Sexuality after total vs. subtotal hysterectomy

References

• Gimbel H, Settnes A, Tabor A. Hysterectomy on benign indication in Denmark 1988–1998. A register based trend analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001; 80: 267–72.
   Google Scholar
• Lepine LH, Hillis SD, Marchbank PA, Koonin LM, Morrow B, Kieke BA et al. Hysterectomy surveillance – United States 1980–1993. MMWR CDC Serveill Summ 1997; 46: 1–16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vuorma S, Terperi J, Hurskainen R, Keskimäki I, Kujansuu E. Hysterectomy trends in Finland in 1987–1995 – a register based analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol 1998; 77: 770–6.
   Google Scholar
• Sills ES, Saini J, Applegate MS, McGee M, Gretz HF 3rd. Supracervical and total abdominal hysterectomy trends in New York State: 1990–1996. J Urban Health 1998; 75: 903–10.
   Google Scholar
• Sills ES, Saini J, Steiner CA, McGee M, Gretz HF 3rd. Abdominal hysterectomy practice patterns in the United States. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1998; 63: 277–83.
   Google Scholar
• Bridgman SA, Dunn KM. Has endometrial ablation replaced hysterectomy for the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding? National figures. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 107: 531–4.
   Google Scholar
• Coulter A. Trends in gynecological surgery. Lancet 1994; 344: 1367.
   Google Scholar
• Wood C, Maher P, Hill D, Selwood T. Hysterectomy: a time of change. Med J Aust 1992; 157: 651–3.
   Google Scholar
• Steege JF. Indications for hysterectomy: have they changed? Clin Obstet Gynecol 1997; 40: 878–85.
   Google Scholar
• Nordenskjöld F, Larsson PG. Hysterektomi 1998. Rapport fran en konferens och workshop Arendal 18–20 juni. [Hysterectomy. Report from a conference and workshop, Arendal, June 18–20.] NFOG Bull 1998: 19–23.
   Google Scholar
• Feridun M. The return of subtotal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182: 1648–9.
   Google Scholar
• Johns A. Supracervical versus total hysterectomy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1997; 40: 903–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darnell Jones DE, Shackelford P, Braune RG. Supracervical hysterectomy: back to the future? Clinical opinion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: 513–15.
   Google Scholar
• Lipscomb GH. Laparoscopically-assisted hysterectomy: is it ever indicated? Clin Obstet Gynecol 1997; 40: 895–902.
   Google Scholar
• Ottesen BS. Hysterektomi. Redaktionelt. [Hysterectomy. Editorial.] Ugeskr Læger 2001; 163: 2119.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell SA, Kieser K. Sexuality after hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 1045–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helström L. Sexuality after hysterectomy – a model based on quantitative and qualitative analysis of 104 women before and after subtotal hysterectomy. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 1994; 15: 219–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darling CA, McKay-Smith YM. Understanding hysterectomies: sexual satisfaction and quality of life. J Sex Res 1993; 30: 324–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauridsen L, Jensen VC. Total contra subtotal hysterektomi. [Total contra subtotal hysterectomy.] Ugeskr Læger 1961; 123: 298–307.
   Google Scholar
• Cahen CH. Die genitale Morbidität nach Hysterektomie wegen Myomatosis. Gynaecologia 1968; 165: 395–405.
   Google Scholar
• Kilkku P. Supravaginal uterine amputation vs. hysterectomy. Effect on coital frequency and dyspareunia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1983; 62: 141–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilkku P, Grönroos M, Hirvonen T, Rauramo L. Supravaginal uterine amputation vs hysterectomy. Effect on libido and orgasm. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1983; 62: 147–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nathorst-Böös J, Fuchs T, von Schoultz B. Consumer’s attitude to hysterectomy. Experience of 678 women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1992; 71: 230–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruoss CF. Supravaginal hysterectomy – a less invasive procedure. J Obset Gynecol 1995; 15: 406–9.
   Google Scholar
• Gimbel H, Zobbe V, Andersen BM, Filtenborg T, Gloud C, Tabor A and the Danish Hysterectomy Group. Randomized controlled trial of total versus subtotal hysterectomy with one-year follow-up results. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2003, in press.
   Google Scholar
• Gimbel H, Zobbe V, Ottesen B, Tabor A. Randomized clinical trial of total versus subtotal hysterectomy: validity of the trial questionnaire. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002; 81: 968–74.
   Google Scholar
• Helström L, Lundberg PO, Sörbom D, Bäckström T. Sexuality after hysterectomy: a factor analysis of women’s sexual lives before and after subtotal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81: 357–62.
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes JC, Kjerulff KH, Langenberg PW, Guzinski GM. Hysterectomy and sexual functioning. J Am Med Assoc 1999; 282: 1934–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thakar R, Ayers S, Clarkson P, Stanton S, Manyonda I. Outcomes after total versus subtotal abdominal hysterectomy. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1318–25.
   Google Scholar
• Kjaergaard L, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodological quality and discrepancies between large and small randomised trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135: 982–9.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz KF, Grimes DA, Altman DG, Hayes RJ. Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomized controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynecology. Br Med J 1996; 312: 742–4.
   Google Scholar
• Masters W, Johnson V. Human sexual response. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, Co, 1966.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke M, Oxman AD, eds. Formulating the problem. Cochrane Reviewer’s Handbook 4.1 [updated June 2000]; Section 8. In: Review Manager (Revman) [Computer program], Version 4.1. Oxford, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2000.
   Google Scholar