Literature DB >> 20226403

Minimally invasive hysterectomies-a survey on attitudes and barriers among practicing gynecologists.

Jon I Einarsson1, Kristen A Matteson, Jay Schulkin, Niraj R Chavan, Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To explore attitudes and hysterectomy practices among gynecologists in the United States and to identify potential barriers to offering minimally invasive hysterectomies.
DESIGN: Mixed-mode (online and on-paper) survey of a random sample of 1500 practicing obstetrician-gynecologists.
SETTING: Nationwide survey in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Nonretired obstetrician-gynecologists identified through a physician list from the American Medical Association.
INTERVENTIONS: Postal and online survey. MEASUREMENTS & MAIN
RESULTS: We received a response from 376 physicians (25.8% response rate). The average age of respondents was 47.9 years, and 87% were generalists. Participants performed on average 4 surgical cases per week and 32 hysterectomies per year, most of which were abdominal hysterectomies. When asked for preferred mode of access for themselves or their spouse, 55.5% chose vaginal hysterectomy (VH), 40.6% chose laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), and 8% chose abdominal hysterectomy (AH). Younger physicians (<40) and high surgical volume physicians were significantly more likely to chose a laparoscopic approach and identified significantly fewer barriers for performing LH. The main barriers to performing VH were technical difficulty, potential for complications, and caseload of VH. The main barriers for performing LH were training during residency, technical difficulty, personal surgical experience and operating time. The majority of gynecologists wanted to decrease their AH rates and increase their LH rates. The most significant identified contraindications to VH were prior laparotomy, a uterus larger than 12 weeks, narrow introitus, adnexal mass, and minimal uterine descent.
CONCLUSIONS: While a large majority of gynecologists would prefer a VH or LH for themselves or their spouse, AH remains the most common hysterectomy method in the United States. A generation gap appears to be brewing with younger gynecologist more in favor of the laparoscopic approach. More emphasis should be placed on training gynecologists in performing minimally invasive hysterectomies, given their desire to change their surgical mode of access. Copyright 2010 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20226403      PMCID: PMC3038434          DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2009.12.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol        ISSN: 1553-4650            Impact factor:   4.137


  16 in total

1.  Perceived proficiency in endoscopic techniques among senior obstetrics and gynecology residents.

Authors:  J I Einarsson; A Young; L Tsien; H Sangi-Haghpeykar
Journal:  J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc       Date:  2002-05

Review 2.  Laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign diseases.

Authors:  Filip Claerhout; Jan Deprest
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2005-03-02       Impact factor: 5.237

Review 3.  Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.

Authors:  N Johnson; D Barlow; A Lethaby; E Tavender; E Curr; R Garry
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-04-19

4.  Why has the acceptance of laparoscopic hysterectomy been slow? Results of an anonymous survey of Australian gynecologists.

Authors:  Michelle Englund; Stephen Robson
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.137

5.  Gynecologists' attitudes toward hysterectomy: is the sex of the clinician a factor?

Authors:  Kenyetta Brummitt; Ozgur H Harmanli; John Gaughan; Vani Dandolu; Ashwin J Chatwani; Enrique Hernandez
Journal:  J Reprod Med       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 0.142

6.  Hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 1997 through 2005.

Authors:  Ray M Merrill
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2008-01

7.  Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003.

Authors:  Jennifer M Wu; Mary Ellen Wechter; Elizabeth J Geller; Thao V Nguyen; Anthony G Visco
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Physician response rates to a mail survey by specialty and timing of incentive.

Authors:  Cristine D Delnevo; Diane J Abatemarco; Michael B Steinberg
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.043

9.  Attitudes to mode of hysterectomy--a survey-based study among Swedish gynecologists.

Authors:  Pär Persson; Thomas Hellborg; Jan Brynhildsen; Mats Fredrikson; Preben Kjølhede
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 3.636

10.  Assessing the learning curve for laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy.

Authors:  Ali Ghomi; Paul Littman; Aru Prasad; Jon Ivar Einarsson
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2007 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

View more
  17 in total

1.  Cuff Closure by Vaginal Route in TLH: Case Series and Review of Literature.

Authors:  Huseyin Aydogmus; Serpil Aydoğmuş; Servet Gençdal; Sefa Kelekçi
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-03-01

2.  Vaginal hysterectomy: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Michael D Moen; Holly E Richter
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Progressive reduction in abdominal hysterectomy rates: impact of laparoscopy, robotics and surgeon factors.

Authors:  Michael Moen; Michael Noone; Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh; Brett Vassallo; Brian Locker; Charles Miller
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2013-06-11

Review 4.  Entry into the anterior cul-de-sac during vaginal hysterectomy.

Authors:  Brian J Linder; John B Gebhart
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-04-11       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  The Dying Art of Vaginal Hysterectomy: A Novel Simulation.

Authors:  Jamie C Humes; Larissa Weir; Erin A Keyser; Maria M Molina
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2019-12-12

6.  Racial/Ethnic Disparities/Differences in Hysterectomy Route in Women Likely Eligible for Minimally Invasive Surgery.

Authors:  Lisa M Pollack; Margaret A Olsen; Sarah J Gehlert; Su-Hsin Chang; Jerry L Lowder
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2019-09-10       Impact factor: 4.137

7.  Comparative analysis of vaginal versus robotic-assisted hysterectomy for benign indications.

Authors:  Enrique G Jacome; April E Hebert; Frank Christian
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2012-03-14

8.  Minimally invasive specialists and rates of laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Authors:  Megan Loring; Stephanie N Morris; Keith B Isaacson
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

9.  Which one is safer - performing a laparoscopic hysterectomy with a tissue fusion device involving diagnostic cystoscopy or traditional abdominal hysterectomy with ureteral dissection?

Authors:  Ali Yavuzcan; Gazi Yildiz; Mete Cağlar; Raşit Altıntaş; Serdar Dilbaz; Pinar Yildiz; Selahattin Kumru; Yusuf Ustün
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 1.195

10.  Costs and outcomes of abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies.

Authors:  Kelly N Wright; Gudrun M Jonsdottir; Selena Jorgensen; Neel Shah; Jon I Einarsson
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2012 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.