Women’s perceptions of hysterectomy and alternative surgical treatments for benign pelvic pathologies: A Literature Review

Background: The evolving landscape of new technologies offering minimally invasive options for the treatment of benign pelvic diseases present with varying effectiveness and safety profiles. This raises questions regarding how patients make treatment decisions. Patients may perceive risk or benefits of a device/treatment differently than physicians or regulators responsible for determining whether a new device can be marketed.

We reviewed publications in PubMed investigating patients’ perceptions of surgical treatments for benign pelvic pathology, including perceived benefits and risks. In addition, we explored the social and cultural factors influencing these perceptions and treatment decisions.

We included 16 studies in our literature review. Factors which were identified to influence women’s perceptions include: symptom relief; surgical complications and recovery times; impact on periods; child-bearing capacity; femininity; sexual desire and sexual dysfunction; cosmetic effects; emotional effects and risk of cancer. Our review revealed some heterogeneity in patients’ perspectives on factors (including benefits and risks) associated with surgical treatments for benign pelvic pathology. Women’s intrinsic factors including age, race, sexuality and child-bearing status may influence how they perceive the potential effects of their surgical options and influence their treatment decision.

It is important to understand the trade-offs patients make as they consider competing surgical treatment options. Patient preference information from future patient studies could quantify patient perspective thereby providing additional information to patients, clinicians, current and prospective device developers. In addition, it may be used by regulators in their evaluation of surgical devices for the treatment of benign pelvic disease.Keywords Full Text: PDFReferences Whiteman, M.K., Hillis, S.D., Jamieson, D.J., Morrow, B., Podgornik, M.N., Brett, K.M. & Marchbanks, P.A. (2008). Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000-2004. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 198 (1) 34 e1-e7. Barker, M.A. (2016). Current Issues with Hysterectomy. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 43 (3) 591-601. No authors listed. (2009). ACOG Committee Opinion No 444. Choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstetrics and Gynecology 114 (5) 1156-1158. Laughlin-Tommaso, S.K. (2016). Alternatives to Hysterectomy: Management of Uterine Fibroids. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 43 (3) 397-413. Papadopoulos, M.S., Tolikas, A.C. & Miliaras, D.E. (2010). Hysterectomy - Current Methods and Alternatives for Benign Indications. Obstetrics and Gynecology International 2010 pii: 356740. Sieroń, D., Wiggermann, P., Skupiński, J., Kukawska-Sysio, K., Lisek, U. & Koczy, A. (2011). Uterine artery embolisation and magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound treatment of uterine fibroids. Polish Journal of Radiology 76 (2) 37. Alhakami, A.S. & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis 14 (6) 1085-1096. Nygaard, I. (2014). Balancing innovation and harm. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 210 (5) 383-384. Carrion, I.V., Nedjat-Haiem, F.R. & Marquez, D.X. (2013). Examining cultural factors that influence treatment decisions: a pilot study of Latino men with cancer. Journal of Cancer Education 28 (4) 729-737. Denberg, T.D., Beaty, B.L., Kim, F.J. & Steiner, J.F. (2005). Marriage and ethnicity predict treatment in localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 103 (9) 1819-1825. Borah, B.J., Nicholson, W.K., Bradley, L. & Stewart, E.A. (2013). The impact of uterine leiomyomas: a national survey of affected women. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 209 (4) 319 e1-e20. Spies, J.B., Coyne, K., Guaou, N.G., Boyle, D., Skyrnarz-Murphy, K. & Gonzalves, S.M. (2002). The UFS-QOL, a new disease-specific symptom and health-related quality of life questionnaire for leiomyomata. Obstetrics and Gynecology 99 (2) 290-300. Korbly, N.B., Kassis, N.C., Good, M.M., Richardson, M.L., Book, N.M., Yip, S., Saguan, D., Gross, C., Evans, J., Lopes, V.V., Harvie, H.S. & Sung, V.W. (2013). Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 209 (5) 470 e1-e6. Askew, J. (2009). A qualitative comparison of women's attitudes toward hysterectomy and myomectomy. Health Care for Women International 30 (8) 728-742. Augustus, C.E. (2002). Beliefs and perceptions of African American women who have had hysterectomy. Journal of Transcultural Nursing 13 (4) 296-302. Bush, A.J., Morris, S.N., Millham, F.H. & Isaacson, K.B. (2011). Women’s preferences for minimally invasive incisions. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 18 (5) 640-643. Dillaway, H.E. (2016). Are hysterectomies necessary? Racial-ethnic differences in women’s attitudes. Journal of Women & Aging 2016:1-13. Frick, A.C., Barber, M.D., Paraiso, M.F.R., Ridgeway, B., Jelovsek, J.E. & Walters, M.D. (2013). Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery 19 (2) 103-109. Goebel, K. & Goldberg, J.M. (2014). Women’s preference of cosmetic results after gynecologic surgery. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 21 (1) 64-67. Groff, J.Y., Mullen, P.D., Byrd, T., Shelton, A., Lees, E. & Goode, J. (2000). Decision making, beliefs, and attitudes toward hysterectomy: a focus group study with medically underserved women in Texas. Journal of Womens Health & Gender-Based Medicine 9 (Supplement 2) 39-50. Marván, M.L., Quiros, V., López-Vázquez, E. & Ehrenzweig, Y. (2012). Mexican beliefs and attitudes toward hysterectomy and gender-role ideology in marriage. Health Care for Women International 33 (6) 511-524. Mingo, C., Herman, C.J. & Jasperse, M. (2000). Women's stories: ethnic variations in women's attitudes and experiences of menopause, hysterectomy, and hormone replacement therapy. Journal of Womens Health & Gender-Based Medicine 9 (Supplement 2) 27-38. Nagele, F., Rubinger, T. & Magos, A. (1998). Why do women choose endometrial ablation rather than hysterectomy? Fertility and Sterility 69 (6) 1063-1066. Nevadunsky, N.S., Bachmann, G.A., Nosher, J. & Yu, T. (2001). Women's decision-making determinants in choosing uterine artery embolization for symptomatic fibroids. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 46 (10) 870-874. Po, L. & Lee, P.E. (2016). The unintended consequences of an FDA warning: The case of power morcellation in myoma surgery. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 23 (4) 597-602. Reis, N., Engin, R., Ingec, M. & Bag, B. (2008). A qualitative study: beliefs and attitudes of women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy in Turkey. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 18 (5) 921-928. Richter, D.L., McKeown, R.E., Corwin, S.J., Rheaume, C. & Fraser, J. (2000). The role of male partners in women's decision making regarding hysterectomy. Journal of Womens Health & Gender-Based Medicine 9 (Supplement 2) 51-61. Williams, R.D. & Clark, A.J. (2000). A qualitative study of women's hysterectomy experience. Journal of Womens Health & Gender-Based Medicine 9 (Supplement 2) 15-25. Wong, K., Jakus-Waldman, S. & Yazdany, T. (2014). Patient beliefs regarding hysterectomy in women seeking surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: findings in a predominantly Hispanic population. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery 20 (5) 267-271. Sobralske, M. (2006). Machismo sustains health and illness beliefs of Mexican American men. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners 18 (8) 348-350. Ho, M.P., Gonzalez, J.M., Lerner, H.P., Neuland, C.Y., Whang, J.M., McMurry-Heath, M., Hauber, A.B. & Irony, T. (2015). Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surgical Endoscopy 29 (10) 2984-2993. Center for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration: Patient Preference Information - Voluntary Submission, Review in Premarket Approval Applications, Humanitarian Device Exemption Applications, and De Novo Requests, and Inclusion in Decision Summaries and Device Labeling: Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Other Stakeholders, August 25, 2016. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM446680.pdf. Accessed April 27, 2017. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v7i2.1650 Refbacks - There are currently no refbacks.