Literature DB >> 16738152

Hysterectomy rates for benign indications.

Gavin F Jacobson1, Ruth E Shaber, Mary Anne Armstrong, Yun-Yi Hung.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the annual rates, types, and indications for hysterectomies performed for benign disease in Kaiser Permanente Northern California from 1994 to 2003.
METHODS: All women, 20 years or age or older, who were undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications in Kaiser Permanente Northern California from 1994 to 2003 were identified. We analyzed hysterectomy rates by type, indication, and age group. Changes over time were analyzed with the Cochran-Armitage test for linear trend.
RESULTS: From 1994 to 2003, there were 32,321 hysterectomies performed for benign indications. Hysterectomy rates showed a significant decline, from 4.01 per 1,000 women in 1994 to 3.41 per 1,000 women in 2003 (P for trend < .001). The relative proportions of all hysterectomies performed as laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) peaked at 13.0% in 1995 and then steadily declined to 3.9% in 2003 (P for trend < .001), whereas the relative proportion of subtotal abdominal hysterectomy increased from 6.9% in 1994 to 20.8% in 2003 (P for trend < .001). Hysterectomy rates declined 11.2% for uterine leiomyoma (relative risk [RR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-0.95), 33.1% for endometriosis (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.76), and 18.6% for uterine prolapse (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.92). The relative proportion performed for uterine leiomyoma was consistently greater than for all other indications combined.
CONCLUSION: The rates of hysterectomy for benign indications are decreasing. The type of hysterectomy changed significantly, with LAVH performed less frequently and subtotal abdominal hysterectomy increasing in popularity. Uterine leiomyoma remains the most common indication for benign hysterectomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16738152     DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000210640.86628.ff

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


  19 in total

Review 1.  Natural orifice hysterectomy.

Authors:  Michael D Moen; Michael B Noone; Denise M Elser
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2008-06-11

2.  Prognosis of women with apparent stage I endometrial cancer who had supracervical hysterectomy.

Authors:  Koji Matsuo; Hiroko Machida; Tsuyoshi Takiuchi; Jocelyn Garcia-Sayre; Annie A Yessaian; Lynda D Roman
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  The Design of a Randomized Trial of Vaginal Surgery for Uterovaginal Prolapse: Vaginal Hysterectomy With Native Tissue Vault Suspension Versus Mesh Hysteropexy Suspension (The Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized Trial).

Authors:  Charles W Nager; Halina Zyczynski; Rebecca G Rogers; Matthew D Barber; Holly E Richter; Anthony G Visco; Charles R Rardin; Heidi Harvie; Dennis Wallace; Susan F Meikle
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.091

Review 4.  Uterine leiomyomas: individualizing the approach to a heterogeneous condition.

Authors:  Shannon K Laughlin; Elizabeth A Stewart
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Nationwide rates of conversion from laparoscopic or vaginal hysterectomy to open abdominal hysterectomy in Germany.

Authors:  Andreas Stang; Ray M Merrill; Oliver Kuss
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-01-15       Impact factor: 8.082

6.  Differential expression of microRNA species in human uterine leiomyoma versus normal myometrium.

Authors:  Erica E Marsh; Zhihong Lin; Ping Yin; Magdy Milad; Debabrata Chakravarti; Serdar E Bulun
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2007-09-04       Impact factor: 7.329

7.  Hysterectomy associated with de novo lower urinary tract symptoms in a Taiwanese population: a nationwide, population-based study.

Authors:  Pei-Chen Li; Huei-Kai Huang; Dah-Ching Ding
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 2.894

8.  Socioeconomic indicators and hysterectomy status in the United States, 2004.

Authors:  Elisabeth A Erekson; Sherry Weitzen; Vivian W Sung; Christina A Raker; Deborah L Myers
Journal:  J Reprod Med       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 0.142

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.  Breast cancer risk and hysterectomy status: the Multiethnic Cohort study.

Authors:  Christy G Woolcott; Gertraud Maskarinec; Malcolm C Pike; Brian E Henderson; Lynne R Wilkens; Laurence N Kolonel
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2008-11-14       Impact factor: 2.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.