Try a new search

Format these results:

Searched for:



Total Results:


Surgical Outcomes in Benign Gynecologic Surgery Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic (SOCOVID study)

Kho, Rosanne M; Chang, Olivia H; Hare, Adam; Schaffer, Joseph; Hamner, Jen; Northington, Gina M; Metcalfe, Nina Durchfort; Iglesia, Cheryl B; Zelivianskaia, Anna S; Hur, Hye-Chun; Seaman, Sierra; Mueller, Margaret G; Milad, Magdy; Ascher-Walsh, Charles; Kossl, Kelsey; Rardin, Charles; Siddique, Moiuri; Murphy, Miles; Heit, Michael
STUDY OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:To determine the incidence of perioperative coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in women undergoing benign gynecologic surgery and to evaluate perioperative complication rates in patients with active, previous, or no previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. DESIGN/METHODS:A multicenter prospective cohort study. SETTING/METHODS:Ten institutions in the United States. PATIENTS/METHODS:Patients aged >18 years who underwent benign gynecologic surgery from July 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, were included. All patients were followed up from the time of surgery to 10 weeks postoperatively. Those with intrauterine pregnancy or known gynecologic malignancy were excluded. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Benign gynecologic surgery. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS/RESULTS:The primary outcome was the incidence of perioperative COVID-19 infections, which was stratified as (1) previous COVID-19 infection, (2) preoperative COVID-19 infection, and (3) postoperative COVID-19 infection. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and mortality after surgery and predictors for postoperative COVID-19 infection. If surgery was delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the reason for postponement and any subsequent adverse event was recorded. Of 3423 patients included for final analysis, 189 (5.5%) postponed their gynecologic surgery during the pandemic. Forty-three patients (1.3% of total cases) had a history of COVID-19. The majority (182, 96.3%) had no sequelae attributed to surgical postponement. After hospital discharge to 10 weeks postoperatively, 39 patients (1.1%) became infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The mean duration of time between hospital discharge and the follow-up positive COVID-19 test was 22.1 ± 12.3 days (range, 4-50 days). Eleven (31.4% of postoperative COVID-19 infections, 0.3% of total cases) of the newly diagnosed COVID-19 infections occurred within 14 days of hospital discharge. On multivariable logistic regression, living in the Southwest (adjusted odds ratio, 6.8) and single-unit increase in age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2) increased the odds of postoperative COVID-19 infection. Perioperative complications were not significantly higher in patients with a history of positive COVID-19 than those without a history of COVID-19, although the mean duration of time between previous COVID-19 diagnosis and surgery was 97 days (14 weeks). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this large multicenter prospective cohort study of benign gynecologic surgeries, only 1.1% of patients developed a postoperative COVID-19 infection, with 0.3% of infection in the immediate 14 days after surgery. The incidence of postoperative complications was not different in those with and without previous COVID-19 infections.
PMID: 34438045
ISSN: 1553-4669
CID: 5111372

In Reply [Comment]

Wright, Jason D; Chen, Ling; Hur, Hye-Chun; Melamed, Alexander; Hershman, Dawn L
PMID: 34293761
ISSN: 1873-233x
CID: 5111362

Where Have All the Emergencies Gone? The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Obstetric and Gynecologic Procedures and Consults at a New York City Hospital

Spurlin, Emily E; Han, Esther S; Silver, Elisabeth R; May, Benjamin L; Tatonetti, Nicholas P; Ingram, Myles A; Jin, Zhezhen; Hur, Chin; Advincula, Arnold P; Hur, Hye-Chun
STUDY OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on surgical volume and emergency department (ED) consults across obstetrics-gynecology (OB-GYN) services at a New York City hospital. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:Tertiary care academic medical center in New York City. PATIENTS:Women undergoing OB-GYN ED consults or surgeries between February 1, 2020 and April 15, 2020. INTERVENTIONS:March 16 institutional moratorium on elective surgeries. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:The volume and types of surgeries and ED consults were compared before and after the COVID-19 moratorium. During the pandemic, the average weekly volume of ED consults and gynecology (GYN) surgeries decreased, whereas obstetric (OB) surgeries remained stable. The proportions of OB-GYN ED consults, GYN surgeries, and OB surgeries relative to all ED consults, all surgeries, and all labor and delivery patients were 1.87%, 13.8%, 54.6% in the pre-COVID-19 time frame (February 1-March 15) vs 1.53%, 21.3%, 79.7% in the COVID-19 time frame (March 16-April 15), representing no significant difference in proportions of OB-GYN ED consults (p = .464) and GYN surgeries (p = .310) before and during COVID-19, with a proportionate increase in OB surgeries (p <.002). The distribution of GYN surgical case types changed significantly during the pandemic with higher proportions of emergent surgeries for ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and concern for cancer (p <.001). Alternatively, the OB surgery distribution of case types remained relatively constant. CONCLUSION:This study highlights how the pandemic has affected the ways that patients in OB-GYN access and receive care. Institutional policies suspending elective surgeries during the pandemic decreased GYN surgical volume and affected the types of cases performed. This decrease was not appreciated for OB surgical volume, reflecting the nonelective and time-sensitive nature of obstetric care. A decrease in ED consults was noted during the pandemic begging the question "Where have all the emergencies gone?" Although the moratorium on elective procedures was necessary, "elective" GYN surgeries remain medically indicated to address symptoms such as pain and bleeding and to prevent serious medical sequelae such as severe anemia requiring transfusion. As we continue to battle COVID-19, we must not lose sight of those patients whose care has been deferred.
PMID: 33248312
ISSN: 1553-4669
CID: 5111342

