Literature DB >> 23333543

Hysterectomy surgery trends: a more accurate depiction of the last decade?

Lindsay C Turner1, Jonathan P Shepherd, Li Wang, Clareann H Bunker, Jerry L Lowder.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to describe trends in hysterectomy route at a large tertiary center. STUDY
DESIGN: We reviewed all hysterectomies performed at Magee-Womens Hospital from 2000 to 2010. This database was chosen over larger national surveys because it has been tracking laparoscopic procedures since 2000, well before laparoscopic hysterectomy International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision (ICD-9) procedure codes were developed.
RESULTS: There were 13,973 patients included who underwent hysterectomy at Magee-Womens Hospital. In 2000, 3.3% were laparoscopic (LH), 74.5% abdominal (AH), and 22.2% vaginal hysterectomy (VH). By 2010, LH represented 43.5%, AH 36.3%, VH 17.2%, and 3.0% laparoscopic converted to open (LHAH). Hysterectomies performed for gynecological malignancy represented 24.4% of cases. The average length of stay for benign LH and VH, 1.0 ± 1.0 and 1.6 ± 1.0 days respectively, was significantly shorter than the average 3.1 ± 2.3 day stay associated with AH (P < .001). The average patient age was 46.9 ± 10.9 years for LH, 51.5 ± 12.1 years for AH, and 51.7 ± 14.1 years for VH, and over the study period there was a significant trend of increasing patient age (b1 = 0.517, 0.583, and 0.513, respectively [P < .001 for all]).
CONCLUSION: The percentage of LH increased over the last decade and by 2010 had surpassed AH. The 43.4% LH rate in 2010 is much higher than previously reported in national surveys. This likely is due to an increase in the number of laparoscopic procedures being performed over the last few years as well as the ability of our study to capture LH prior to development of appropriate ICD-9 procedure codes. Our unique ability to determine hysterectomy route, which predates appropriate coding, may provide a more accurate characterization of hysterectomy trends.
Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23333543      PMCID: PMC3610857          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.01.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  10 in total

1.  Morbidity of 10 110 hysterectomies by type of approach.

Authors:  J Mäkinen; J Johansson; C Tomás; E Tomás; P K Heinonen; T Laatikainen; M Kauko; A M Heikkinen; J Sjöberg
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 6.918

2.  ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy or removal of remaining ovary at the time of hysterectomy in the United States, 1979-2004.

Authors:  Jerry L Lowder; Sallie S Oliphant; Chiara Ghetti; Lara J Burrows; Leslie A Meyn; Judith Balk
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Hysterectomy rates in the United States 1990-1997.

Authors:  Cynthia M Farquhar; Claudia A Steiner
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Trends over time with commonly performed obstetric and gynecologic inpatient procedures.

Authors:  Sallie S Oliphant; Keisha A Jones; Li Wang; Clareann H Bunker; Jerry L Lowder
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 6.  Prolapse and incontinence surgery in older women.

Authors:  Kimberly A Gerten; Alayne D Markland; L Keith Lloyd; Holly E Richter
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 7.450

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

Review 8.  Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.

Authors:  Theodoor E Nieboer; Neil Johnson; Anne Lethaby; Emma Tavender; Elizabeth Curr; Ray Garry; Sabine van Voorst; Ben Willem J Mol; Kirsten B Kluivers
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-07-08

9.  Nationwide use of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal and vaginal approaches.

Authors:  Vanessa L Jacoby; Amy Autry; Gavin Jacobson; Robert Domush; Sanae Nakagawa; Alison Jacoby
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Incidence of lower urinary tract injury at the time of total laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Authors:  J Eric Jelovsek; Chi Chiung; Grace Chen; Soldrea L Roberts; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Tommaso Falcone
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2007 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

  10 in total
  25 in total

1.  Disparities in use of laparoscopic hysterectomies: a nationwide analysis.

Authors:  Pooja R Patel; Jinhyung Lee; Ana M Rodriguez; Mostafa A Borahay; Russell R Snyder; Gary D Hankins; Gokhan S Kilic
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 4.137

2.  Apical support at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse.

Authors:  Kelly L Kantartzis; Lindsay C Turner; Jonathan P Shepherd; Li Wang; Daniel G Winger; Jerry L Lowder
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  3 mm Senhance robotic hysterectomy: a step towards future perspectives.

Authors:  Salvatore Gueli Alletti; Emanuele Perrone; Stefano Cianci; Cristiano Rossitto; Giorgia Monterossi; Federica Bernardini; Giovanni Scambia
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-01-23

4.  Association Between Power Morcellation and Mortality in Women With Unexpected Uterine Cancer Undergoing Hysterectomy or Myomectomy.

Authors:  Xiao Xu; Haiqun Lin; Jason D Wright; Cary P Gross; Francis P Boscoe; Lindsey M Hutchison; Peter E Schwartz; Vrunda B Desai
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-09-16       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Trends in the national distribution of laparoscopic hysterectomies from 2003 to 2010.

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

6.  Hysterectomy and Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy: Variations by History of Military Service and Birth Cohort.

Authors:  Lisa S Callegari; Kristen E Gray; Laurie C Zephyrin; Laura B Harrington; Megan R Gerber; Barbara B Cochrane; Julie C Weitlauf; Bevanne Bean-Mayberry; Lori A Bastian; Kristin M Mattocks; Sally G Haskell; Jodie G Katon
Journal:  Gerontologist       Date:  2016-02

7.  Factors Influencing Residency Program Selection by Medical Students Pursuing Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Authors:  Meredith J Alston; Torri D Metz; Russell Fothergill; Amy Meg Autry; Sarah A Wagner; Amanda A Allshouse; Alyssa Stephenson-Famy
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2017-02

8.  Moving Beyond Reflexive and Prophylactic Gynecologic Surgery.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stewart; Stacey A Missmer; Walter A Rocca
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 11.104

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.  Movement to outpatient hysterectomy for benign indications in the United States, 2008-2014.

Authors:  Gaby Moawad; Emelline Liu; Chao Song; Alex Z Fu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-30       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.