Literature DB >> 15692002

Readmission to hospital 5 years after hysterectomy or endometrial resection in a national cohort study.

A Clarke1, A Judge, A Herbert, K McPherson, S Bridgman, M Maresh, C Overton, D Altman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the readmission experience of a large national prospective cohort of women up to 5 years after undergoing either transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) or hysterectomy to assess reasons for readmission and whether TCRE can be viewed as a definitive substitute for hysterectomy. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Data are from the VALUE/MISTLETOE prospective national cohort studies of hysterectomy and TCRE respectively. 5294 women who underwent hysterectomy for dysfunctional uterine bleeding in 1994/5 and 4032 women who underwent TCRE in 1993/4 and who responded to postal questionnaires were included. Surgeons gathered operative details. Women completed postal follow up questionnaires at 3 and 5 years after surgery asking about readmission to hospital and reasons for readmission. Adjusted proportional hazard ratios were calculated for likelihood of readmission in each category comparing types of surgery.
RESULTS: 41.7% of women undergoing hysterectomy and 44.6% of women undergoing TCRE experienced one or more readmissions to hospital overall within 5 years (adjusted hazard ratio for all readmissions (AHR) 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.95)). 12.6% of hysterectomy patients and 30.3% of TCRE patients were readmitted for gynaecological reasons (AHR 0.40 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.48)). Rates of readmission for gynaecological reasons were similar up to 6 months but were markedly reduced for hysterectomy compared with TCRE patients towards the end of the follow up period (AHR for readmission at 3-5 years 0.28 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.39)).
CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the pattern of readmission to hospital after hysterectomy and TCRE for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Women undergoing a hysterectomy are less likely to be readmitted to hospital up to 5 years after their operation overall, and are significantly less likely to be readmitted for reasons related to their operation, particularly for gynaecological reasons. Hysterectomy appears to be a more definitive operation. The different options for surgery for dysfunctional uterine bleeding are not interchangeable; they represent different patterns of care. Information should be available to women and practitioners to inform choices between these options.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15692002      PMCID: PMC1743974          DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2004.010926

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care        ISSN: 1475-3898


  10 in total

1.  Has endometrial ablation replaced hysterectomy for the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding? National figures.

Authors:  S A Bridgman; K M Dunn
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 6.531

2.  Effects of decision aids for menorrhagia on treatment choices, health outcomes, and costs: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Andrew D M Kennedy; Mark J Sculpher; Angela Coulter; Nuala Dwyer; Margaret Rees; Keith R Abrams; Susan Horsley; Deborah Cowley; Christine Kidson; Catherine Kirwin; Caroline Naish; Gordon Stirrat
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-12-04       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Readmission to hospital: a measure of quality or outcome?

Authors:  A Clarke
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2004-02

4.  Is chronic pain a distinct diagnosis in primary care? Evidence arising from the Royal College of General Practitioners' Oral Contraception study.

Authors:  Blair H Smith; Alison M Elliott; Philip C Hannaford
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.267

5.  Can readmission rates be used as an outcome indicator?

Authors:  R Milne; A Clarke
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-11-17

6.  Endometrial resection versus vaginal hysterectomy for menorrhagia: long-term clinical and quality-of-life outcomes.

Authors:  P G Crosignani; P Vercellini; G Apolone; O De Giorgi; I Cortesi; M Meschia
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 7.  Do British women undergo too many or too few hysterectomies?

Authors:  A Coulter; K McPherson; M Vessey
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 4.634

8.  A national survey of the complications of endometrial destruction for menstrual disorders: the MISTLETOE study. Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques--Laser, EndoThermal or Endorescetion.

Authors:  C Overton; J Hargreaves; M Maresh
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1997-12

9.  Women awaiting hysterectomy: a qualitative study of issues involved in decisions about oophorectomy.

Authors:  Vanita Bhavnani; Aileen Clarke
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 6.531

10.  Indications for and outcome of total abdominal hysterectomy for benign disease: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  A Clarke; N Black; P Rowe; S Mott; K Howle
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1995-08
  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  Removing organs "just in case"--is prophylactic removal of the ovaries a good thing?

Authors:  Aileen Clarke; Yu Mei Chang; Klim McPherson
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  Psychosexual health 5 years after hysterectomy: population-based comparison with endometrial ablation for dysfunctional uterine bleeding.

Authors:  Klim McPherson; Aleks Herbert; Andrew Judge; Aileen Clarke; Stephen Bridgman; Michael Maresh; Chris Overton
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.377

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.