Trends in Use of Myomectomy for the Surgical Management of Uterine Leiomyomas in Perimenopausal and Postmenopausal Women

Wright, Jason D; Chen, Ling; Hur, Hye-Chun; Melamed, Alexander; Hershman, Dawn L
PMID: 33831937
ISSN: 1873-233x
CID: 5111352

Use of Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery Testing to Assess Gynecologic Surgeons: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 10-Years Experience

Seaman, Sierra J; Jorgensen, Elisa M; Tramontano, Angela C; Jones, Daniel B; Mendiola, Monica L; Ricciotti, Hope A; Hur, Hye-Chun
STUDY OBJECTIVE:To compare the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) exam scores between obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) and general surgery (GS) providers. DESIGN:This is a retrospective cohort study at a single institution from July 2007 to May 2018. Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed with χ2 test, t test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test. SETTING:Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), Boston, MA, a tertiary care academic medical center. PATIENTS:All providers who took the FLS exam at the Carl J. Shapiro Simulation and Skills Center at BIDMC. INTERVENTIONS:FLS certification. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:A total of 205 BIDMC trainees and faculty took the FLS exam between July 2007 and May 2018, of which 176 were identified to be OBGYN or GS providers. The FLS certification pass rate was high for both specialties (97.0% OBGYN vs 96.1% sGS, p = .76). When comparing all providers, no significant difference was found in the mean manual skill test scores between surgical specialties (594.9 OBGYN vs 601.0 GS, p = .59); whereas, a significant difference was noted in the mean cognitive scores, with GS providers scoring higher than OBGYN providers (533.8 OBGYN vs 583.4 GS, p <.001). However, when adjusting for several variables in a multivariate linear regression model, surgical specialty was not a predictor for cognitive scores. In the multivariate analysis, age, sex, and test year were predictors for cognitive scores, with higher scores associated with younger age, male sex, and advancing calendar year. None of the variables were significant predictors of manual scores. CONCLUSION:Both OBGYN and GS providers had extremely high FLS pass rates. In the multivariate analysis, surgical specialty was not a predictor for higher FLS test scores for either manual or cognitive test scores. Although OBGYN residency programs offer fewer years of training, OBGYN trainees demonstrate the capacity to perform well on the FLS exam.
PMID: 32681993
ISSN: 1553-4669
CID: 5111332

Comparing Surgical Experience and Skill Using a High-Fidelity, Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Model

