{"title":"子宫切除术时尿路损伤:外科医生专业和手术量重要吗?","authors":"Emilee Khair, Fareeza Afzal, Sanjana Kulkarni, Beaux Duhe', Karen Hagglund, Muhammad Faisal Aslam","doi":"10.5662/wjm.v13.i2.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ureteral injury is a known complication of hysterectomies. Recent studies have attempted to correlate surgeon volume and experience with incidence of urinary tract injuries during hysterectomies. Some studies have reported that as surgeon volume increases, urinary tract injury rates decrease. To our knowledge, no studies have assessed the relationship between surgeon subspecialty and the rate of urinary tract injury rates during minimally invasive hysterectomy.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the incidence of urinary tract injury between urogynecologists, gynecologic oncologists, and general gynecologists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study took place from January 1, 2016 to December 1, 2021 at a large community hospital in Detroit, Michigan. We conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy. After we identified eligible patients, the surgeon subspecialty was identified and the surgeon's volume per year was calculated. Patient demographics, medical history, physician-dictated operative reports, and all hospital visits postoperatively were reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Urologic injury occurred in four patients (2%) in the general gynecologist group, in one patient (1%) in the gynecologic oncologist group, and in one patient (1%) in the urogynecologist group. When comparing high and low-volume surgeons, there was no statistically significant difference in urinary tract injury (1% <i>vs</i> 2%) or bowel injury (1% <i>vs</i> 0%). There were more complications in the low-volume group <i>vs</i> the high-volume group excluding urinary tract, bowel, or major vessel injury. High-volume surgeons had four (1%) patients with a complication and low-volume surgeons had 12 (4%) patients with a complication (<i>P</i> = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study demonstrated that there was no difference in the urinary tract injury rate in general gynecologists <i>vs</i> subspecialists, however our study was underpowered.</p>","PeriodicalId":23729,"journal":{"name":"World journal of methodology","volume":"13 2","pages":"18-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0a/33/WJM-13-18.PMC10080498.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Urinary tract injury during hysterectomy: Does surgeon specialty and surgical volume matter?\",\"authors\":\"Emilee Khair, Fareeza Afzal, Sanjana Kulkarni, Beaux Duhe', Karen Hagglund, Muhammad Faisal Aslam\",\"doi\":\"10.5662/wjm.v13.i2.18\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ureteral injury is a known complication of hysterectomies. Recent studies have attempted to correlate surgeon volume and experience with incidence of urinary tract injuries during hysterectomies. Some studies have reported that as surgeon volume increases, urinary tract injury rates decrease. To our knowledge, no studies have assessed the relationship between surgeon subspecialty and the rate of urinary tract injury rates during minimally invasive hysterectomy.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the incidence of urinary tract injury between urogynecologists, gynecologic oncologists, and general gynecologists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study took place from January 1, 2016 to December 1, 2021 at a large community hospital in Detroit, Michigan. We conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy. After we identified eligible patients, the surgeon subspecialty was identified and the surgeon's volume per year was calculated. Patient demographics, medical history, physician-dictated operative reports, and all hospital visits postoperatively were reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Urologic injury occurred in four patients (2%) in the general gynecologist group, in one patient (1%) in the gynecologic oncologist group, and in one patient (1%) in the urogynecologist group. When comparing high and low-volume surgeons, there was no statistically significant difference in urinary tract injury (1% <i>vs</i> 2%) or bowel injury (1% <i>vs</i> 0%). There were more complications in the low-volume group <i>vs</i> the high-volume group excluding urinary tract, bowel, or major vessel injury. High-volume surgeons had four (1%) patients with a complication and low-volume surgeons had 12 (4%) patients with a complication (<i>P</i> = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study demonstrated that there was no difference in the urinary tract injury rate in general gynecologists <i>vs</i> subspecialists, however our study was underpowered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23729,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World journal of methodology\",\"volume\":\"13 2\",\"pages\":\"18-25\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0a/33/WJM-13-18.PMC10080498.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World journal of methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v13.i2.18\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal of methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v13.i2.18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:输尿管损伤是子宫切除术的常见并发症。最近的研究试图将手术量和经验与子宫切除术中尿路损伤的发生率联系起来。一些研究报道,随着手术量的增加,尿路损伤率降低。据我们所知,尚无研究评估微创子宫切除术中外科医生专科与尿路损伤率之间的关系。目的:了解泌尿妇科医生、妇科肿瘤科医生和普通妇科医生尿路损伤的发生率。方法:研究于2016年1月1日至2021年12月1日在密歇根州底特律的一家大型社区医院进行。我们对接受微创子宫切除术的成年患者进行了回顾性分析。在我们确定了符合条件的患者后,确定了外科医生的亚专科,并计算了外科医生每年的手术量。回顾了患者人口统计、病史、医生口述的手术报告和所有术后医院就诊情况。结果:全科妇科4例(2%),妇科肿瘤组1例(1%),泌尿妇科1例(1%)。当比较高容量和低容量手术时,尿路损伤(1% vs 2%)或肠损伤(1% vs 0%)无统计学差异。除尿路、肠或主要血管损伤外,低容量组比高容量组有更多并发症。大容量手术有4例(1%)患者出现并发症,小容量手术有12例(4%)患者出现并发症(P = 0.04)。结论:我们的研究表明,普通妇科医生与专科妇科医生的尿路损伤率没有差异,但我们的研究力度不足。
Urinary tract injury during hysterectomy: Does surgeon specialty and surgical volume matter?
Background: Ureteral injury is a known complication of hysterectomies. Recent studies have attempted to correlate surgeon volume and experience with incidence of urinary tract injuries during hysterectomies. Some studies have reported that as surgeon volume increases, urinary tract injury rates decrease. To our knowledge, no studies have assessed the relationship between surgeon subspecialty and the rate of urinary tract injury rates during minimally invasive hysterectomy.
Aim: To determine the incidence of urinary tract injury between urogynecologists, gynecologic oncologists, and general gynecologists.
Methods: The study took place from January 1, 2016 to December 1, 2021 at a large community hospital in Detroit, Michigan. We conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy. After we identified eligible patients, the surgeon subspecialty was identified and the surgeon's volume per year was calculated. Patient demographics, medical history, physician-dictated operative reports, and all hospital visits postoperatively were reviewed.
Results: Urologic injury occurred in four patients (2%) in the general gynecologist group, in one patient (1%) in the gynecologic oncologist group, and in one patient (1%) in the urogynecologist group. When comparing high and low-volume surgeons, there was no statistically significant difference in urinary tract injury (1% vs 2%) or bowel injury (1% vs 0%). There were more complications in the low-volume group vs the high-volume group excluding urinary tract, bowel, or major vessel injury. High-volume surgeons had four (1%) patients with a complication and low-volume surgeons had 12 (4%) patients with a complication (P = 0.04).
Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that there was no difference in the urinary tract injury rate in general gynecologists vs subspecialists, however our study was underpowered.