The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Volume 17, Issue 2 , Pages 167-175, March 2010

Minimally Invasive Hysterectomies—A Survey on Attitudes and Barriers among Practicing Gynecologists

  • Jon I. Einarsson, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Jon I. Einarsson, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, ASB 1-3, Boston, MA 02115.
  • ,
  • Kristen A. Matteson, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Women and Infant's Hospital of Rhode Island, Providence, Rhode Island
  • ,
  • Jay Schulkin, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Research Department, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, D.C.
  • ,
  • Niraj R. Chavan, MBBS, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
  • ,
  • Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas

Received 21 September 2009; accepted 23 December 2009.

Abstract 

Study Objective

To explore attitudes and hysterectomy practices among gynecologists in the United States and to identify potential barriers to offering minimally invasive hysterectomies.

Design

Mixed-mode (online and on-paper) survey of a random sample of 1500 practicing obstetrician-gynecologists.

Setting

Nationwide survey in the United States.

Participants

Nonretired obstetrician-gynecologists identified through a physician list from the American Medical Association.

Interventions

Postal and online survey.

Measurements & Main Results

We received a response from 376 physicians (25.8% response rate). The average age of respondents was 47.9 years, and 87% were generalists. Participants performed on average 4 surgical cases per week and 32 hysterectomies per year, most of which were abdominal hysterectomies. When asked for preferred mode of access for themselves or their spouse, 55.5% chose vaginal hysterectomy (VH), 40.6% chose laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), and 8% chose abdominal hysterectomy (AH). Younger physicians (<40) and high surgical volume physicians were significantly more likely to chose a laparoscopic approach and identified significantly fewer barriers for performing LH. The main barriers to performing VH were technical difficulty, potential for complications, and caseload of VH. The main barriers for performing LH were training during residency, technical difficulty, personal surgical experience and operating time. The majority of gynecologists wanted to decrease their AH rates and increase their LH rates. The most significant identified contraindications to VH were prior laparotomy, a uterus larger than 12 weeks, narrow introitus, adnexal mass, and minimal uterine descent.

Conclusions

While a large majority of gynecologists would prefer a VH or LH for themselves or their spouse, AH remains the most common hysterectomy method in the United States. A generation gap appears to be brewing with younger gynecologist more in favor of the laparoscopic approach. More emphasis should be placed on training gynecologists in performing minimally invasive hysterectomies, given their desire to change their surgical mode of access.

Keywords: Minimally, Invasive, Hysterectomy, Barriers

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 The authors do not have any conflicts of interest or financial disclosures.

PII: S1553-4650(09)01346-6

doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2009.12.017

The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Volume 17, Issue 2 , Pages 167-175, March 2010