Shifting trends and sicker patients: Reassessing hysterectomy performed for benign indications by gynecologic oncologists

被引:2
作者
Wang, Connor C. [1 ,4 ]
Foley, Olivia W. [1 ]
V. Blank, Stephanie [2 ]
Huh, Warner K. [3 ]
Barber, Emma L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Northwestern Univ, Feinberg Sch Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Gynecol Oncol, Chicago, IL USA
[2] Icahn Sch Med Mt Sinai, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Gynecol Oncol, New York, NY USA
[3] Univ Alabama Birmingham, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Gynecol Oncol, Birmingham, AL USA
[4] Northwestern Univ, Feinberg Sch Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, 250 E Super St,Suite 05-2175, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
关键词
Benign hysterectomy; Future of profession; Benign gynecologist; Gynecologist oncology; Surgical outcomes; Discussion of the value of gynecologic oncology; COMPLICATIONS; SURGEONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.01.030
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objective: To assess trends and differences in patient characteristics, complications, and distributions of hysterectomy for benign indications by benign gynecologists (BG) and gynecologic oncologists (GO). Methods: This retrospective cohort study identified patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data from 2014 to 2021. Exclusions were made for gynecologic or disseminated cancers, ascites, non-gynecologic surgeons, and cesarean hysterectomies. Primary outcome was major (>= Grade 3) 30-day complications, categorized into any complications, wound, cardiovascular and pulmonary, renal, infectious, andthromboembolic complications. Thirty-day readmissions, reoperations, and mortality were also analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 match of GO to BG patients and was compared. Linear regressions assessed trends. Results: Among 198,767 patients, 18% (n = 37,707) underwent hysterectomy for benign indications with GO. GO patients exhibited more risk factors for complications and differed significantly from BG patients in comorbidities and perioperative characteristics. Overall, GO patients had higher major complication rates (3.1% vs 2.2%, p < 0.001) and for several other composite complications. After matching, compared to BG, GO-performed hysterectomies had similar rates of major complications (3.0% vs 3.0%, p = 0.55) and no differences in other composite complications, except fewer reoperations (1.2 % vs 1.5%, p < 0.01) and wound complications (0.4% vs 0.5%, p = 0.02) in GO patients. Over the eight years, the percentage of GO-performed hysterectomy (beta = 0.41, R-2 = 0.71,p < 0.01) increased significantly whereas BG-performed surgeries decreased by the same magnitude. BG had a significant decrease in frail patients (beta = -0.47, R-2 = 0.90, p < 0.01), but GO did not (beta = -0.36, R-2 = 0.38, p = 0.10). Conclusions: GO are performing more hysterectomies for benign indications on higher-risk patients. However, on a matched cohort, risks of major complications were similar between GO and BG.
引用
收藏
页码:43 / 50
页数:8
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]   Postoperative complications after non-obstetric surgery among pregnant patients in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, 2005-2012 [J].
Abdelwahab, Mahmoud ;
Lynch, Courtney D. ;
Schneider, Patrick ;
Thung, Stephen ;
Costantine, Maged M. ;
O'Malley, David ;
Landon, Mark B. ;
Pawlik, Tim M. ;
Venkatesh, Kartik K. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 223 (02) :364-369
[2]   Clinical trials in gynecologic oncology: Past, present, and future [J].
Annunziata, Christina M. ;
Kohn, Elise C. .
GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2018, 148 (02) :393-402
[3]   Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies [J].
Austin, Peter C. .
PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2011, 10 (02) :150-161
[4]   History of gynecologic oncology subspecialty [J].
Averette, HB ;
Wrennick, A ;
Angioli, R .
SURGICAL CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2001, 81 (04) :747-+
[5]   Gynecologic Oncologist as surgical consultant: Intraoperative consultations during general gynecologic surgery as an important focus of gynecologic oncology training [J].
Aviki, Emeline M. ;
Rauh-Hain, J. Alejandro ;
Clark, Rachel M. ;
Hall, Tracilyn R. ;
Berkowitz, Lori R. ;
Boruta, David M. ;
Growdon, Whitfield B. ;
Schorge, John O. ;
Goodman, Annekathryn .
GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2015, 137 (01) :93-97
[6]   Benign hysterectomy performed by gynecologic oncologists: Is selection bias altering our ability to measure surgical quality? [J].
Barber, Emma L. ;
Rossi, Emma C. ;
Alexander, Amy ;
Bilimoria, Karl ;
Simon, Melissa A. .
GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2018, 151 (01) :141-144
[7]   Doubling down on the future of gynecologic oncology: The SGO future of the profession summit report [J].
Blank, Stephanie, V ;
Huh, Warner K. ;
Bell, Maria ;
Dilley, Sarah ;
Hardesty, Melissa ;
Hoskins, Ebony R. ;
Lachance, Jason ;
Musa, Fernanda ;
Prendergast, Emily ;
Rimel, B. J. ;
Shahin, Mark ;
Valea, Fidel .
GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2023, 171 :76-82
[8]   Accuracy in Referrals to Gynecologic Oncologists Based on Clinical Presentation for Ovarian Mass [J].
Chua, Katherine Jane C. ;
Patel, Ricky D. ;
Trivedi, Radhika ;
Greenberg, Patricia ;
Beiter, Kyle ;
Magliaro, Thomas ;
Patel, Ushma ;
Varughese, Joyce .
DIAGNOSTICS, 2020, 10 (02)
[9]   Evaluation of Surgical Morbidity After Hysterectomy During an Obesity Epidemic [J].
Davidson, Brittany A. ;
Weber, Jeremy M. ;
Monuzsko, Karen A. ;
Truong, Tracy ;
Havrilesky, Laura J. ;
Moss, Haley A. .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2022, 139 (04) :589-596
[10]   Classification of surgical complications - A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey [J].
Dindo, D ;
Demartines, N ;
Clavien, PA .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2004, 240 (02) :205-213