Arora, Chetna; Menzies, Anya; Han, Esther S; Lee, Minyi; Lauer, Jacob K; Hur, Hye-Chun; Kim, Jin Hee; Advincula, Arnold P
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate differences in standardized scores and surgical confidence in the completion of a standardized total laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TLH-BSO) among obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) with different levels of training, and to assess a TLH-BSO model for validity. METHODS:We conducted a prospective cohort study of 68 participants within four categories of ob-gyns: 1) graduating or recently graduated residents (n=18), 2) minimally invasive gynecologic surgery graduating or recently graduated fellows (n=16), 3) specialists in general obstetrics and gynecology (n=15), and 4) fellowship-trained minimally invasive gynecologic surgery subspecialists (n=19) who completed a TLH-BSO simulation. Participants completed presimulation questionnaires assessing laparoscopic confidence. Participants performed a video-recorded TLH-BSO and contained specimen removal on a standardized 250-g biological model in a simulated operating room and completed a postsimulation questionnaire. RESULTS:Randomized videos were scored by blinded experts using the validated OSATS (Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills). The surgery was divided into five standardized segments: 1) adnexa, 2) dissection and pedicles, 3) colpotomy, 4) cuff closure, and 5) tissue extraction. Minimally invasive gynecologic surgery subspecialists averaging 8.9 years in practice scored highest in all categories (overall median score 91%, P<.001), followed by fellows (64%, P<.001), specialists in obstetrics and gynecology averaging 19.7 years in practice (63%, P<.001), and residents (56%, P<.001). Residents, fellows and specialists in obstetrics and gynecology were comparable overall. Fellows scored higher on cuff closure (63% vs 50%, P<.03) and tissue extraction (77% vs 60%, P<.009) compared with specialists in obstetrics and gynecology. Minimally invasive gynecologic surgery subspecialists were fastest overall and on each individual component. Residents were slowest in almost all categories. CONCLUSION:When performing a TLH-BSO of a standardized 250-g uterus on a simulation model, fellowship-trained minimally invasive gynecologic surgery subspecialists achieved higher OSATS in all areas and completed all components faster. Similar performances were noted between residents, fellows, and specialists in obstetrics and gynecology in practice an average of 19.7 years. FUNDING SOURCE:Support from Applied Medical, Medtronic, CooperSurgical, and Karl Storz in the form of in-kind equipment was obtained through unrestricted educational grants.
PMID: 32541295
ISSN: 1873-233x
CID: 5111322

ACOG Simulation Working Group: A Needs Assessment of Simulation Training in OB/GYN Residencies and Recommendations for Future Research

DeStephano, Christopher C; Nitsche, Joshua F; Heckman, Michael G; Banks, Erika; Hur, Hye-Chun
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate current availability and needs of simulation training among obstetrics/gynecology (OB/GYN) residency programs. DESIGN/METHODS:Cross-sectional survey. SETTING/METHODS:Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited OB/GYN residency programs in the United States. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Residency program directors, gynecology simulation faculty, obstetrics simulation faculty, and fourth-year residents. RESULTS:Of 673 invited participants, 251 (37.3%) completed the survey. Among the survey responses, OB procedures were more broadly represented compared to the GYN procedures for simulation teaching: 8 (50%) of 16 OB procedures versus 4 (18.2%) of 22 GYN procedures had simulation teaching. Among the simulated procedures, a majority of residents and faculty reported that simulation teaching was available for operative vaginal delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, shoulder dystocia, perineal laceration repair, conventional laparoscopic procedures, and robotic surgery. There were significant differences between residents and faculty perceptions regarding the availability and needs of simulated procedures with a minority of residents having knowledge of Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology (47.2%) and American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (27.8%) simulation tools compared to the majority of faculty (84.7% and 72.1%, respectively). More than 80% of trainees and faculty reported they felt the average graduating resident could perform vaginal, laparoscopic, and abdominal hysterectomies independently. CONCLUSIONS:Simulation is now widely available for both gynecologic and obstetric procedures, but there remains tremendous heterogeneity between programs and the perceptions of residents, program directors, and faculty. The variations in simulation training and readiness for performing different procedures following residency support the need for objective, validated assessments of actual performance to better guide resident learning and faculty teaching efforts.
PMID: 31859227
ISSN: 1878-7452
CID: 5111312

Simple Adnexal Cysts: SRU Consensus Conference Update on Follow-up and Reporting

Levine, Deborah; Patel, Maitray D; Suh-Burgmann, Elizabeth J; Andreotti, Rochelle F; Benacerraf, Beryl R; Benson, Carol B; Brewster, Wendy R; Coleman, Beverly G; Doubilet, Peter M; Goldstein, Steven R; Hamper, Ulrike M; Hecht, Jonathan L; Horrow, Mindy M; Hur, Hye-Chun; Marnach, Mary L; Pavlik, Ed; Platt, Lawrence D; Puscheck, Elizabeth; Smith-Bindman, Rebecca; Brown, Douglas L
This multidisciplinary consensus update aligns prior Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) guidelines on simple adnexal cysts with recent large studies showing exceptionally low risk of cancer associated with simple adnexal cysts. Most small simple cysts do not require follow-up. For larger simple cysts or less well-characterized cysts, follow-up or second opinion US help to ensure that solid elements are not missed and are also useful for assessing growth of benign tumors. In postmenopausal women, reporting of simple cysts greater than 1 cm should be done to document their presence in the medical record, but such findings are common and follow-up is recommended only for simple cysts greater than 3-5 cm, with the higher 5-cm threshold reserved for simple cysts with excellent imaging characterization and documentation. For simple cysts in premenopausal women, these thresholds are 3 cm for reporting and greater than 5-7 cm for follow-up imaging. If a cyst is at least 10%-15% smaller at any time, then further follow-up is unnecessary. Stable simple cysts at initial follow-up may benefit from a follow-up at 2 years due to measurement variability that could mask growth. Simple cysts that grow are likely cystadenomas. If a previously suspected simple cyst demonstrates papillary projections or solid areas at follow-up, then the cyst should be described by using standardized terminology. These updated SRU consensus recommendations apply to asymptomatic patients and to those whose symptoms are not clearly attributable to the cyst. These recommendations can reassure physicians and patients regarding the benign nature of simple adnexal cysts after a diagnostic-quality US examination that allows for confident diagnosis of a simple cyst. Patients will benefit from less costly follow-up, less anxiety related to these simple cysts, and less surgery for benign lesions.
PMID: 31549945
ISSN: 1527-1315
CID: 5111302

Optimizing surgical management of patients who decline blood transfusion

Han, Esther S; Arora, Chetna; Hur, Hye-Chun; Advincula, Arnold P; Kim, Jin Hee J
PURPOSE OF REVIEW:This review highlights the complexity of caring for gynecologic patients who refuse blood transfusion and discusses the importance of early, targeted perioperative and intraoperative medical optimization. We review alternative interventions and the importance of medical management to minimize blood loss and maximize hematopoiesis, particularly in gynecologic patients who may have significant uterine bleeding. The review also focuses on intraoperative interventions and surgical techniques to prevent and control surgical blood loss. RECENT FINDINGS:With improvements in surgical technique, greater availability of minimally invasive surgery, and increased use of preop UAE and cell salvage, definitive surgical management can be safely performed. New technologies have been developed that allow for safer surgeries or alternatives to traditional surgical procedures. Many medical therapies have been shown to decrease blood loss and improve surgical outcomes. Nonsurgical interventions have also been developed for use as adjuncts or alternatives to surgery. SUMMARY:The care of a patient who declines blood transfusion may be complex, but gynecologic surgeons can safely and successfully offer a wide variety of therapies depending on the patient's goals and needs. Medical management should be implemented early. A multidisciplinary team should be mobilized to provide comprehensive and patient-centered care.
PMID: 31135450
ISSN: 1473-656x
CID: 5111292

Hysterectomy Practice Patterns in the Postmorcellation Era

Jorgensen, Elisa M; Modest, Anna M; Hur, Hye-Chun; Hacker, Michele R; Awtrey, Christopher S
OBJECTIVE:To characterize long-term national trends in surgical approach for hysterectomy after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning against power morcellation for laparoscopic specimen removal. METHODS:This was a descriptive study using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from 2012 to 2016. We identified hysterectomies using Current Procedural Terminology codes. We used an interrupted time-series analysis to evaluate abdominal and supracervical hysterectomy trends surrounding The Wall Street Journal article first reporting morcellation safety concerns and the FDA safety communication. We compared categorical and continuous variables using χ, t, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. RESULTS:We identified 179,950 hysterectomies; laparoscopy was the most common mode of hysterectomy in every quarter. Before The Wall Street Journal article, there was no significant change in proportion of abdominal hysterectomies (0.3% decrease/quarter, P=.14). After The Wall Street Journal article, use of abdominal hysterectomy increased 1.1% per quarter for two quarters through the FDA warning (P<.001), plateaued for three quarters until March 2015 (P=.65), then decreased by 0.8% per quarter through 2016 (P<.001). Supracervical hysterectomy volume continuously decreased after the FDA warning (1.0% decrease per quarter, P<.001) and after three quarters (0.7% decrease per quarter, P=.01), then plateaued from April 2015 through 2016 (0.05% decrease per quarter, P=.40). Mode of supracervical hysterectomy was unchanged from 2012 to 2013 (P=.43), followed by two quarters of significant increase in proportion of supracervical abdominal hysterectomies (11.7%/quarter, P<.001). This change in mode of supracervical hysterectomy then plateaued through 2016 (P=.06). CONCLUSION:Despite early studies suggesting that minimally invasive hysterectomy decreased in response to safety concerns regarding power morcellation, we found that this effect reversed 1 year after the FDA safety communication. However, there was a sustained decline in supracervical hysterectomy, and the remaining supracervical hysterectomies were more likely to be performed using laparotomy.
PMID: 30870280
ISSN: 1873-233x
CID: 5111282