Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Hysterectomy”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Vaginal Hysterectomy Versus Vaginal Assisted Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery Hysterectomy; Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare Vaginal Hysterectomy (VH) with Vaginal Assisted Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) hysterectomy (VANH) as a day-care procedure. DESIGN: Single-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two Dutch non-academic teaching hospitals. POPULATION: Women aged &#x2265;&#x2009;18&#x2009;years undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications. METHODS: Women were randomised 1:2 (VH or VANH). Primary outcome was SDD. Secondary outcomes included operative time, rate of elective salpingectomies, intraoperative blood loss, complications (Clavien-Dindo), pain scores (NRS) and analgesic use, post-operative recovery (RI-10), and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients were included in the analyses (n&#x2009;=&#x2009;42 VH, and n&#x2009;=&#x2009;71 VANH). SDD occurred significantly more frequently in the VANH group (87.3%) than VH group (71.4%; OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.04-7.25; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.04). VANH was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (median 55&#x2009;min versus 65&#x2009;min; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.005), less blood loss (median 50&#x2009;mL vs. 150&#x2009;mL; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001) and more often elective opportunistic salpingectomy compared to VH (100% vs. 77.4%; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.008). NRS were significantly lower in the VANH group the first hour post-operative (3 vs. 1, p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001). Post-operative complications (VH 9.5% vs. VANH 15.5%; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.34), readmission (VH 4.8% vs. VANH 8.5%; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.47), analgesic use, recovery, and quality of life were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: VANH is a safe and effective alternative to VH, offering a higher likelihood of SDD, shorter operative time, reduced blood loss, and more often an elective salpingectomy, without increased complications or differences in pain, recovery, or quality of life.

Humans

Regional and statewide hysterectomy-corrected endometrial cancer incidence and five-year relative survival in Texas.

BACKGROUND: Rising endometrial cancer (EC) incidence nationwide, particularly among Hispanic women, and high prevalence of risk factors such as obesity and comorbidities in Texas, motivated us to estimate EC incidence rates (IRs) and survival by age (<50 years/ early-onset, &#x2265;50 years/late-onset), race-ethnicity (Non-Hispanic-White [NHW], -Black [NHB], Hispanic), histology (endometrioid, non-endometrioid), and area-based socioeconomic (SES) factors across Texas Health Service Regions (HSRs). STUDY DESIGN: Between 2000 and 2019, a total of 42,571 women (20-79 years) with EC were reported from Texas within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. IRs and 5-year relative survival were calculated using SEER*Stat. IRs were corrected for hysterectomy using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data. RESULTS: Statewide EC IRs rose from 38.5 (2000-2009) to 44.5 (2010-2019), with the highest increase in the Upper-South (42.6 to 53.8). Across HSRs, Upper-South consistently had higher IRs among women <&#x202f;50 (13.9) and &#x2265;&#x202f;50 years (112.7). Among those <&#x202f;50 years, Hispanics had the highest IRs (12.4), predominantly endometrioid tumors, whereas in women &#x2265;&#x202f;50 years, NHB had the highest IRs (119.2) with a large proportion of non-endometrioid tumors. IRs were higher in areas with lower poverty, and higher education, income, and urbanization. Associations with unemployment were mixed. Worse survival outcomes were observed among NHBs, non-endometrioid, advanced-stage, and lower SES. Central Texas had more favorable survival outcomes compared to other HSR. CONCLUSION: EC IRs and survival rates in Texas largely mirror national trends, with regional differences likely reflecting sociodemographic and histologic distributions.

Humans

Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy is widely provided to control menopausal symptoms and has been used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and dementia in older women. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of prolonged use (at least one year) of hormone therapy on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, fractures and cognition in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify the studies included in the review. The latest search date was 26 September 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials in which peri- or postmenopausal women took hormone therapy or placebo for at least one year. We included various oestrogen formulations, with or without progestogens. We focused on studies assessing hormone therapy's effects on long-term clinical outcomes, including death, coronary events and cancer. Hormone therapy's efficacy in managing menopausal symptoms was beyond the scope of this review, and is assessed in other Cochrane reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies - with two newly added in this update - involving 45,660 participants. We derived nearly 70% of the data from two well-conducted studies: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS 1998) and the large, multi-component Women's Health Initiative research programme, which included two hormone therapy arms (WHI 1998). Across all the studies, most participants were postmenopausal American women with one or more comorbidities. The mean participant age in most studies was over 60 years. Only one included study focused on perimenopausal women. We present full results for all included studies with available data in the main review. The results presented below are drawn from WHI 1998, in which the combined hormone therapy arm and the oestrogen-only arm were run concurrently, with women assigned to the appropriate trial based on their uterus status. One study with 16,608 postmenopausal women with an intact uterus compared combined continuous hormone therapy (conjugated equine oestrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate) to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of 5.6 years of follow-up. Based on this study, combined continuous hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of a coronary event (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the risk of stroke (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence) and venous thromboembolism (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.55 to 6.64; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, combined continuous hormone therapy probably increases the risk of breast cancer (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably makes little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.06; 14,203 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.86; moderate-certainty evidence). One study including 10,739 postmenopausal women who had undergone a hysterectomy compared oestrogen-only (conjugated equine oestrogen) hormone therapy to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of seven years' follow-up. Based on this study, oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of coronary events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), venous thromboembolism (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.74) and breast cancer (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.01), all with moderate-certainty evidence. It may make little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; low-certainty evidence). Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably increases the risk of stroke (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67) and gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.24), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.80), all with moderate-certainty evidence. We judged most included studies to have a low risk of bias for most domains. The overall certainty of evidence for the main comparisons was moderate. The main limitation was that only about 30% of women were 50 to 59 years old at baseline, the age group most likely to consider hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of women using hormone therapy suggests that the risk profiles vary between combined hormone therapy and oestrogen-only therapy. Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to coronary events, and probably increases the risk of stroke and gallbladder disease. It probably makes little to no difference in the risk of breast cancer, and probably reduces the risk of all fractures. Combined hormone therapy may increase the risk of thromboembolism and probably increases the risk of breast cancer. These results should be interpreted with caution as they are based on one study using oral hormone therapy, which may not represent the risks of the hormone therapy currently used in clinical practice.

Humans