The Impact of Different Surgical Modalities for Hysterectomy on Satisfaction and Patient Reported Outcomes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it