Objectives To identify women undergoing peripartum hysterectomy in the UK and to describe the causes, management and outcome of the associated haemorrhage.
Design A population‐based descriptive study using the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS).
Setting All 229 hospitals with consultant‐led maternity units in the UK.
Population All women in the UK delivering between February 2005 and February 2006.
Methods Prospective case identification through the UKOSS monthly mailing.
Main outcome measures Rates with 95% CIs. Odds ratio estimates.
Results Three hundred and eighteen women underwent peripartum hysterectomy. The most commonly reported causes of haemorrhage were uterine atony (53%) and morbidly adherent placenta (39%). Women were not universally managed with uterotonic therapies. Fifty women were unsuccessfully managed with B‐Lynch or other brace suture prior to hysterectomy, 28 with activated factor VII and 9 with arterial embolisation. Twenty‐one percent of women suffered damage to other structures, 20% required a further operation and 19% were reported to have additional severe morbidity. Bladder damage was more likely in women with placenta accreta (OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.55–7.48) than in women with uterine atony. There were no significant differences in outcomes between women undergoing total or subtotal hysterectomy. Two women died; case fatality 0.6% (95% CI 0–1.5%).
Conclusions For each woman who dies in the UK following peripartum hysterectomy, more than 150 survive. The associated haemorrhage is managed in a variety of ways and not universally according to existing guidelines. Further investigation of the outcomes following some of the more innovative therapies for control of haemorrhage is needed.
nant women during the COVID-19 pandemic 1 as maternal mental health can be associated with short-and long-term risks for their and their children's physical and psychological health. Most studies
Efforts to improve the uptake of dental care should be directed towards immigrant groups in order to promote better maternal health. Further research is required into the provision of dental care during pregnancy, as the high level of non-attendance demonstrated by mothers is undesirable.
Visual estimations were inaccurate by health-care professionals who have a tendency to overestimate. Experience did not appear to have a confounding effect on accuracy. Further training in visual assessment skills is necessary in order to improve the clinicians' estimation.
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programmes were first conceived to optimise perioperative patient care and have been delivered by surgical specialities in the UK for over a decade. Although their safety and acceptability have been ratified in many surgical fields including gynaecology and colorectal surgery, the cost effectiveness of its implementation in benign vaginal surgery remains unclear. In this case-control study, the perioperative expenditure for 45 women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy at a North London teaching hospital after implementation of an enhanced recovery pathway was compared with 45 matched controls prior to implementation. Frequency of catheter use (84.4% vs. 95.6%) and median length of stay (23.5 vs. 42.9 h) were significantly lower following implementation of pathway (both p < 0.05). Although enhanced recovery patients were more likely to attend the accident and emergency department for minor symptoms following discharge (15.6% vs. 0%, p < 0.05), the inpatient readmission rate (6.7% vs. 0.0%, p > 0.05) was similar in both groups. Establishing the programme incurred additional expenditures including delivering a patient-orientated gynaecology 'school' and employing a specialist enhanced recovery nurse, but despite these, we demonstrated a saving of 15.2% (or £164.86) per patient. The cost efficiency savings, coupled with increased satisfaction and no rise in morbidity, offers a very attractive means of managing women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy. We believe that our data can be reproduced in other centres and recommend that the pathway be used routinely in women undergoing these procedures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.