Literature DB >> 29450856

Hysterectomy and perceived physical function in middle-aged Australian women: a 20-year population-based prospective cohort study.

Louise F Wilson1, Nirmala Pandeya2,3, Julie Byles4, Gita D Mishra2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Hysterectomy is one of the most common gynaecological procedures worldwide. Changes in endocrine function may impact age-associated decline in physical function and these changes may be accelerated by hysterectomy. The aim of this study was to investigate associations between hysterectomy status and self-reported physical function limitations.
METHODS: Our study sample (n = 8624) came from the mid-cohort (born 1945-1950) of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH). Self-report of physical function was measured by the Physical Functioning (PF) subscale of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) over seven surveys (1998-2016), categorised into substantial, moderate and minimal PF-limitations. The associations between hysterectomy status and de novo substantial or moderate PF-limitations versus minimal PF-limitations were investigated using log-multinomial regression.
RESULTS: By Survey 8 (2016), 20% of the study sample had a hysterectomy with ovarian conservation (hysterectomy only) and 9% had a hysterectomy and both ovaries removed (hysterectomy-bilateral oophorectomy). Women with a hysterectomy only had a small increase in risk of substantial PF-limitations (versus minimal PF-limitations) compared to women with no hysterectomy (relative risk [RR]: 1.13; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.00-1.27); the point estimate was stronger for women with a hysterectomy-bilateral oophorectomy (RR: 1.26; 95% CI 1.09-1.46). In a supplementary analysis, the increased risk of substantial PF-limitations was seen only in women who had surgery before the age of 45 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to women with no hysterectomy, women with hysterectomy-bilateral oophorectomy were at increased risk of substantial PF-limitations versus minimal PF-limitations over 18 years of follow-up.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bilateral oophorectomy; Hysterectomy; Physical function; SF36; Women’s health

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29450856     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-1812-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  27 in total

1.  Global epidemiology of hysterectomy: possible impact on gynecological cancer rates.

Authors:  Anne Hammer; Anne F Rositch; Johnny Kahlert; Patti E Gravitt; Jan Blaakaer; Mette Søgaard
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Effect of hysterectomy with ovarian preservation on ovarian function.

Authors:  Patricia G Moorman; Evan R Myers; Joellen M Schildkraut; Edwin S Iversen; Frances Wang; Nicolette Warren
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Change in the ovarian environment after hysterectomy as assessed by ovarian arterial blood flow indices and serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels.

Authors:  Dong-Yun Lee; Hyun-Jung Park; Byoung-Gie Kim; Duk-Soo Bae; Byung-Koo Yoon; Dooseok Choi
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2010-03-07       Impact factor: 2.435

4.  The association of hysterectomy and menopause: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Cynthia M Farquhar; Lynn Sadler; Sally A Harvey; Alistair W Stewart
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 6.531

5.  Cohort Profile Update: Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health.

Authors:  Annette J Dobson; Richard Hockey; Wendy J Brown; Julie E Byles; Deborah J Loxton; Deirdre McLaughlin; Leigh R Tooth; Gita D Mishra
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 7.196

6.  Reproducibility and validity of self-reported menopausal status in a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  G A Colditz; M J Stampfer; W C Willett; W B Stason; B Rosner; C H Hennekens; F E Speizer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 7.  Aging, physical activity, and hormones in women--a review.

Authors:  Jennifer L Copeland; Samuel Y Chu; Mark S Tremblay
Journal:  J Aging Phys Act       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 1.961

8.  Validation of self-reported history of hysterectomy and oophorectomy among women in an integrated group practice setting.

Authors:  Amanda I Phipps; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Menopause       Date:  2009 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.953

9.  Physical functioning and menopause states.

Authors:  MaryFran Sowers; Kristin Tomey; Mary Jannausch; Aimee Eyvazzadeh; Bin Nan; John Randolph
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Gender and life course occupational social class differences in trajectories of functional limitations in midlife: findings from the 1946 British birth cohort.

Authors:  Emily T Murray; Rebecca Hardy; Bjørn Heine Strand; Rachel Cooper; Jack M Guralnik; Diana Kuh
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2011-08-22       Impact factor: 6.053

View more
  3 in total

1.  Trends in Hysterectomy Incidence Rates During 2000-2015 in Denmark: Shifting from Abdominal to Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures.

Authors:  Kathrine Dyhr Lycke; Johnny Kahlert; Rikke Damgaard; Ole Mogensen; Anne Hammer
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 4.790

2.  Prevalence of Hysterectomy by Self-Reported Disability Among Canadian Women: Findings from a National Cross-Sectional Survey.

Authors:  Natalie V Scime; Hilary K Brown; Amy Metcalfe; Erin A Brennand
Journal:  Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle)       Date:  2021-11-29

3.  What is the impact of PPAR-γ agonist-rosiglitazone on ovarian reserve after hysterectomy? An experimental study

Authors:  Burcu Gündoğdu; Ömer Lütfi Tapisiz; Berna Dilbaz; Serkan Bariş Mülazimoğlu; Kamil Hakan Müftüoğlu; Betül Dündar; Ümit Göktolga
Journal:  Turk J Med Sci       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 0.973

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.