Hysterectomy Practice Patterns in the Postmorcellation Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize long-term national trends in surgical approach for hysterectomy after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning against power morcellation for laparoscopic specimen removal. METHODS: This was a descriptive study using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from 2012 to 2016. We identified hysterectomies using Current Procedural Terminology codes. We used an interrupted time-series analysis to evaluate abdominal and supracervical hysterectomy trends surrounding The Wall Street Journal article first reporting morcellation safety concerns and the FDA safety communication. We compared categorical and continuous variables using χ, t, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. RESULTS: We identified 179,950 hysterectomies; laparoscopy was the most common mode of hysterectomy in every quarter. Before The Wall Street Journal article, there was no significant change in proportion of abdominal hysterectomies (0.3% decrease/quarter, P=.14). After The Wall Street Journal article, use of abdominal hysterectomy increased 1.1% per quarter for two quarters through the FDA warning (P<.001), plateaued for three quarters until March 2015 (P=.65), then decreased by 0.8% per quarter through 2016 (P<.001). Supracervical hysterectomy volume continuously decreased after the FDA warning (1.0% decrease per quarter, P<.001) and after three quarters (0.7% decrease per quarter, P=.01), then plateaued from April 2015 through 2016 (0.05% decrease per quarter, P=.40). Mode of supracervical hysterectomy was unchanged from 2012 to 2013 (P=.43), followed by two quarters of significant increase in proportion of supracervical abdominal hysterectomies (11.7%/quarter, P<.001). This change in mode of supracervical hysterectomy then plateaued through 2016 (P=.06). CONCLUSION: Despite early studies suggesting that minimally invasive hysterectomy decreased in response to safety concerns regarding power morcellation, we found that this effect reversed 1 year after the FDA safety communication. However, there was a sustained decline in supracervical hysterectomy, and the remaining supracervical hysterectomies were more likely to be performed using laparotomy.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".