The Impact of Different Surgical Modalities for Hysterectomy on Satisfaction and Patient Reported Outcomes
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing debate regarding the cost-benefit of different surgical modalities for hysterectomy. Studies have relied primarily on evaluation of clinical outcomes and medical expenses. Thus, a paucity of information on patient-reported outcomes including satisfaction, recovery, and recommendations exists. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify differences in patient satisfaction and recommendations by approach to a hysterectomy. METHODS: We recruited a large, geographically diverse group of women who were members of an online hysterectomy support community. US women who had undergone a benign hysterectomy formed this retrospective study cohort. Self-reported characteristics and experiences were compared by surgical modality using chi-square tests. Outcomes over time were assessed with the Jonkheere-Terpstra trend test. Logistic regression identified independent predictors of patient satisfaction and recommendations. RESULTS: There were 6262 women who met the study criteria; 41.74% (2614/6262) underwent an abdominal hysterectomy, 10.64% (666/6262) were vaginal, 27.42% (1717/6262) laparoscopic, 18.94% (1186/6262) robotic, and 1.26% (79/6262) single-incision laparoscopic. Most women were at least college educated (56.37%, 3530/6262), and identified as white, non-Hispanic (83.17%, 5208/6262). Abdominal hysterectomy rates decreased from 68.2% (152/223) to 24.4% (75/307), and minimally invasive surgeries increased from 31.8% (71/223) to 75.6% (232/307) between 2001 or prior years and 2013 (P<.001 all trends). Trends in overall patient satisfaction and recommendations showed significant improvement over time (P<.001).There were differences across the surgical modalities in all patient-reported experiences (ie, satisfaction, time to walking, driving and working, and whether patients would recommend or use the same technique again; P<.001). Significantly better outcomes were evident among women who had vaginal, laparoscopic, and robotic procedures than among those who had an abdominal procedure. However, robotic surgery was the only approach that was an independent predictor of better patient experience; these patients were more satisfied overall (odds ratio [OR] 1.31, 95% CI 1.13-1.51) and on six other satisfaction measures, and more likely to recommend (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.39-1.94) and choose the same modality again (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.67-2.57). Abdominal hysterectomy patients were more dissatisfied with outcomes after surgery and less likely to recommend (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.31-0.40) or choose the same technique again (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.25-0.33). Quicker return to normal activities and surgery after 2007 also were independently associated with better overall satisfaction, willingness to recommend, and to choose the same surgery again. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with other US data, laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy rates increased over time, with a concomitant decline in abdominal hysterectomy. While inherent shortcomings of this retrospective Web-based study exist, findings show that patient experience was better for each of the major minimally invasive approaches than for abdominal hysterectomy. However, robotic-assisted hysterectomy was the only modality that independently predicted greater satisfaction and willingness to recommend and have the same procedure again.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle