4.6 Article

Nationwide Trends in the Performance of Inpatient Hysterectomy in the United States

Journal

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Volume 122, Issue 2, Pages 233-241

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318299a6cf

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [NCI R01CA169121-01A1, NCI R01CA134964, T32 CA09529]
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA169121, T32CA009529, R01CA134964] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of inpatient hysterectomy and explore changes in the use of various routes of hysterectomy and patterns of referral. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify all women aged 18 years or older who underwent inpatient hysterectomy between 1998 and 2010. Weighted estimates of national trends were calculated and the number of procedures performed estimated. Trends in hospital volume and across hospital characteristics were examined. RESULTS: After weighting, we identified a total 7,438,452 women who underwent inpatient hysterectomy between 1998 and 2010. The number of hysterectomies performed annually rose from 543,812 in 1998 to a peak of 681,234 in 2002; it then declined consistently annually and reached 433,621 cases in 2010. Overall, 247,973 (36.4%) fewer hysterectomies were performed in 2010 compared with 2002. From 2002 to 2010 the number of hysterectomies performed for each of the following indications declined: leiomyoma (247.6%), abnormal bleeding (228.9%), benign ovarian mass (263.1%), endometriosis (265.3%), and pelvic organ prolapse (239.4%). The median hospital case volume decreased from 83 procedures per year in 2002 to 50 cases per year in 2010 (P<.001). CONCLUSION: The number of inpatient hysterectomies performed in the United States has declined substantially over the past decade. The median number of hysterectomies per hospital has declined likewise by more than 40%.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available