4.0 Article

Incidence of Occult Uterine Pathology in Women Undergoing Hysterectomy With Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000283

关键词

hysterectomy; power morcellation; occult pathology; pelvic organ prolapse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The objectives of this study are to determine the incidence of and associated risk factors for occult uterine pathology in patients undergoing hysterectomy with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair. Methods: Medical records were reviewed from all cases of hysterectomy with POP surgery at a tertiary medical center from January 2007 through July 2014. Exclusion criteria included known endometrial hyperplasia or malignancy. A power calculation determined that 1000 subjects would demonstrate a lower rate of leiomyosarcoma in a urogynecology population compared to the rate of 1:352 reported by the Food and Drug Administration. Results: There were 1196 cases identified with a mean age of 62.3 +/- 11.3 years and body mass index of 27.8 +/- 5.7. Most patients were white (95.5%) and postmenopausal (81.6%). Malignancy was present in 3 (0.3%) specimens. Seven (0.6%) specimens had endometrial hyperplasia. This overall abnormal pathology incidence of 0.8%, with 95% confidence interval of 0% to 1.4% is significantly lower than published rates of 2.6% (P < 0.001). There were no specimens with sarcoma (rate of 0%; 95% confidence interval, 0%-0.2%). There were no associations between demographic or clinical variables with the presence of hyperplasia and/or malignancy. Conclusions: The incidence of uterine hyperplasia/malignancy and sarcoma in women undergoing hysterectomy with POP were both significantly lower than previously published values in other populations. The use of power morcellation in urogynecologic populations should be revisited as the incidence of occult pathology is lower than the general population, and a condition-specific risk profile should be considered in the informed consent process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据