A value-based evaluation of minimally invasive hysterectomy approaches

3Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: With surgical care contributing to the rising healthcare costs around the globe, quantifying the value of surgical modalities is critical to pushing healthcare systems in the direction of greater sustainability. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the value of minimally invasive hysterectomy approaches, as defined by operative outcomes and patient satisfaction relative to direct hospital costs. Methods: Sequential mixed methods; retrospective chart review of all women (N = 2689) ≥ 18 years old who underwent hysterectomy for benign conditions from 2011 through 2013 at a suburban hospital in Maryland, USA; a mail survey of the same population was administered in June to October 2015. Procedures included laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH), robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH), total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH), laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH), total vaginal hysterectomy (TVH), and laparoscopic retroperitoneal hysterectomy (LRH), a procedure that incorporates retroperitoneal dissection and ligation of the uterine arteries at their vascular origin. We estimated the value of each procedure by dividing quality over direct hospital costs, where quality was quantified by creating a summary composite score of the average operating time, estimated blood loss, complication and conversion rates, and patient satisfaction. Results: The majority of LRH and RALH procedures were performed by high-volume surgeons, while the majority of LSH and TVH procedures were performed by low-volume surgeons. RALH had the highest postoperative complication rate (11.4%; p

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Danilyants, N., MacKoul, P., van der Does, L., Haworth, L., & Baxi, R. (2019). A value-based evaluation of minimally invasive hysterectomy approaches. Gynecological Surgery, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s10397-019-1057-9

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free