Talk:Hysterectomy

message: This article appears to be under constant NPOV creep by HERS. I have removed one reference in the introduction to the article but I believe that it may need more clearing up from a NPOV pov. Elliehughes (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. HERS folks, this issue has come up time and time again, and you have been asked to stop doing this time and time again. If you have any lingering doubt about the inappropriateness of inserting even one paragraph of HERS propaganda into this article's lead, let it cease lingering: The Wikipedia tenet of keeping articles factual and written from a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is absolute and non-negotiable. This means that even if someone thinks it is vital that readers of a Wikipedia article know about the work of a lobbying site pushing a single agenda point concerning the article subject, inserting said website's agenda into the article's lead is not appropriate and is a blatant violation of NPOV. This article has a "See also" section, and an entry for the Hysterectomy Educational Resources and Services (HERS) Foundation already exists there. The information that HERSFoundation placed in the article's lead on 25 May 2011 belongs in that article, not this one. If someone wants to find that information, they can find it in the HERS article or on the HERS website. Please refrain from using this article as a soapbox to push your anti-hysterectomy agenda. Scarletsmith (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: HERS and NPOV

message: The list of indications probably should be longer and more detailed.  Off the top of my head, I know it should mention that hysterectomy is often requested by FTM transsexuals.
--Dfeuer 21:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a medical indication? JFW | T@lk 00:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, actually; during gender transition, removal of the ovaries and/or uterus helps prevent reproductive organ cancer, hormonally-related coronary artery disease, and some others.  I've added them, as well as a breakout of the conditions that most indicate a need for hysterectomy (and fought off more HERS propaganda while doing so)... Scarletsmith 05:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand indications 

message: Perhaps a discussion of the history/etymology of the term, "hysterectomy," would be in order. I don't personall6y have the expertise to add to the entry, but I think it might be interesting to know the way the term was used back in the days when "womens' hysteria" was said to come from the uterus. So was a "hysterectomy" an attempt by the (male-dominated) medical establishment to literally cut the hysteria out of a woman? I suspect that's the case, but I'd rather know for sure before making that claim.
:The prefix "hyster" comes from the Greek word, "Hustera" (of course, this is the English spelling translation - the greek alphabet would have been used for the original word) meaning "womb".  The terms "hysteria" or "hysterical" come from the 19th century medical assertions (possibly earlier) that extreme emotionalism, excessive pain perception, etc., seen as a few of the defining "weaknesses" of the female human, were rooted in the womb.
:Women who underwent emergency cesarian sections, usually caused by undiagnosed, painful medical conditions such as endometriosis or even uterine cancer, often ended up having hysterectomies.  If they survived the procedure, the women and doctors noted that most of their symptoms, severe pelvic pain (endometriosis), "hysteria" (PMS), etc. abated, thus hysterectomy was prescribed for women with "hysterical" symptoms.  It was later that the term "hysteria" became synonymous with "imaginary" or "psychosomatic".  There are certain misogynistic assumptions made by the medical establishment in this history, but hysterectomy was not solely a misogynistic procedure.  After all, hysterectomy in order to excise uterine cancer is seen as perfectly reasonable.
:All of the preceding commentary was gleaned from human biology and sexuality research during my university days.  I'm not really interested in going back and doing a bibliography search for this stuff.  It is an interesting topic for the discussion page though. Strike71 09:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I removed the following from the references section.  It needs to be put in the right format to be readable.  I'm way too tired to do that now, but as it was, it turned the references section into an unreadable mess.  Some checking into the quality of these sources would be very helpful as always.
The vagina is shortened and made into a closed pocket and there is a loss of support to the bladder and bowel.[verification needed]
The following is the requested verification:
Rock, John A. et al  Total Abdominal Hysterectomy: Surgical Technique Te Lindes's Operative Gynecology Ninth Edition p.809-828
Zeigerman, Joseph H.  Length of the Vagina After Total Abdominal Hysterectomy Obstetrics & Gynecology 1955 Vol. 6 No. 5 p.519-521
Parys, B.T. et al  Bladder Dysfunction after Simple Hysterectomy: Urodynamic and Neurological Evaluation  Eur Urol 1990; 17: 129-133
Parys, B.T. et al  The Effects of Simple Hysterectomy on Vesicourethral Function British Journal of Urology 1989, 64, 5940599
Cruikshank, Stephen H. et al  The functional anatomy  of the urethra: Role of the pubourethral ligaments Am J Obstet Gynecol Vol 17 No. 6 p.1200-1205
Varma, J.S. Autonomic Influences on Colorectal Motility and Pelvic Surgery 1992 World J. Surg. 16, 811-819
Roe, AM et al Slow Transit Constipation, Comparison between Patients with or without Previous Hysterectomy 1988 Digestive Diseases and Sciences Vol. 33, No. 9 p.1159-1163
van Dam, JH et al Changes in Bowel Function After Hysterectomy 1997 Dis Colon Rectum Vol 40 No 11 p.1342-1347
Wiersma, Tj et al Hysterectomy: the Anorectal Pitfall 1997 Scan J Gastroenterol p.3-7 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfeuer (talk • contribs) 09:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improperly formatted references 

