European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2024
In-hospital outcomes of repair and hysterectomy for uterine rupture: A nationwide observational study.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sugai Shunya, Sasabuchi Yusuke, Yasunaga Hideo, Isogai Toshiaki, Yoshihara Kosuke, Nishijima Koji
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Uterine rupture, though rare, poses significant risks to both mother and child. Its occurrence varies globally, with a noted 0.015% prevalence in Japan. This condition usually requires surgical intervention, either as uterine repair or hysterectomy. Past studies, largely single-center and outdated, offer limited insights into these treatment options. To assess and compare the clinical outcomes of repair and hysterectomy for uterine rupture among patients included in a large inpatient database in Japan.
STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed the Diagnosis Procedure Combination inpatient database from July 2010 to March 2022. Patients with uterine rupture who underwent uterine repair or hysterectomy were extracted. Patient characteristics, in-hospital care, and outcomes were compared between the uterine repair group and the hysterectomy group. Main outcomes are reoperation during hospitalization, total volume of blood transfusion, complications (bowel injury, urinary tract injury, wound infection, deep vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism), maternal mortality, and postoperative length of stay.
RESULTS: We identified 644 patients with uterine rupture. Of those, 287 (44.6 %) underwent uterine repair and 357 (55.4 %) underwent hysterectomy. The hysterectomy group was significantly older, had significantly more comorbidities, and had a significantly higher prevalence of consciousness impairment than the uterine repair group. Compared with the uterine repair group, the hysterectomy group required significantly more in-hospital care and had a significantly greater incidence of reoperation (1.0 % versus 6.4 %; P<0.001). Other complications were not significantly different between the groups. The hysterectomy group had significantly more blood transfusions and a significantly longer postoperative length of hospital stay than the uterine repair group. The results remained consistent even after the adjusted analysis.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights the differences between repair and hysterectomy for uterine rupture, providing valuable insights for clinical decision-making in these cases.
STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed the Diagnosis Procedure Combination inpatient database from July 2010 to March 2022. Patients with uterine rupture who underwent uterine repair or hysterectomy were extracted. Patient characteristics, in-hospital care, and outcomes were compared between the uterine repair group and the hysterectomy group. Main outcomes are reoperation during hospitalization, total volume of blood transfusion, complications (bowel injury, urinary tract injury, wound infection, deep vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism), maternal mortality, and postoperative length of stay.
RESULTS: We identified 644 patients with uterine rupture. Of those, 287 (44.6 %) underwent uterine repair and 357 (55.4 %) underwent hysterectomy. The hysterectomy group was significantly older, had significantly more comorbidities, and had a significantly higher prevalence of consciousness impairment than the uterine repair group. Compared with the uterine repair group, the hysterectomy group required significantly more in-hospital care and had a significantly greater incidence of reoperation (1.0 % versus 6.4 %; P<0.001). Other complications were not significantly different between the groups. The hysterectomy group had significantly more blood transfusions and a significantly longer postoperative length of hospital stay than the uterine repair group. The results remained consistent even after the adjusted analysis.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights the differences between repair and hysterectomy for uterine rupture, providing valuable insights for clinical decision-making in these cases.