeffrey A Cadeddu
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-08-18       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Laparoscopic hysterectomy of large uteri using three-trocar technique.

Authors:  Wenjie Zeng; Liyou Chen; Weijie Du; Jinghui Hu; Xiangming Fang; Xiaofeng Zhao
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-04-15

4.  Size matters in planning hysterectomy approach.

Authors:  Yasmina Mohan; Vicki Y Chiu; Neal M Lonky
Journal:  Womens Health (Lond)       Date:  2016-07

5.  Development of a novel simulation model for assessment of laparoscopic camera navigation.

Authors:  Melissa W Brackmann; Pamela Andreatta; Karen McLean; R Kevin Reynolds
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Hysterectomy…..Which route?

Authors:  Somajita Chakraborty; Sebanti Goswami; Partha Mukherjee; Manabendra Sau
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2011-10-27

7.  Indications and Route of Hysterectomy for Benign Diseases. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3 Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/070, April 2015)

Authors:  K J Neis; W Zubke; T Römer; K Schwerdtfeger; T Schollmeyer; S Rimbach; B Holthaus; E Solomayer; B Bojahr; F Neis; C Reisenauer; B Gabriel; H Dieterich; I B Runnenbaum; W Kleine; A Strauss; M Menton; I Mylonas; M David; L-C Horn; D Schmidt; P Gaß; A T Teichmann; P Brandner; W Stummvoll; A Kuhn; M Müller; M Fehr; K Tamussino
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.915

8.  Non-decent Vaginal Hysterectomy in Rural Setup of MP: A Poor Acceptance.

Authors:  Sapna B Jain; Kshma D Chandrakar
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2016-03-12

9.  Are there regional differences in gynecologic cancer outcomes in the context of a single-payer, publicly-funded health care system? A population-based study.

Authors:  Janice S Kwon; Mark S Carey; E Francis Cook; Feng Qiu; Lawrence F Paszat
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2008 May-Jun

10.  Perioperative outcomes of robotic hysterectomy with mini-laparotomy versus open hysterectomy for uterus weighing more than 250 g.

Authors:  Natasha Gupta; Shanti Mohling; Rebecca Mckendrick; Rayan Elkattah; Jenny Holcombe; Robert S Furr; Todd Boren; Stephen DePasquale
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-02-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.