The impact of different surgical modalities for hysterectomy on satisfaction and patient reported outcomes

Michael C Pitter, Christopher Simmonds, Usha Seshadri-Kreaden, Helen B Hubert, Michael C Pitter, Christopher Simmonds, Usha Seshadri-Kreaden, Helen B Hubert

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.

Keywords: Internet; hysterectomy; laparoscopy; patient outcomes assessment; patient satisfaction; robotics; vaginal hysterectomy.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: Michael Pitter, MD is on the Speaker’s Bureau and is a proctor at Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Christopher Simmonds was Senior Director of Marketing Services at Intuitive Surgical during the initiation and conduct of this study. Usha Kreaden, MS is Principal Biostatistician at Intuitive Surgical. Helen Hubert, MPH, PhD is a consultant in epidemiology to Intuitive Surgical.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trends in the use of each surgical approach over time.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Independent predictors of overall patient satisfaction and recommendations after hysterectomy.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Independent predictors of greater patient satisfaction after hysterectomy.

References

    1. Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R, van Voorst S, Mol BW, Kluivers KB. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD003677. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub4.
    1. Garry R, Fountain J, Brown J, Manca A, Mason S, Sculpher M, Napp V, Bridgman S, Gray J, Lilford R. EVALUATE hysterectomy trial: a multicentre randomised trial comparing abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic methods of hysterectomy. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(26):1–154.
    1. Landeen LB, Bell MC, Hubert HB, Bennis LY, Knutsen-Larson SS, Seshadri-Kreaden U. Clinical and cost comparisons for hysterectomy via abdominal, standard laparoscopic, vaginal and robot-assisted approaches. S D Med. 2011;64(6):197–199, 201, 203 passim.
    1. Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C. Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(6):730–738. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.06.009.
    1. Sculpher M, Manca A, Abbott J, Fountain J, Mason S, Garry R. Cost effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with standard hysterectomy: results from a randomised trial. BMJ. 2004;328(7432):134. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Bijen CB, Vermeulen KM, Mourits MJ, de Bock GH. Costs and effects of abdominal versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: systematic review of controlled trials. PLoS One. 2009;4(10):e7340. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007340.
    1. Epstein AJ, Groeneveld PW, Harhay MO, Yang F, Polsky D. Impact of minimally invasive surgery on medical spending and employee absenteeism. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(7):641–647. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.131.
    1. Ritter P, Lorig K, Laurent D, Matthews K. Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a randomized comparison. J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3):e29. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e29.
    1. Eysenbach G, Wyatt J. Using the Internet for surveys and health research. J Med Internet Res. 2002;4(2):e13. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4.2.e13.
    1. Cascade E, Marr P, Winslow M, Burgess A, Nixon M. Conducting research on the Internet: medical record data integration with patient-reported outcomes. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(5):e137. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2202.
    1. Gupta V, Gu K, Chen Z, Lu W, Shu XO, Zheng Y. Concordance of self-reported and medical chart information on cancer diagnosis and treatment. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:72. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-72.
    1. Maunsell E, Drolet M, Ouhoummane N, Robert J. Breast cancer survivors accurately reported key treatment and prognostic characteristics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(4):364–369. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.005.
    1. Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309(7):689–698. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.186.
    1. McKenzie CA, Grant KA. Hysterectomy-the patient's view: a survey of outcomes of hysterectomy in a district general hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;20(4):421–425. doi: 10.1080/01443610050112129.
    1. Loh FH, Koa RC. Laparoscopic hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy: a controlled study of clinical and functional outcomes. Singapore Med J. 2002;43(8):403–407.
    1. Abdelmonem A, Wilson H, Pasic R. Observational comparison of abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy as performed at a university teaching hospital. J Reprod Med. 2006;51(12):945–954.
    1. Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, von Felten S, Schär G. Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(3):604–611. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318265b61a.
    1. Kuppermann M, Learman LA, Schembri M, Gregorich SE, Jackson R, Jacoby A, Lewis J, Washington AE. Predictors of hysterectomy use and satisfaction. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(3):543–551. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181cf46a0.
    1. Vonk Noordegraaf A, Anema JR, Louwerse MD, Heymans MW, van Mechelen W, Brölmann HA, Huirne JA. Prediction of time to return to work after gynaecological surgery: a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands. BJOG. 2014;121(4):487–497. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12494.
    1. Vonk Noordegraaf A, Huirne JA, Pittens CA, van Mechelen W, Broerse JE, Brölmann HA, Anema JR. eHealth program to empower patients in returning to normal activities and work after gynecological surgery: intervention mapping as a useful method for development. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(5):e124. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1915.
    1. de Groot IB, Otten W, Dijs-Elsinga J, Smeets HJ, Kievit J, Marang-van de Mheen PJ, CHOICE-2 Study Group Choosing between hospitals: the influence of the experiences of other patients. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(6):764–778. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12443416.
    1. Fox S, Purcell K. Pew Internet & American Life Project, March 24. 2010. [2013-11-14]. Chronic Disease and the Internet .
    1. Fox S. Pew Internet & American Life Project, February 28. 2011. [2013-11-14]. Peer-to-peer Healthcare .
    1. Fox S, Duggan M. Pew Internet & American Life Project, January 15. 2013. [2013-11-11]. Health Online 2013 .

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner