The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Hysterectomy Rates in the United States, 2003
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate hysterectomy rates by type of hysterectomy and to compare age, length of stay, and regional variation in type of hysterectomy performed for benign indications. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of national discharge data using the 2003 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. These data represent a 20% stratified sample of U.S. hospitals. Women aged 16 years or older who underwent a hysterectomy were identified by International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes. We extracted data regarding age, race, diagnoses codes, length of stay, and hospital characteristics. Using 2000 National Census data and weighted data analysis for cluster sampling, we calculated hysterectomy rates. RESULTS: In 2003, 602,457 hysterectomies were performed, for a rate of 5.38 per 1,000 women-years. Of the 538,722 hysterectomies for benign disease (rate 4.81 per 1,000 women-years), the abdominal route was the most common (66.1%), followed by vaginal (21.8%) and laparoscopic (11.8%) routes. Mean ages (+/-standard deviation) differed among hysterectomy types (abdominal 44.5+/-0.1 years, vaginal 48.2+/-0.2 years, and laparoscopic 43.6+/-0.3 years, P<.001). Mean lengths of stay (+/-standard deviation) were also different (3.0+/-0.03 days, 2.0+/-0.03 days, 1.7+/-0.03 days, respectively, P<.001). The hysterectomy rate was highest in the South (5.92 per 1,000 women-years) and lowest in the Northeast (3.33 per 1,000 women-years). CONCLUSION: Despite a shorter length of stay, vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomies remain far less common than abdominal hysterectomy for benign disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Epidemiology of Uterine Fibroids: From Menarche to Menopause
WISE, L. A., & LAUGHLIN-TOMMASO, S. K. (2016) · Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/grf.0000000000000164 · Cited by 339
Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse
Korbly, N. B., Kassis, N. C., Good, M. M., Richardson, M. L., Book, N. M., Yip, S., Saguan, D., Gross, C., Evans, J., Lopes, V. V., et al. (2013) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.003 · Cited by 211
Clinical utility of postoperative hemoglobin level testing following total laparoscopic hysterectomy
Chamsy, D. J., Louie, M. Y., Lum, D. A., Phelps, A. L., & Mansuria, S. M. (2014) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.04.003 · Cited by 23
Associations between hysterectomy and pelvic floor disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Chang, O. H., Saldanha, I. J., Encalada-Soto, D., Jalloul, R. J., Rozycki, S., Orlando, M., White, A., Yang, L. C., Thompson, J. C., Nihira, M., et al. (2025) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2025.03.018 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Wu, J. M., Wechter, M. E., Geller, E. J., Nguyen, T. V., & Visco, A. G.
- Venue
- Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Published
- 2007-11
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1091-1095
- ISSN
- 0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2313428946
- Cited by
- 671
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 37.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Hysterectomy Rates in the United States, 2003. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.aog.0000285997.38553.4b
- The paper
- Wu, J. M., Wechter, M. E., Geller, E. J., Nguyen, T. V., & Visco, A. G. (2007). Hysterectomy Rates in the United States, 2003. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000285997.38553.4b
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.