Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Elizabeth J. Geller is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Elizabeth J. Geller.


Obstetrics & Gynecology | 2007

Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003.

Jennifer M. Wu; Mary Ellen Wechter; Elizabeth J. Geller; Thao V. Nguyen; Anthony G. Visco

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


Obstetrics & Gynecology | 2008

Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

Elizabeth J. Geller; Nazema Y. Siddiqui; Jennifer M. Wu; Anthony G. Visco

OBJECTIVE: To compare short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy with abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing robotic to abdominal sacrocolpopexy with placement of permanent mesh. The primary outcome was vaginal vault support on 6-week postoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system examination. Secondary outcomes included blood loss, operative time, length of stay, blood transfusion, pulmonary embolus, gastrointestinal or genitourinary tract injury, ileus, bowel obstruction, postoperative fever, pneumonia, wound infection, and urinary retention. RESULTS: The analysis included 178 patients (73 robotic and 105 abdominal sacrocolpopexy). There were no differences in age, race, or body mass index. Robotic sacrocolpopexy showed slight improvement on POP-Q “C” point (–9 compared with –8, P=.008) when compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy and was associated with less blood loss (103±96 mL compared with 255±155 mL, P<.001), longer total operative time (328±55 minutes compared with 225±61 minutes, P<.001), shorter length of stay (1.3±0.8 days compared with 2.7±1.4 days, P<.001), and a higher incidence of postoperative fever (4.1% compared with 0.0%, P=.04). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. Operative time remained significantly greater in the robotic group (P<.001), and estimated blood loss remained lower (P<.001) when controlling for possible confounders. CONCLUSION: Robotic sacrocolpopexy demonstrated similar short-term vaginal vault support compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy, with longer operative time, less blood loss, and shorter length of stay. Long-term data are needed to assess the durability of this new minimally invasive procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II


Obstetrics & Gynecology | 2013

Complications of hysterectomy.

Daniel L. Clarke-Pearson; Elizabeth J. Geller

Hysterectomy is the most common gynecologic procedure performed in the United States, with more than 600,000 procedures performed each year. Complications of hysterectomy vary based on route of surgery and surgical technique. The objective of this article is to review risk factors associated with specific types of complications associated with benign hysterectomy, methods to prevent and recognize complications, and appropriate management of complications. The most common complications of hysterectomy can be categorized as infectious, venous thromboembolic, genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) tract injury, bleeding, nerve injury, and vaginal cuff dehiscence. Infectious complications after hysterectomy are most common, ranging from 10.5% for abdominal hysterectomy to 13.0% for vaginal hysterectomy and 9.0% for laparoscopic hysterectomy. Venous thromboembolism is less common, ranging from a clinical diagnosis rate of 1% to events detected by more sensitive laboratory methods of up to 12%. Injury to the GU tract is estimated to occur at a rate of 1–2% for all major gynecologic surgeries, with 75% of these injuries occurring during hysterectomy. Injury to the GI tract after hysterectomy is less common, with a range of 0.1–1%. Bleeding complications after hysterectomy also are rare, with a median range of estimated blood loss of 238–660.5 mL for abdominal hysterectomy, 156–568 mL for laparoscopic hysterectomy, and 215–287 mL for vaginal hysterectomy, with transfusion only being more likely after laparoscopic compared to vaginal hysterectomy (odds ratio 2.07, confidence interval 1.12–3.81). Neuropathy after hysterectomy is a rare but significant event, with a rate of 0.2–2% after major pelvic surgery. Vaginal cuff dehiscence is estimated at a rate of 0.39%, and it is more common after total laparoscopic hysterectomy (1.35%) compared with laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (0.28%), total abdominal hysterectomy (0.15%), and total vaginal hysterectomy (0.08%). With an emphasis on optimizing surgical technique, recognition of surgical complications, and timely management, we aim to minimize risk for women undergoing hysterectomy.


Urology | 2012

Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes.

Elizabeth J. Geller; Brent A. Parnell; Gena C. Dunivan

OBJECTIVE To evaluate longer-term clinical outcomes after robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP). MATERIAL AND METHODS This was a retrospective cohort assessment of women undergoing either robotic or abdominal sacrocolpopexy between March 2006 and October 2007. Pelvic floor support was measured using Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) examination, and pelvic floor function was assessed via validated questionnaires, including the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12). RESULTS The analysis included 51 subjects: 23 robotic and 28 abdominal. Mean time since surgery was 44.2 ± 6.4 months. Postoperative POP-Q improved similarly from baseline in both the robotic and abdominal groups: C (-8 vs -7), Aa (-2.5 vs -2.25), Ap (-2 vs -2) (all P >.05 based on route of surgery). Pelvic floor function also improved similarly in both groups: PFDI-20 (61.0 vs 54.7), PFIQ-7 (19.1 vs 15.7), with high sexual function PISQ-12 (35.1 vs 33.1) (all P >.05 based on route of surgery). Two mesh exposures occurred in each group for a rate of 8% and 7%, respectively. CONCLUSION Robotic sacrocolpopexy demonstrates similar long-term outcomes compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. The robotic approach offers an effective treatment alternative to abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the lasting treatment of advanced POP.