message: Here are the refs list above, properly formatted in Cite.php format and ready for re-insertion as needed:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
-- MarcoTolo 02:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Properly formatted references

message: I just reverted a change HERS Foundation made to the description I wrote of the organization.  I formulated my description after looking through the materials available on the HERS Foundation website:  It seems to be primarily an advocacy site rather than an informative one (see for example the facts page on the site).  There's nothing wrong with advocacy, but the fact that HERS Foundation wants to be seen in a certain way is not justification for a slanted description on Wikipedia.  The claim that the organization is an international one is seriously weakened by the fact that at least since 2002 (the earliest information I could find in the Internet Archive) their conferences have all occurred in the United States.  Similarly, their IRS Form 990 for 2005 lists all "officers, directors, trustees, and key employees", including the president, chair, secretary, and treasurer,  as residing in the United States.  Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable.  I will add back the fact that HERS Foundation is a non-profit, as that could be verified through their IRS filing. Dfeuer 10:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HERS posters have been particularly egregious about POV pushing.  We may have to request a no-anonymous-user lock for this article if it keeps up. Scarletsmith 22:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HERS Foundation description 

message: I propose removing this article from :Category:Human reproduction.  I have proposed narrowing the scope of that category at Category talk:Human reproduction.  Please comment on the category talk page. Lyrl    Talk     C   15:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Human reproduction 

message: To those editors who keep coming in and inserting the HERS Foundation website as an informational site, please stop.  It smacks of POV-creep. Scarletsmith 02:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, HERS folks, this isn't funny.  Please stop using this entry as your own personal opinion board.  Particularly, users coming in via 68.236.x.x addresses with no user name, stop doing this.  Get a Wiki user ID and put your name out there if you really feel so strongly about this issue. Scarletsmith 02:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly seconded. Wikipedia articles must be from a neutral point of view. The recent HERS Foundation additions have blatantly pushed a POV - keep it out of the encyclopedia, please. At the very least, please discuss changes like this on the talk page before adding them. -- MarcoTolo 03:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nora (and any other posters pushing a particular organization's view on this subject):  While we all have our own personal views on many subjects, according to Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, "Neutral Point of View is absolute and non-negotiable."  This means you must make every effort to keep your additions as neutrally worded as possible.  If you need help with creating neutral wording for any additions to this article, please come here first.  The editors here are very diligent about knocking back PoV-creep, as we are required to be; please meet us halfway and work with us.  Thanks... Scarletsmith 23:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HERS Foundation Editors Pushing POV

message: I just posted this comment at the end of the last post, but perhaps this is the proper format. I thought I'd give it a try, so my apologies in advance of it is duplicated.
I'm sorry if I offended anyone by not signing before making my previous posts. I did, however, at your recommendation, sign in before posting a comment a few days ago on the Talk Page but my comments are not posted. If you have any suggestions on how to communicate with you on this page I would appreciate it. Please let me know if there's something else I should be doing to post here.
Thanks, Nora W. CoffeyNorawcoffey 03:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hysterectomy 

message: To Nora W. Coffey:  Please, stop deliberately introducing PoV creep into this article.  There is already a perfectly valid NPoV sentence in the opening section that refers to removal of ovaries as being a form of castration.  There does not need to be any more references to "castration" added to that section.  I can appreciate that you feel strongly about this issue, but Wikipedia requires that articles maintain a Neutral Point of View even in regard to issues one feels strongly about.
This is NPoV wording:  "Additionally, the removal of otherwise healthy ovaries is a form of castration because it involves removal of the female gonads, which many opponents and even some supporters of hysterectomy do not support."
This is PoV-creep:  "During a hysterectomy, in the last decade, an average of 73% of surgeons removed ovaries and fallopian tubes in a surgery called bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (sometimes called ovariohysterectomy) and female castration."
This is the same sentence with PoV-creep removed:  "During a hysterectomy, in the last decade, an average of 73% of surgeons removed ovaries and fallopian tubes during the same operation, a procedure known technically as bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and less formally as ovariohysterectomy."
Please work with those of us who have put in a lot of effort to keep this page as NPoV as possible.  Don't deliberately add inflammatory text and/or PoV-creep.  Thanks.... Scarletsmith 18:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castration 

message: After reading some of this, a women's goes under changes rather radically. But, why does this not happen to animals? For example, when female cat or dog is spaded (or whatever the word is), that changes dont seem as apparent. From my experience, my cat got spaded, nad it appears the main thing that happened to her is that she gained weight. I'm asking out of curiousity(sic), but it would be interesting for a mention of this in the article. THROUGH FIRE,  JUSTICE IS SERVED! 01:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a good question, and was addressed in this article at one point several edits back.  (Veterinarians suggest spaying cats and dogs not only to keep the population down, but because it substantially reduces mammary cancer risk, particularly if done before the first heat cycle.)  The fact that spaying--hysterectomy plus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy--reduces mammary cancer in animals is significant, particularly because bilateral oophorectomy also significantly reduces breast cancer in humans, particularly women who have BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic mutation, and accompanying hysterectomy allows hormonal treatments to be estrogen-based rather than mixed-hormone-based which further reduces breast cancer risk.  My mother, who had a serious breast cancer risk due to strong family history, stopped developing breast tumors after her uterus and one of her ovaries were removed.  I too have stopped developing breast tumors post-hysterectomy/oophorectomy.  Yeah, it's anecdotal in our cases.  But it's also an example of the same scenario first spotted in spayed domestic animals. Scarletsmith 04:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I have removed the following statement as it has been marked "citation needed" for several months:
*Many women also find that their sex drive is reduced or eliminated after hysterectomy, especially if an oophorectomy was part of the procedure.
If anyone can find a source for this statement, feel free to re-add it. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statement removed 

message: I never realised this was quite such a controversial issue, I've never come across the kind of disputes over hysterectomies that seem to be playing out right here. All that aside though, I have a problem with the final paragraph of the introduction.
*Both the uterus and the ovaries have important life-long functions in the maintenance of a woman's health, and there is never an age or a time when the uterus and ovaries are not essential to health and well-being.[3] Additionally, the removal of otherwise healthy ovaries is a form of castration because it involves removal of the female gonads[4], which many opponents and even some supporters of hysterectomy[5] do not support
I know there has been talk about some of this already but it really ends up being a paragraph about ovaries in the introduction to a page about hysterectomy which seems odd to me. I also dispute the line that uterus and ovaries are 'essential to health and well-being'. This suggests that a woman who has had either her ovaries or her uterus removed can be neither healthy nor happy and this is plainly not true. The second sentence which people seem to have found ok in the past, I find unnecessarily negative. I know there are some strong opinions out there about it, but if it needs to be included at all in the intro to a hysterectomy page, perhaps it could be made a little less accusatory? 
eg. The practise remains controversial to some advocacy groups who are opposed to oophorectomy (and if REALLY needed, which I don't think it is) as they consider the procedure to amount to castration. McPat (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've reworded it a bit. I left the note about POV editing there.McPat (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading statement 

message: The last paragraph of the Indications section is poor. It is unclear exactly how it relates to hysterectomy, and also links directly to a specific product. The link is broken, but the domain is that of a "natural nutrition" company. I don't know enough to replace it, but if nobody can do better perhaps it should just be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.82.53 (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor quality "indications" section 

message: I'm concerned about the heavy bias this page now demonstrates with HERS foundation so prominently displayed in multiple ways.  HERS is passionately anti-hysterectomy and will stop at nothing to get their message out. Are they now the editors of this page? Inappropriate use of wiki which should remain a non-biased resource. I see HysterSIsters.com was removed from the wiki again. HysterSisters.com represents a balance view of the issues. Neither anti-hysterectomy nor pro-hysterectomy, it provides resources and support for women gathering information and making decisions - and helps them through the process - even helping them with alternatives to hysterectomy, hormone therapy options, and offering resources for minimally invasive surgery methods. - Kathy Kelley (hystersisters.com)
As someone who has never visited the page before and has no relation to medicine or the procedure (my mother is receiving it late next week so I thought I'd read up a bit) the article reads very heavily against the operation - so much so that I read the talk page to determine what level of consensus there was regarding the expressed viewpoint. I'm not in a position to judge the accuracy of the claims but it really feels like it's saying "There are no situations in which a hysterectomy is a good idea".
PhiRatE (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It could sure use a lot of improvement. Imho it is generally better to be overly cautious and describe the risks, the long term effects are very frequently underestimated. The alternatives section looks like it needs some structuring tooRichiez (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree on the heavy bias. I was looking for information about the procedure, not anyone's opinion on it. I was not looking to be talked out of a hysterectomy and I'm on annoyed that it was attempted through a wiki article. The opinion on whether it's right for me will come from my doctor, not some wiki activists. Maybe the article needs a fresh set of eyes because I know little on the topic and I was struck by the bias. GrrrlRomeo (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Help is always welcome - even if it is only critique, but then it needs to be more precise. Its a huge chunk for the few editors, the past POV wars don't seem to be a problem most of the time. Richiez (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Heavy Bias on this page 

message: the section title is slightly strange, but there are other problems, I am moving two fragments to this place as I consider them in not very good shape and "difficult to salvage"
:Women with a risk of breast cancer, especially those with BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutations, have been shown to have a significantly reduced risk of developing breast cancer after prophylactic oophorectomy.
 In addition, removal of the uterus in conjunction with prophylactic oophorectomy allows estrogen-only hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to be prescribed to aid the individual through their transition into surgical menopause, instead of estrogen-progestin HRT, which has a slightly increased risk of breast cancer as compared with post-menopausal non-hysterectomized women taking HRT.
The problems with above:
* BRCA1/2 is very complex, the various prophylactic strategies and surgeries are probably better explained in the specific BRCA article.
* HRT is a very protracted subject in itself, could be mentioned here. However *if* we want to mention it here it should be at least also mentioned that:
** hysterectomy does on average cause premature menopause which necessitates earlier HRT which may be an inconvenience or have other adverse effects
** hormonal effects of oophorectomy before age 45 cause significantly increased long term mortality
Other paragraph:
::One of the conditions most cited by women who have complex pelvic and reproductive issues is pain"The Female Reproductive System"; reviewed by Wayne Ho, MD, and Stephen Dowshen, MD; written May 2004; retrieved July 2, 2007.. This is particularly true for women who have other conditions that amplify pain, such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.  Removal of a condition that is causing pain has a dramatic effect on reducing the overall pain levels of a person with such disorders; for many women with such pain conditions, a hysterectomy is preferable to the continual pain which adds to the burden of their already painful lives, even though the loss of hormones post-surgery may initially contribute to an increase in the symptoms of their disorder"Chronic Fatigue and Fibromyalgia Syndromes and How They're Related to Hysterectomies", Frederick R. Jelovsek, MD; written 2006; retrieved July 2, 2007..
the merrits of the above paragraph are not quite clear to me. Who says that "Removal of a condition" is a synonym to hysterectomy. Richiez (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: BRCA mutation has been created and I hope over time it will grow to give a good overview if cancer preventions strategies and other issues. Richiez (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits 

