ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2026
Hysterectomy trends and outcomes: an ambispective audit from a tertiary institute in Northern India.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Hysterectomy is one of the most commonly performed gynecological surgeries worldwide. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical indications, surgical routes, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of hysterectomies performed at a tertiary care center over an 8-year period. Methods: This ambispective observational study was conducted from February 2016 to May 2024. It included 1,083 women who underwent hysterectomy for benign, malignant, or obstetric indications via abdominal, laparoscopic, vaginal, or robotic approaches. Data were collected retrospectively (2016-2022) and prospectively (2022-2024). Parameters analyzed included patient demographics, indications, surgical approach, anesthesia, blood loss, complications, and transfusion requirements. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results: Of 1,083 cases, 84.21% were performed for benign and 15.78% for malignant conditions. Abdominal hysterectomy was most common (44.41%), followed by robotic (39.52%), vaginal (12.00%), and laparoscopic (4.07%). Robotic hysterectomy had the lowest blood loss (median 52.5 mL) and transfusion rates (intraoperative, 0.47%; postoperative, 1.40%), compared with abdominal (median 300 mL; intraoperative, 18.71%, postoperative, 13.30%). Vaginal hysterectomy had the shortest operative time but slightly higher blood loss than minimally invasive approaches. Major complications such as bladder, bowel, and ureteric injuries were more frequent in abdominal cases. Conclusion: Minimally invasive techniques, especially robotic surgery, are associated with reduced blood loss and complication rates. This audit highlights the need to encourage minimally invasive hysterectomy where feasible and underscores the importance of systematic documentation to inform practice and policy improvements.
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.