American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology | 2012

Symptomatic and anatomic 1-year outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy

Nazema Y. Siddiqui; Elizabeth J. Geller; Anthony G. Visco

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare symptomatic and anatomic outcomes 1 year after robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy. STUDY DESIGN Our retrospective cohort study compared women who underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) with 1 surgeon to those who underwent abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) as part of the Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts trial. Our primary outcome was a composite measure of vaginal bulge symptoms or repeat surgery for prolapse. RESULTS We studied 447 women (125 with RSC and 322 with ASC). Baseline characteristics were similar. There were no significant differences in surgical failures 1 year after surgery based on our primary composite outcome (7/86 [8%] vs 12/304 [4%]; P = .16). When we considered anatomic failure, there were also no significant differences between RSC and ASC (4/70 [6%] vs 16/289 [6%]; P = .57). CONCLUSION One year after sacrocolpopexy, women who underwent RSC have similar symptomatic and anatomic success compared with those women who underwent ASC.


Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology | 2013

Analysis of Robotic Performance Times to Improve Operative Efficiency

Elizabeth J. Geller; Feng Chang Lin; Catherine A. Matthews

STUDY OBJECTIVE To estimate the efficiency of procedural steps in robotic sacrocolpopexy and concomitant hysterectomy. DESIGN Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING University hospital. PATIENTS One hundred forty-seven patients who underwent robotic-assisted procedures from November 2007 through December 2010. INTERVENTIONS Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Sixty patients (40.8%) underwent concomitant hysterectomy; 37 (25.2%), mid-urethral sling placement; and 7 (4.8%), concomitant colporrhaphy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Comparison of the first 20 procedures with the subsequent 127 demonstrated that there was considerable improvement in time of cuff closure (p = .04); sacral dissection (p = .004); anterior (p = .006), posterior, (p = .003), and sacral (p = .003) mesh attachment; peritoneal closure (p < .001); total docked time (p = .02); and total incision time (p < .001). CONCLUSION Robotic efficiency improves over a short learning period, with greatest differences in intracorporeal suturing and overall times. Identifying these steps may aid surgeons and learners in improving overall efficiency and establishing benchmarks for performance.


Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology | 2011

Pelvic Floor Function Before and After Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: One-Year Outcomes

Elizabeth J. Geller; Brent A. Parnell; Gena C. Dunivan

STUDY OBJECTIVE Estimate pelvic floor function and support 1 year after robotic sacrocolpopexy. DESIGN Prospective cohort analysis of women undergoing robotic sacrocolpopexy for correction of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (Canadian Task Force Classification III). Primary outcome was pelvic floor function. Secondary outcomes included anatomic support and long-term surgical failures and complications. SETTING One university hospital in the southeastern United States. PATIENTS Primarily postmenopausal women (mean age 60) with advanced pelvic organ prolapse. INTERVENTIONS All subjects underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy during the study period. Subjects then underwent 1-year postoperative assessment of pelvic floor function via validated condition-specific quality of life questionnaires and assessment of pelvic floor support, long-term surgical failures, and complications via physical examination. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS From November 2007 to April 2009, there were 28 subjects, 25 of whom (89.3%) were evaluated. Mean time since surgery was 14.8 months. Pelvic floor function remained significantly improved over preoperative baseline: PFDI-20 (117 vs 38, p <.001), PFIQ-7 (60 vs 10, p = .001), with stable high sexual function: PISQ-12 (34 vs. 36, p = .17), and improved pelvic support on POP-Q: Ba (+3 vs -2, p = .001), Bp (+0.5 vs -1, p = .092), C (+2.25 vs -8, p = .001). Anatomic cure for vault prolapse was 100% at 1 year. There were two mesh exposures and two subsequent prolapse surgeries. CONCLUSION Robotic sacrocolpopexy demonstrates durable improvement in pelvic floor function and support, with high sexual function and reasonable failure and complication rates 1 year after surgery.


The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology | 2014

Expression of six drug transporters in vaginal, cervical, and colorectal tissues: Implications for drug disposition in HIV prevention.

Melanie R. Nicol; Yuri Fedoriw; Michelle Mathews; Heather M.A. Prince; Kristine B. Patterson; Elizabeth J. Geller; Katie Mollan; Stephanie Mathews; Deanna L. Kroetz; Angela D. M. Kashuba

Effective antiretroviral (ARV)‐based HIV prevention strategies require optimizing drug exposure in mucosal tissues; yet factors influencing mucosal tissue disposition remain unknown. We hypothesized drug transporter expression in vaginal, cervical, and colorectal tissues is a contributing factor and selected 3 efflux (ABCB1/MDR1, ABCC2/MRP2, ABCC4/MRP4) and 3 uptake (SLC22A6/OAT1, SLC22A8/OAT3, SLCO1B1/OATP1B1) transporters to further investigate based on their affinity for 2 ARVs central to prevention (tenofovir, maraviroc). Tissue was collected from 98 donors. mRNA and protein expression were quantified using qPCR and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Hundred percent of tissues expressed efflux transporter mRNA. IHC localized them to the epithelium and/or submucosa. Multivariable analysis adjusted for age, smoking, and co‐medications revealed significant (P < 0.05) differences in efflux transporter mRNA between tissue types (vaginal ABCB1 3.9‐fold > colorectal; vaginal ABCC2 2.9‐fold > colorectal; colorectal ABCC4 2.0‐fold > cervical). In contrast, uptake transporter mRNA was expressed in <25% of tissues. OAT1 protein was detected in 0% of female genital tissues and in 100% of colorectal tissues, but only in rare epithelial cells. These data support clinical findings of higher maraviroc and tenofovir concentrations in rectal tissue compared to vaginal or cervical tissue after oral dosing. Quantifying mucosal transporter expression and localization can facilitate ARV selection to target these tissues.


International Journal of Women's Health | 2014

Prevention and management of postoperative urinary retention after urogynecologic surgery

Elizabeth J. Geller

Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is a frequent consequence of gynecologic surgery, especially with surgical correction of urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Estimates of retention rates after pelvic surgery range from 2.5%–43%. While there is no standard definition for POUR, it is characterized by impaired bladder emptying, with an elevation in the volume of retained urine. The key to management of POUR is early identification. All patients undergoing pelvic surgery, especially for the correction of incontinence or prolapse, should have an assessment of voiding function prior to discharge. There are several ways to assess voiding function – the gold standard is by measuring a postvoid residual. Management of POUR is fairly straightforward. The goal is to decompress the bladder to avoid long-term damage to bladder integrity and function. The decision regarding when to discontinue catheter-assisted bladder drainage in the postoperative period can be assessed in an ongoing fashion by measurement of postvoid residual. The rate of prolonged POUR beyond 4 weeks is low, and therefore most retention can be expected to resolve spontaneously within 4–6 weeks. When POUR does not resolve spontaneously, more active management may be required. Techniques include urethral dilation, sling stretching, sling incision, partial sling resection, and urethrolysis. While some risk of POUR is inevitable, there are risk factors that are modifiable. Patients that are at higher risk – either due to the procedures being performed or their clinical risk factors – should be counseled regarding the risks and management options for POUR prior to their surgery. Although POUR is a serious condition that can have serious consequences if left untreated, it is easily diagnosed and typically self-resolves. Clinician awareness of the condition and vigilance in its diagnosis are the key factors to successful care for patients undergoing surgical repair.


Journal of Perinatology | 2010

Neonatal outcomes associated with planned vaginal versus planned primary cesarean delivery

Elizabeth J. Geller; Jennifer M. Wu; Mary L. Jannelli; Thao V. Nguyen; Anthony G. Visco

Objective:To determine whether planned route of delivery leads to differences in neonatal morbidity.Study Design:Analysis was based on planned route of delivery, not actual route of delivery. A total of 4048 subjects were divided into two groups: planned vaginal delivery and planned cesarean delivery. Primary outcomes were neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, respiratory morbidity and neurologic morbidity.Result:There were 3868 planned vaginal and 180 planned cesarean deliveries. Planned vaginal delivery had decreased NICU admission (P<0.0001), oxygen resuscitation (P=0.001) and jaundice (P<0.0001) but increased meconium passage (P<0.0001) and 1 min Apgar ⩽5 (P=0.02). After multivariable regression, NICU admission remained lower and meconium passage remained higher in the planned vaginal group.Conclusion:Planned vaginal delivery led to more meconium passage and low 1 min Apgar but less NICU admissions, oxygen resuscitation and jaundice. Multicenter trials are needed to assess rare but serious outcomes based on planned route of delivery.

Collaboration


Dive into the Elizabeth J. Geller's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Catherine A. Matthews

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jennifer M. Wu

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Andrea K. Crane

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Brent A. Parnell

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Erinn M. Myers

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

AnnaMarie Connolly

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Barbara L. Robinson

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Mary L. Jannelli

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Kemi M. Doll

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge