Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;212(3):304.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.11.031. Epub 2014 Dec 23.
We sought to analyze use of alternative treatments and pathology among women who underwent hysterectomy in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative.
Perioperative hysterectomy data including demographics, preoperative alternative treatments, and pathology results were analyzed from 52 hospitals participating in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative from Jan. 1 through Nov. 8, 2013. Women who underwent hysterectomy for benign indications including uterine fibroids, abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), endometriosis, or pelvic pain were eligible. Pathology was classified as "supportive" when fibroids, endometriosis, endometrial hyperplasia, adenomyosis, adnexal pathology, or unexpected cancer were reported and "unsupportive" if these conditions were not reported. Multivariable analysis was done to determine independent associations with use of alternative treatment and unsupportive pathology.
Inclusion criteria were met by 56.2% (n = 3397) of those women who underwent hysterectomy (n = 6042). There was no documentation of alternative treatment prior to hysterectomy in 37.7% (n = 1281). Alternative treatment was more likely to be considered among women aged <40 years vs those aged 40-50 and >50 years (68% vs 62% vs 56%, P < .001) and among women with larger uteri. Unsupportive pathology was identified in 18.3% (n = 621). The rate of unsupportive pathology was higher among women age <40 years vs those aged 40-50 and >50 years (37.8% vs 12.0% vs 7.5%, P < .001), among women with an indication of endometriosis/pain vs uterine fibroids and/or AUB, and among women with smaller uteri.
This study provides evidence that alternatives to hysterectomy are underutilized in women undergoing hysterectomy for AUB, uterine fibroids, endometriosis, or pelvic pain. The rate of unsupportive pathology when hysterectomies were done for these indications was 18%.
我们旨在分析在密歇根手术质量协作组中接受子宫切除术的女性使用替代疗法和病理检查的情况。
对 52 家参与密歇根手术质量协作组的医院于 2013 年 1 月 1 日至 11 月 8 日期间的围手术期子宫切除术数据(包括人口统计学、术前替代疗法和病理结果)进行了分析。因子宫肌瘤、异常子宫出血(AUB)、子宫内膜异位症或盆腔疼痛等良性指征接受子宫切除术的女性符合入组条件。当报告肌瘤、子宫内膜异位症、子宫内膜增生、子宫腺肌病、附件病变或意外癌症时,将病理结果分类为“支持性”,如果未报告这些情况,则将其分类为“非支持性”。采用多变量分析确定与替代治疗和非支持性病理检查相关的独立因素。
纳入标准符合 56.2%(n=3397)的接受子宫切除术的女性(n=6042)。37.7%(n=1281)的女性在子宫切除术前没有替代治疗的记录。与 40-50 岁和 50 岁以上的女性相比,年龄<40 岁的女性更倾向于考虑替代治疗(68%比 62%比 56%,P<.001),且子宫较大的女性更倾向于考虑替代治疗。18.3%(n=621)的女性存在非支持性病理。年龄<40 岁的女性非支持性病理的发生率高于 40-50 岁和 50 岁以上的女性(37.8%比 12.0%比 7.5%,P<.001),子宫内膜异位症/疼痛的指征比子宫肌瘤和/或 AUB 的发生率高,且子宫较小的女性更倾向于考虑替代治疗。
本研究表明,对于因 AUB、子宫肌瘤、子宫内膜异位症或盆腔疼痛而接受子宫切除术的女性,子宫切除术的替代疗法利用不足。对于这些指征行子宫切除术的非支持性病理的发生率为 18%。