message: Hello wandals, I would be delighted to leave the following fragment verbatim in the article:
:The fastest-growing technique is robotic hysterectomy, which as the name implies is a form of robotic surgery. It uses the da Vinci Surgical System which is manufactured by Intuitive Surgical corporation. It has the same advantages as laparoscopic hysterectomy, such as smaller incisions, less scarring, less pain, less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and less chance of infection, but is much easier to perform because the surgeon uses a comfortable ergonomic computer console to control the articulating robotic arms of the device. Surgeons who find laparoscopic hysterectomy to be too challenging are very likely to grasp robotic surgery.
This fragment makes it appear like robotic surgery:
* it is some overhyped buzzword technique pushed by commercial interests
* is best suited for "challenged" surgeons who would be otherwise unable to do any surgery at all and who will be under tremendous economic pressure to perform hysterectomies after taking big loans to buy expensive equipment from "Intuitive Surgical"
It is wikipedia policy not to tolerate advertisement even if the formulation is so clumsy to be amusing and directly damaging to the advertisers intentions. Richiez (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robotic hysterectomy 

message: Just for the record it is trivial to find out where a particular IP is geolocated. Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hysterectomy&diff=340562730&oldid=340519621 there is a remarkable coincidence between the location from where this edit was done with the location where the cited article was authored. Richiez (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity citation 

message: All surgeons who perform robotic surgery are indeed able to perform surgery without a robot.  For example, it is not unheard of for robotic surgeries to convert to open surgeries using the same surgeon for both techniques.  Robotic surgery is growing in popularity due to the fact that most GYN surgeons are not interested in performing total laparoscopic hysterectomy using conventional laparoscopy.  Lisa11777 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skill of surgeons who perform robotic surgery 

message: If anyone can think of a better term for robotic surgery, I am open to suggestions.  Lisa11777 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not "robotic surgery" I was complaining about, phrases like "fastest growing", "worlds greatest" etc should be avoided as far as possible in medical articles. Anything that looks like advertisement. Richiez (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Robotic surgery" is not a buzz word 

message: Generally speaking, surgeons who use robots do so because they choose to, not because their hospital pressures them to.  Surgeons do not purchase robots; hospitals do.  It is usually the surgeon who pressures the hospital to purchase one.  Furthermore, many GYN surgeons are very fortunate to already have access to a robot which was originally purchased for use by urological surgeons for robotic prostatectomy.  Lisa11777 (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision to use a surgical robot 

message: This section should ideally have a short overview and where possible head-to-head comparison to hysterecomy.
The part about UAE was more detailed than the separate article, placing the material here maybe its of soem use later.Richiez (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Death from embolism, or septicemia (the presence of pus-forming or other pathogenic organisms, or their toxins, in the blood or tissues) resulting in multiple organ failure. Infection from tissue death of fibroids, leading to endometritis (infection of the uterus) resulting in lengthy hospitalization for administration of intravenous antibiotics.  Misembolization from microspheres or polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) particles flowing or drifting into organs or tissues where they were not intended to be, causing damage to other organs or other parts of the body.   Ovarian damage resulting from embolic material migrating to the ovaries.  Loss of ovarian function, infertility, and loss of orgasm.  Failure of embolization surgery- continued fibroid growth, regrowth within four months.  Menopause - iatrogenic, abnormal, cessation of menstruation and follicle stimulating hormones elevated to menopausal levels.  Post-Embolization Syndrome (PES) - characterized by acute and/or chronic pain, temperatures of up to 102 degrees, malaise, nausea, vomiting and severe night sweats.  Foul vaginal odor coming from infected, necrotic tissue which remains inside the uterus.  Hysterectomy due to infection, pain or failure of embolization.    Severe, persistent pain, resulting in the need for morphine or synthetic narcotics.   Hematoma, blood clot at the incision site.  Vaginal discharge containing pus and blood, bleeding from incision site, bleeding from vagina, fibroid expulsion (fibroids pushing out through the vagina), unsuccessful fibroid expulsion (fibroids trapped in the cervix causing infection and requiring surgical removal), life threatening allergic reaction to the contrast material, and uterine adhesions.
00:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed material from Alternatives 

message: I remove material recently added as most of it appeared to violated WP:MEDRS, either relying on primary studies or outdated materials >10 years old. Yobol (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: does add some very interesting data. Richiez (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good source, will incorporate. Yobol (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent change 

message: I've just removed this URL from the article, since the addition was badly formatted and caused a "cite error". It might be useful to the regular editors here: "Supracervical hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy: perceived effects on sexual function" http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/2/1 -- John of Reading (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible new source 

message: This isn't really a chat site, I can see that.  But I felt strongly to make this comment.  I'm not suggesting that the person who started this site about hysterectomy believes that lots of hysterectomies are unnecessary.  But whoever does believe that, can I just ask you something...
Have you ever been seriously injured in some kind of accident, where you are bleeding?  The life blood is literally being drained away from you. When this happens, a person tends to feel a bit weak, don't they?
Need I say more?  To some people that happens every month, only it's not called a serious injury, it's called a period.
Hysterectomies are a God send, and thank you to the medical world for making them available!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.50.118 (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  un necessary???? 

