ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2015
Economic and Survival Implications of Use of Electric Power Morcellation for Hysterectomy for Presumed Benign Gynecologic Disease.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety Warning about Laparoscopic Power Morcellation in Hysterectomy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of National Impact.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- Association Between Power Morcellation and Mortality in Women With Unexpected Uterine Cancer Undergoing Hysterectomy or Myomectomy.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2019Article
- Occult Malignancy Rate of 1498 Hysterectomies or Myomectomies with Morcellation: A Retrospective Single-Arm Study.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2019Article
- Major clinical research advances in gynecologic cancer in 2015.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectric power morcellation during laparoscopic hysterectomy allows some women to undergo minimally invasive surgery but may disrupt underlying occult malignancies and increase the risk of tumor dissemination.
methodsWe developed a state transition Markov cohort simulation model of the risks and benefits of hysterectomy (abdominal, laparoscopic, and laparoscopic with electric power morcellation) for women with presumed benign gynecologic disease. The model considered perioperative morbidity, mortality, risk of cancer and dissemination, and outcomes in women with an underlying malignancy. We explored the effectiveness from a societal perspective stratified by age (<40, 40-49, 50-59, and ≥60 years).
resultsUnder all scenarios, modeled laparoscopic hysterectomy without morcellation was the most beneficial strategy. Laparoscopic hysterectomy with morcellation was associated with 80.83 more intraoperative complications, 199.64 fewer perioperative complications, and 241.80 fewer readmissions than abdominal hysterectomy per 10 000 women. Per 10 000 women younger than age 40 years, laparoscopic hysterectomy with morcellation was associated with 1.57 more cases of disseminated cancer and 0.97 fewer deaths than abdominal hysterectomy. The excess cases of disseminated cancer per 10 000 women with morcellation compared with abdominal hysterectomy increased with age to 47.54 per 10 000 in women age 60 years and older. Compared with abdominal hysterectomy, this resulted in 0.30 (age 40-49 years), 5.07 (age 50-59 years), and 18.14 (age 60 years and older) excess deaths per 10 000 women in the respective age groups.
conclusionLaparoscopic hysterectomy without morcellation is the most beneficial approach of the three methods of hysterectomy studied. In older women, the risks of electric power morcellation may outweigh the benefits of minimally invasive hysterectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.