Readmission to hospital 5 years after hysterectomy or endometrial resection in a national cohort study
article
OA: bronze
CC0
⤵ 3 in-corpus citations
AI-generated summary
Hysterectomy is associated with fewer overall and gynecological readmissions within five years compared to transcervical resection of the endometrium for dysfunctional uterine bleeding.
One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the readmission experience of a large national prospective cohort of women up to 5 years after undergoing either transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) or hysterectomy to assess reasons for readmission and whether TCRE can be viewed as a definitive substitute for hysterectomy. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Data are from the VALUE/MISTLETOE prospective national cohort studies of hysterectomy and TCRE respectively. 5294 women who underwent hysterectomy for dysfunctional uterine bleeding in 1994/5 and 4032 women who underwent TCRE in 1993/4 and who responded to postal questionnaires were included. Surgeons gathered operative details. Women completed postal follow up questionnaires at 3 and 5 years after surgery asking about readmission to hospital and reasons for readmission. Adjusted proportional hazard ratios were calculated for likelihood of readmission in each category comparing types of surgery. RESULTS: 41.7% of women undergoing hysterectomy and 44.6% of women undergoing TCRE experienced one or more readmissions to hospital overall within 5 years (adjusted hazard ratio for all readmissions (AHR) 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.95)). 12.6% of hysterectomy patients and 30.3% of TCRE patients were readmitted for gynaecological reasons (AHR 0.40 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.48)). Rates of readmission for gynaecological reasons were similar up to 6 months but were markedly reduced for hysterectomy compared with TCRE patients towards the end of the follow up period (AHR for readmission at 3-5 years 0.28 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.39)). CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the pattern of readmission to hospital after hysterectomy and TCRE for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Women undergoing a hysterectomy are less likely to be readmitted to hospital up to 5 years after their operation overall, and are significantly less likely to be readmitted for reasons related to their operation, particularly for gynaecological reasons. Hysterectomy appears to be a more definitive operation. The different options for surgery for dysfunctional uterine bleeding are not interchangeable; they represent different patterns of care. Information should be available to women and practitioners to inform choices between these options.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Citation neighborhood (sparse)
Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.
Cites (2)
- Do British women undergo too many or too few hysterectomies? 1988
- Women awaiting hysterectomy: a qualitative study of issues involved in decisions about oophorectomy 2003
Cited by (3)
- Psychosexual health 5 years after hysterectomy: population‐based comparison with endometrial ablation for dysfunctional uterine bleeding 2005
- Removing organs “just in case”—is prophylactic removal of the ovaries a good thing? 2006
- Re-audit: transcervical resection of the endometrium for heavy menstrual bleeding and the treatment of post-resection uterine stenosis and haematometra by cervical dilatation and the insertion of a levonorgestrel-releasing intra-uterine system 2006
References (23)
- Do British women undergo too many or too few hysterectomies? via openalex
- Women awaiting hysterectomy: a qualitative study of issues involved in decisions about oophorectomy via openalex
- doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08452.x via openalex
- doi:10.3109/9780203640395-26 via openalex
- doi:10.2307/2337123 via openalex
- doi:10.1136/bmj.301.6761.1139 via openalex
- W2244324403 via openalex
- doi:10.1093/fampra/cmh115 via openalex
- W7074032139 via openalex
- doi:10.1136/qshc.2003.008789 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s1470-0328(02)01372-1 via openalex
- doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11003.x via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(97)70445-9 via openalex
- doi:10.7748/nm.8.2.39.s15 via openalex
- doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb13274.x via openalex
- doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08419.x via openalex
- doi:10.3310/hta8030 via openalex
- doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01282.x via openalex
- doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000329.pub3 via openalex
- doi:10.1093/biomet/81.3.515 via openalex
- doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1995.tb11398.x via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s1074-3804(05)80404-9 via openalex
- doi:10.1001/jama.288.21.2701 via openalex
Cited by (3)
- Re-audit: transcervical resection of the endometrium for heavy menstrual bleeding and the treatment of post-resection uterine stenosis and haematometra by cervical dilatation and the insertion of a levonorgestrel-releasing intra-uterine system 2006
- Removing organs “just in case”—is prophylactic removal of the ovaries a good thing? 2006
- Psychosexual health 5 years after hysterectomy: population‐based comparison with endometrial ablation for dysfunctional uterine bleeding 2005
Source provenance
- crossref
- last seen: 2026-05-16T01:00:19.118484+00:00
- openalex
- last seen: 2026-05-14T06:05:00.350814+00:00
License: CC0
· commercial use OK