Literature DB >> 23635670

Variation in ovarian conservation in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications.

Hemashi K Perera1, Cande V Ananth, Catherine A Richards, Alfred I Neugut, Sharyn N Lewin, Yu-Shiang Lu, Thomas J Herzog, Dawn L Hershman, Jason D Wright.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Emerging data suggest that oophorectomy at the time of hysterectomy for benign indications may increase long-term morbidity and mortality. We performed a population-based analysis to estimate the rates of oophorectomy in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications.
METHODS: The Perspective database was used to estimate the rate of ovarian preservation in women aged 40-64 years who underwent hysterectomy for benign indications. Hierarchical mixed-effects regression models were developed to estimate the influence of patient, procedural, physician, and hospital characteristics on ovarian conservation. Between-hospital variation in ovarian preservation also was estimated.
RESULTS: Among 752,045 women, 348,972 (46.4%) underwent bilateral oophorectomy, whereas 403,073 (53.6%) had ovarian conservation. Stratified by age, the rate of ovarian conservation was 74.3% for those younger than 40 years of age; 62.7% for those 40-44 years of age; 40.8% for those 45-49 years of age; 25.2% for those 50-54 years of age; 25.5% for those 55-59 years of age; and 31.0% for those 60-64 years of age. Younger age and more recent year of surgery had the strongest association with ovarian conservation. The observed patient, procedural, physician, and hospital characteristics accounted for only 46% of the total variation in the rate of ovarian conservation; 54% of the variability remained unexplained, suggesting a large amount of intrinsic between-hospital variation in the decision to perform oophorectomy.
CONCLUSION: The rate of ovarian conservation is increasing, particularly among women younger than 50 years old. Although demographic and clinical factors influence the decision to perform oophorectomy, there appears to be substantial between-hospital variation in performance of oophorectomy that remains unexplained by measurable patient, physician, or hospital characteristics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23635670     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182887a47

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


  10 in total

1.  Influence of treatment center and hospital volume on survival for locally advanced cervical cancer.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Yongmei Huang; Cande V Ananth; Ana I Tergas; Cassandra Duffy; Israel Deutsch; William M Burke; June Y Hou; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-07-12       Impact factor: 5.482

2.  Comparison of surgical indications for hysterectomy by age and approach in 4653 Chinese women.

Authors:  Jingjing Jiang; Ting Ding; Aiyue Luo; Yunping Lu; Ding Ma; Shixuan Wang
Journal:  Front Med       Date:  2014-06-27       Impact factor: 4.592

3.  Cardiovascular and metabolic morbidity after hysterectomy with ovarian conservation: a cohort study.

Authors:  Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso; Zaraq Khan; Amy L Weaver; Carin Y Smith; Walter A Rocca; Elizabeth A Stewart
Journal:  Menopause       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.953

4.  Bilateral oophorectomy and risk of cancer in African American women.

Authors:  Deborah A Boggs; Julie R Palmer; Lynn Rosenberg
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 2.506

5.  Racial and ethnic differences in the adoption of opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention in the United States.

Authors:  Pritesh S Karia; Yongmei Huang; Parisa Tehranifar; Kala Visvanathan; Jason D Wright; Jeanine M Genkinger
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2022-04-27       Impact factor: 10.693

6.  Utilization and Outcomes of Ovarian Conservation in Premenopausal Women With Endometrial Cancer.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Soledad Jorge; Ana I Tergas; June Y Hou; William M Burke; Yongmei Huang; Jim C Hu; Cande V Ananth; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 7.  Risk-reducing salpingectomy: Let us be opportunistic.

Authors:  Kara C Long Roche; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Mlica Nourmoussavi; Oliver Zivanovic
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Association of Oophorectomy and Fat and Lean Body Mass: Evidence from a Population-Based Sample of U.S. Women.

Authors:  Pritesh S Karia; Corinne E Joshu; Kala Visvanathan
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Hospital variation in responses to safety warnings about power morcellation in hysterectomy.

Authors:  Xiao Xu; Vrunda B Desai; Jason D Wright; Haiqun Lin; Peter E Schwartz; Cary P Gross
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-12-24       Impact factor: 10.693

10.  Improved survival in cervical cancer patients receiving care at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.

Authors:  Corinne McDaniels-Davidson; Christine H Feng; Maria Elena Martinez; Alison J Canchola; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Jesse N Nodora; Sandip P Patel; Arno J Mundt; Jyoti S Mayadev
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2022-08-02       Impact factor: 6.921

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.