Cynthia M Farquhar1, Claudia A Steiner. 1. Centers for Practice and Technology Assessment, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, USA. c.farquhar@auckland.ac.nz
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess hysterectomy rates, type of hysterectomy, and other factors associated within the United States from 1990-1997. METHODS: A descriptive statistical analysis of national discharge data was undertaken. Data from the nationwide Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (from which national estimates are generated based on a 20% stratified sample of US community hospitals) were used for the years 1990-1997. All women who underwent hysterectomy were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification, procedure codes. Outcome measures included rate, type of hysterectomy, age of patients, length of stay, total hospital charges, and diagnostic categories. RESULTS: Rates of hysterectomy have not changed significantly over the years from 1990-1997. Rates for hysterectomy in 1990 were 5.5 per 1000 women and increased slightly by 1997 to 5.6 per 1000 women. The type of hysterectomy has changed, with laparoscopic hysterectomy accounting for 9.9% of cases by 1997, with a concomitant decline in abdominal hysterectomy but no substantial change in vaginal hysterectomy rates. Length of stay decreased and total charges increased for all types of hysterectomy. Vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopic hysterectomy are associated with shorter length of stay than abdominal hysterectomy. Abdominal hysterectomy is the most common procedure (63.0% in 1997). CONCLUSION: The majority of hysterectomies are abdominal, and the most common indication is uterine fibroids. The introduction of alternative techniques for controlling abnormal uterine bleeding such as endometrial ablation has not had an impact on hysterectomy rates, and there has only been a limited uptake of laparoscopic approaches.
OBJECTIVE: To assess hysterectomy rates, type of hysterectomy, and other factors associated within the United States from 1990-1997. METHODS: A descriptive statistical analysis of national discharge data was undertaken. Data from the nationwide Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (from which national estimates are generated based on a 20% stratified sample of US community hospitals) were used for the years 1990-1997. All women who underwent hysterectomy were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification, procedure codes. Outcome measures included rate, type of hysterectomy, age of patients, length of stay, total hospital charges, and diagnostic categories. RESULTS: Rates of hysterectomy have not changed significantly over the years from 1990-1997. Rates for hysterectomy in 1990 were 5.5 per 1000 women and increased slightly by 1997 to 5.6 per 1000 women. The type of hysterectomy has changed, with laparoscopic hysterectomy accounting for 9.9% of cases by 1997, with a concomitant decline in abdominal hysterectomy but no substantial change in vaginal hysterectomy rates. Length of stay decreased and total charges increased for all types of hysterectomy. Vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopic hysterectomy are associated with shorter length of stay than abdominal hysterectomy. Abdominal hysterectomy is the most common procedure (63.0% in 1997). CONCLUSION: The majority of hysterectomies are abdominal, and the most common indication is uterine fibroids. The introduction of alternative techniques for controlling abnormal uterine bleeding such as endometrial ablation has not had an impact on hysterectomy rates, and there has only been a limited uptake of laparoscopic approaches.
Authors: Lauren A Wise; Rose G Radin; Julie R Palmer; Shiriki K Kumanyika; Deborah A Boggs; Lynn Rosenberg Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Laveta Stewart; Gladys M Glenn; Pamela Stratton; Alisa M Goldstein; Maria J Merino; Margaret A Tucker; W Marston Linehan; Jorge R Toro Journal: Arch Dermatol Date: 2008-12
Authors: Erica E Marsh; Geraldine E Ekpo; Eden R Cardozo; Maureen Brocks; Tanaka Dune; Leeber S Cohen Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Lauren A Wise; Rose G Radin; Julie R Palmer; Shiriki K Kumanyika; Lynn Rosenberg Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Tonia L Hermon; Alicia B Moore; Linda Yu; Grace E Kissling; Frank J Castora; Darlene Dixon Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2008-10-14 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Michael J Bray; Eric S Torstenson; Sarah H Jones; Todd L Edwards; Digna R Velez Edwards Journal: Maturitas Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Britton Trabert; Zhen Chen; Kurunthachalam Kannan; C Matthew Peterson; Anna Z Pollack; Liping Sun; Germaine M Buck Louis Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Jinhyung Lee; Kristofer Jennings; Mostafa A Borahay; Ana M Rodriguez; Gokhan S Kilic; Russell R Snyder; Pooja R Patel Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 4.137