{"title":"Minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometriosis: Surgical outcomes based on surgeon specialty","authors":"O. Mutter, S. Ackroyd, G. A. Taylor, J. Diaz","doi":"10.1177/2284026521990201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: To evaluate differences in surgical outcomes of minimally invasive hysterectomy performed for endometriosis between general gynecologists and gynecologic oncologists. Methods: Utilizing the 2016–2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) hysterectomy dataset, we evaluated baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes for patients who underwent a minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometriosis between general gynecology and gynecologic oncology groups. Results: From 2016 to 2018, a total of 3751 minimally invasive hysterectomies were performed for the primary diagnosis of endometriosis. Of these cases, 3129 (83.4%) were performed by general gynecologists and 622 (16.6%) by gynecologic oncologists. There were several differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. Notably, general gynecologists performed a higher proportion of vaginal hysterectomies (7.9% vs 0.6%, p < 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in overall 30-day complications or mortality between general gynecology and oncology groups, with the exception of a higher rate of postoperative sepsis (0.8% vs 0.2%, p = 0.01) in hysterectomies performed by oncologists. Compared to general gynecologists, oncologists had a longer operative time (134.9 ± 65.4 min vs 129 ± 60.9 min, p = 0.05). Multivariate regression of multiple tracked and composite outcomes revealed no consistent confounding variables other than race. In fact, African American race was a statistically significant predictive factor of composite complications (OR 1.80, p < 0.01), morbidity (OR 1.84, p < 0.05), and unplanned readmission (OR 2.30, p < 0.01). Surgeon specialty was not associated with composite complications, hysterectomy-specific complications, or readmission. Conclusion: There are no significant differences in surgical outcomes for minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometriosis between these two surgical subspecialties.","PeriodicalId":15725,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endometriosis and pelvic pain disorders","volume":"13 1","pages":"89 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2284026521990201","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endometriosis and pelvic pain disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2284026521990201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: To evaluate differences in surgical outcomes of minimally invasive hysterectomy performed for endometriosis between general gynecologists and gynecologic oncologists. Methods: Utilizing the 2016–2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) hysterectomy dataset, we evaluated baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes for patients who underwent a minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometriosis between general gynecology and gynecologic oncology groups. Results: From 2016 to 2018, a total of 3751 minimally invasive hysterectomies were performed for the primary diagnosis of endometriosis. Of these cases, 3129 (83.4%) were performed by general gynecologists and 622 (16.6%) by gynecologic oncologists. There were several differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. Notably, general gynecologists performed a higher proportion of vaginal hysterectomies (7.9% vs 0.6%, p < 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in overall 30-day complications or mortality between general gynecology and oncology groups, with the exception of a higher rate of postoperative sepsis (0.8% vs 0.2%, p = 0.01) in hysterectomies performed by oncologists. Compared to general gynecologists, oncologists had a longer operative time (134.9 ± 65.4 min vs 129 ± 60.9 min, p = 0.05). Multivariate regression of multiple tracked and composite outcomes revealed no consistent confounding variables other than race. In fact, African American race was a statistically significant predictive factor of composite complications (OR 1.80, p < 0.01), morbidity (OR 1.84, p < 0.05), and unplanned readmission (OR 2.30, p < 0.01). Surgeon specialty was not associated with composite complications, hysterectomy-specific complications, or readmission. Conclusion: There are no significant differences in surgical outcomes for minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometriosis between these two surgical subspecialties.
前言:评价微创子宫切除术治疗子宫内膜异位症在普通妇科医生和妇科肿瘤医生之间的手术效果差异。方法:利用2016-2018年美国外科医师学会国家手术质量改进计划(NSQIP)子宫切除术数据集,我们评估了普通妇科和妇科肿瘤组接受微创子宫切除术治疗子宫内膜异位症患者的基线特征和手术结果。结果:2016年至2018年共行微创子宫切除术3751例,初步诊断为子宫内膜异位症。其中,3129例(83.4%)由普通妇科医生执行,622例(16.6%)由妇科肿瘤科医生执行。两组之间的基线特征存在一些差异。值得注意的是,普通妇科医生进行阴道子宫切除术的比例更高(7.9%比0.6%,p < 0.01)。妇科组和肿瘤组在30天总并发症和死亡率方面无统计学差异,但肿瘤组子宫切除术后脓毒症发生率较高(0.8% vs 0.2%, p = 0.01)。与普通妇科医生相比,肿瘤科医生的手术时间更长(134.9±65.4 min vs 129±60.9 min, p = 0.05)。多径和复合结果的多元回归显示除种族外没有一致的混杂变量。事实上,非裔美国人种族是综合并发症(OR 1.80, p < 0.01)、发病率(OR 1.84, p < 0.05)和意外再入院(OR 2.30, p < 0.01)的统计学显著预测因素。外科医生专业与复合并发症、子宫切除术特异性并发症或再入院无关。结论:微创子宫切除术治疗子宫内膜异位症的手术效果在这两个外科亚专科间无显著差异。