message: Found data on incidence from Germany ( http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/archive/article/99715 ) and more countries (http://www.vitadidonna.it/salute/medicina-e-salute/4187-patologie-dellutero-e-pregiudizio-scientifico-isterectomia.html), I think it is time to convert the data to table form to keep it compact.. and before doing that think a bit how to organize the table best. From first glance at available data that could be total/y, incidence/y/100000, % at age 60+, cause/indication, % of oophorectomies, % of vaginal/abdominal/laparoscopic procedures. Where data is available for several years or sub-populations (by age, status etc) it could go into several columns though that would obsolete the age 60+ table row. Richiez (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidence table 

message: Multiple issues with the attempts to add discussion of "vaginal vault excision" surgery to this section. First, the material are primary sources, which runs against WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT.  The material is also a therapeutic discussion, not appropriate for the side effects section. Finally, the material is not primarily about hysterectomy, but with the treatment of chronic pelvic pain, which is not the primary subject of this article.  Yobol (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly agree, this change is not ready yet. It seems to be just one out of many possible causes of dyspareunia after hysterectomy and the more prevalent causes (perhaps hormonal changes) should be discussed first. Just how prevalent are persistent "pathologies at the top of vagina"? Seems pretty rare to me. Richiez (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with additions to chronic pain section 

message: Any objections to including the 2013 SWAN study reported in J American College of Cardiology, concerning CVD risk associated with hysterectomy? The study involved multivariable analyses of 3,302 pre-menopausal women followed for 11 years, and concluded there were no significantly increased risks.Ronsword (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Have noticed your post here much too late. The SWAN study has a small number of cases and the results seem contrary to older and bigger studies. Causality is hard to prove, the association on the other hand seems pretty well documented. The borderline significant trends observed in patients over 50 in the Ingelson study are intriguing. Richiez (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not include a reference to the SWAN study simply as current information coming down the pike - for example: "in one of the most recent studies involving 3,302 pre-menopausal women, the following results were noted"? The study was considered worthy enough to publish in J American College of Cardiology, and it is one of the most recent. However, if there are some methodological issues that several editors agree should be clarified, then we can certainly point those issues out (e.g., "however, the study is, by comparison to previous studies, small").Ronsword (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: With 183 cases and just a few lab values as "endpoints" this can only serve as pilot study () - soft endpoints have failed in many large trials. Many dozens of similar studies exist examining many other aspects. There are several much larger studies available, it is not easy to interpret them and also there won't be obviously any randomised double blind studies but so far my impression is that there is some effect. We might pick Ingelson, ,  and try to report the differing results but for me this is hindered by lack of hard data on many issues. Eg  does not seem to have a control group wo hysterectomy which is a problem because it is well known that ovarian conservation is frequently misreported and even with ovarian conservation the actual function of the ovaries is substantially affected with very high rates of subsequent premature ovarian failure.  Richiez (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding the SWAN study concerning CVD risk after hysterectomy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hysterectomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for https://purple.ndrn.org/ashley/default.htm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://4women.gov/faq/hysterectomy.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello,
I am going through a newer version of a Cochrane Review to update this article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26264829
I find the whole section on comparison of surgical techniques quite hard to read. There is a lot of information presented in a segmented fashion, and there is a table at the end of the section that does not reflect all the evidence listed in paragraphs. 
 Comparison of Techniques
The whole table is presently referenced as info from a 2010 paper, Hysterectomy#cite_note-pmid20539807-79
I may have time this week to re-do this table and use the information presently cited in the wikipedia article, plus adding in the newer 2015 Cochrane Review. If I do re-do the table, should I remove the information that is presented in the paragraphs (once it is inserted in the table)?
I will be reading through the full-text version of the 2015 review in a day or so to update the article.
If you have any feedback or suggestions, I would appreciate them.
Thanks,
JenOttawa (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: even once it is inserted in the table, it might be best to leave some "general information" in the paragraph for subsection Comparison of techniques...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, thanks! JenOttawa (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again for all your feedback on all my editing Ozzie10aaaa. I am tackling the table this week. On closer inspection, it is paraphrased from a retrospective single institution study table, in the discussion of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2883234/table/T2/. I am assuming that it should be entirely re-done, and only results from reviews should be included? Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

