Literature DB >> 23921090

Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse.

Nicole B Korbly1, Nadine C Kassis, Meadow M Good, Monica L Richardson, Nicole M Book, Sallis Yip, Docile Saguan, Carey Gross, Janelle Evans, Vrishali V Lopes, Heidi S Harvie, Vivian W Sung.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and to describe predictors of preference for uterine preservation. STUDY
DESIGN: This multicenter, cross-sectional study evaluated patient preferences for uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in women with prolapse symptoms who were being examined for initial urogynecologic evaluation. Before meeting the physician, the women completed a questionnaire that asked them to indicate their prolapse treatment preference (uterine preservation vs hysterectomy) for scenarios in which the efficacy of treatment varied. Patient characteristics that were associated with preferences were determined, and predictors for uterine preservation preference were identified with multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS: Two hundred thirteen women participated. Assuming outcomes were equal between hysterectomy and uterine preservation, 36% of the women preferred uterine preservation; 20% of the women preferred hysterectomy, and 44% of the women had no strong preference. If uterine preservation was superior, 46% of the women preferred uterine preservation, and 11% of the women preferred hysterectomy. If hysterectomy was superior, 21% of the women still preferred uterine preservation, despite inferior efficacy. On multivariable logistic regression, women in the South had decreased odds of preferring uterine preservation compared with women in the Northeast (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.66). Women with at least some college education (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.08-7.62) and those who believed that the uterus is important for their sense of self (OR, 28.2; 95% CI, 5.00-158.7) had increased odds for preferring uterine preservation.
CONCLUSION: A higher proportion of women with prolapse symptoms who were examined for urogynecologic evaluation preferred uterine preservation, compared with hysterectomy. Geographic region, education level, and belief that the uterus is important for a sense of self were predictors of preference for uterine preservation.
Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  hysterectomy; patient preference; prolapse; uterine preservation

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23921090     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.003

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


  39 in total

1.  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

2.  Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Ke Pan; Lili Cao; Nicholas A Ryan; Yanzhou Wang; Huicheng Xu
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Kate V Meriwether; Ethan M Balk; Danielle D Antosh; Cedric K Olivera; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Miles Murphy; Cara L Grimes; Ambereen Sleemi; Ruchira Singh; Alexis A Dieter; Catrina C Crisp; David D Rahn
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 4.  Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sofia Andrade de Oliveira; Marcelo C M Fonseca; Maria A T Bortolini; Manoel J B C Girão; Matheus T Roque; Rodrigo A Castro
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-08-05       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 5.  Sacrospinous hysteropexy: review and meta-analysis of outcomes.

Authors:  Shveta Kapoor; Kanapathippillai Sivanesan; Jessica Amy Robertson; Mayooran Veerasingham; Vishal Kapoor
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-03-03       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Trends in prolapse surgery in England.

Authors:  Martino Maria Zacche; Sambit Mukhopadhyay; Ilias Giarenis
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-08-04       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs.

Authors:  Christine Hemming; Lynda Constable; Beatriz Goulao; Mary Kilonzo; Dwayne Boyers; Andrew Elders; Kevin Cooper; Anthony Smith; Robert Freeman; Suzanne Breeman; Alison McDonald; Suzanne Hagen; Isobel Montgomery; John Norrie; Cathryn Glazener
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 4.014

8.  Robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus open sacrohysteropexy for uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Jiheum Paek; Maria Lee; Bo Wook Kim; Yongil Kwon
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-10-29       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  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

10.  How do patients and surgeons decide on uterine preservation or hysterectomy in apical prolapse?

Authors:  Breffini Anglim; Orfhlaith O'Sullivan; Barry O'Reilly
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 2.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.