text: *Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Assess evidence quality per the first triangle diagram, one can see retrospective is "lower" than review, so I would therefore agree w/ you, a review is best--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

text: IMO, I would wait to have the citations needed ...BTW your doing great work, I'm happy to know such a positive editor(and I'm certain all wikiproject Medicine feels the same), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick feedback Ozzie10aaaa. It has been nice getting to know the community and I appreciate the support. Have a great week!JenOttawa (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found most of the references for this table. Ozzie10aaaa, I am having trouble finding quality sources with evidence (for or against) combining cosmetic abdominoplasty procedures with hysterectomies. For now I have left these as "citation needed" tags. If there are no high quality sources, I will delete this info. Thanks again! JenOttawa (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, agree, remember per MEDRSWikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Books to look at textbooks as well...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks Ozzie10aaaa. I am not used to referencing from textbooks, but they would be helpful for descriptions of techniques in this case. Through google I see lots of reference to the option of having the cosmetic procedure done at the same time as a hysterectomy. The present wording is not "for" or "against" having cosmetic procedures done at the same time as a hysterectomy, it only states that this may be possible with certain surgical approaches. 
I appreciate the reminder about MEDRS and remembering to include books. JenOttawa (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

text: always glad to help, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of table- Advantages and disadvantages of different hysterectomy techniques 

message: I feel that the following should be removed from the comparison of techniques, unless these times are reviewed elsewhere more recently. The reference is outdated and is primary research.
ref 69 = 2003 eVALuate study, two parallel randomised trials- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14711749
"Time required for completion of surgery in the eVAL trial is reported as following:[69]
abdominal 55.2 minutes average, range 19-155
vaginal 46.6 minutes average, range 14-168
laparoscopic (all variants) 82.5 minutes average, range 10-325 (combined data from both trial arms)"
If you have any feedback, please let me know. Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are correct in your assessment, and would support...(however it would be good to get a few more opinions...IMO / I moved your comment at talk/med Wikiproject for greater visibility)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary research eVal study 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hysterectomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120624075453/http://choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/5things_12_factsheet_Amer_Acad_Fam_Phys.pdf to http://choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/5things_12_factsheet_Amer_Acad_Fam_Phys.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100717132206/http://www.obgyn.net/hysterectomy-alternatives/hysterectomy-alternatives.asp?page=articles%2Fdaniell_hysttrends to http://www.obgyn.net/hysterectomy-alternatives/hysterectomy-alternatives.asp?page=articles%2Fdaniell_hysttrends
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hysterectomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110305161246/http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/hysterectomy.cfm to http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/hysterectomy.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: -more detailed list of indications
-origin/history of “hysterectomy”
-updated data on hysterectomy
-address bias against hysterectomy from HERS
Ellenberkley (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Foundations 2 2019, Group 3c Goals

message: Proposed changes: 
-expand medical uses to include updated indications such as gender confirmation for transgender (trans) males
-expand alternative options to include other treatments to try first such as "kegel exercises" for uterine prolapse
-add section on the origin/history of "hysterectomy" to provide background information on the procedure 
-updated data on hysterectomy utilization and outcomes to align with current standards of care
Ellenberkley (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCSF Foundations II Course Wikipedia Project Group 3c 

message: Group 3b peer review
Respond to peer review prompts on the ARTICLE talk page, following the statement made the group about its planned edits.
1. All group members should respond to the following prompts, with specific examples:
· Do the group’s edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
-- Yes, group 3c's edits expanded heavily on the medical uses of hysterectomy besides as a last resort for disease states, such as trans people undergoing hysterectomy to treat body dysphoria and to prevent future gynecologic problems. --Dannymrowr (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundations 2 2019, Group 3B Peer Review