OBG Management

Sometimes it’s difficult to figure out which way is forward. For the past few years, private insurers and the federal government (through the Medicare program) have been experimenting with and putting in place different ways of paying physicians for the care they provide. Many alternatives are designed to increase value for our nation’s health care dollars and improve quality of care, often through care coordination. Most involve different ways of “bundling” care—paying a single sum for a patient’s episode of care rather than separate payments each time a physician encounters a patient.

For more than 20 years, Medicare has bundled most surgeries, paying 1 sum to the physician and requiring only 1 copayment from the beneficiary patient. In this way, when a patient needs surgery, Medicare pays the surgeon 1 payment for preparation the day before surgery, for the surgery itself, and for either 10 or 90 days of follow-up care, depending on the specific procedure involved (TABLE 1). Similarly the patient has had 1 copay for the entire episode of care. This ­bundling is called global surgical codes, and it applies to coding, billing, and reimbursement.

This approach may change soon—and not for the better. In this article, I describe how the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) plan to eliminate global surgery bundling, as well as the efforts under way by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other organizations to stop the proposed change.

The CMS plan to eliminate surgical bundling
In a significant twist from the trend toward bundling and care coordination, CMS finalized its proposed policy in its 2015 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule final rule to transition all 10- and 90-day global surgical codes to 0-day global surgical codes by 2017 and 2018, respectively. Beginning in 2017 for 10-day global codes and 2018 for 90-day codes, physicians will be paid separately for the day of surgery and for evaluation and management (E&M) provided on the day before and any days after. Patients will have copays for each physician intervention.

CMS has decided to move forward with this change despite overwhelming concern and opposition on the part of both patients and physicians. This change would affect more than 4,200 services on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule—well over one-third of the 9,900 current procedural terminology (CPT) codes.

The new codes and increased paperwork and billing are daunting, and would result in an estimated 63 million additional claims per year to account for postsurgical E&M services. The cost to CMS alone for this huge new mountain of claims may be as high as $95 million per year. Moreover, under the new system, patients may not return for the full range of follow-up care needed if they get billed for every visit, possibly resulting in poorer outcomes.

CMS’ justification for unbundling
CMS argues that this change is needed because many surgeons are failing to provide as much care (as many E&M follow-up visits) as they’re paid to deliver under the 10- and 90-day codes. As evidence, CMS points to 3 reports published by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General:

Based largely on these reports, CMS has determined that it cannot verify the number of visits, level of service, and relative costs of the services included in a global package, in large part because the current valuation methodology relies on survey data estimating the resources used in a typical case, instead of on actual data.

In each of these reports, the Inspector General also found smaller numbers of cases where surgeons provided more E&M care than was covered under the global payment. In each report, the Inspector General suggests that CMS should do more to identify and correctly value misvalued codes. ACOG Vice President for Health Policy Barbara Levy, MD, who is also chair of the Relative Value Scale Update Committee, or RUC, makes a compelling case that the RUC has identified and corrected many global surgical codes since these reports were issued and is in the process of revising more codes. She also argues that the RUC is the appropriate place to address these issues.

Policy analysis finds that total RVUs would decline
CMS has indicated that it intends to use a formula for converting the 10- and 90-day global services into 0-day services by simply reducing the work relative value units (RVUs) for the service by the number of work RVUs in the postoperative visits. The American College of Surgeons asked Health Policy Alternatives (HPA), a consulting firm, to analyze the CMS decision. HPA found that “systematically convert[ing] all global surgical codes to 0-day global codes by backing out of the bundled E&M services reduces the total RVUs and each component (work, practice expense, and malpractice) for surgical codes. Specifically, for surgical specialties, the impact of this transition on all Medicare reimbursed codes results in the following reductions:

This modeling resulted in a total overall payment increase of 0.1% for generalists and a payment increase of 0.3% for medical specialists.”⁴

HPA’s findings related to the malpractice component are especially interesting for the ObGyn specialty. “Model results demonstrate that this policy results in significant redistribution of malpractice away from the main specialty provider of the surgical procedure into the entire group of providers (surgical and nonsurgical),” notes the HPA report.⁴ “Most impacted will be specialties with higher malpractice expenses, such as neurosurgeons and cardiac surgeons.”⁴ We could add ObGyns to that list.

ACOG cites numerous objections
ACOG is deeply involved in opposing this new CMS policy and preventing it from ever going into effect, working on our own, in coalition with our medical organization colleagues and patient organizations, and working closely with the US Congress.

ACOG and 28 other medical organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), summarized our opposition in a letter to US House and Senate Democratic and Republican leaders in December 2014, saying that this new policy:

Detracts from quality of care, impedes patient access, and complicates patient copays

Undermines Medicare reform initiatives

Increases administrative burden

Obstructs clinical registry data collection and quality improvement

Additional ACOG concerns
ACOG added these concerns to our opposition to the CMS plan:

We have important allies
The American Association of Retired ­Persons (AARP) joined us in September 2014, when it formally asked CMS to abandon this new policy. In a letter to CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, AARP noted that, “from a beneficiary perspective, we are concerned that this unbundling could produce considerable confusion and cause beneficiaries to receive multiple explanations of Medicare benefits (and incur separate cost-sharing obligations) related to a single surgical procedure….[G]iven the obvious methodological uncertainty and complexity involved in determining appropriate values for a very large number of ‘new’ 0-day global services, and the likely confusion surrounding the resulting increase in Medicare claims, AARP has serious doubts regarding the benefit of this unbundling proposal. We suggest [that] CMS consider other available alternatives, including the re-valuation of global services whose current values are believed to be incorrect.”⁶

Also in September, 27 Republican and Democratic members of Congress wrote a strong letter to CMS echoing the medical community’s concerns. The letter and many months of congressional leadership have been spearheaded by Representatives Larry Bucshon, MD, and Ami Bera, MD—demonstrating the value of having physicians in elective office. Other physician members of Congress who have provided outstanding leadership include ACOG Fellows and Representatives Michael Burgess, MD, and Phil Roe, MD, as well as Representatives Tom Price, MD; Andy Harris, MD; Joe Heck, DO; Charles Boustany, MD; Raul Ruiz, MD; and Dan Benishek, MD.

This important group of physician leaders, ACOG, AARP, and the surgical community are hard at work to derail or significantly delay what most physicians and policy analysts see as a very bad idea.

Congress takes action
In April 2015, Congress passed HR2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Bill, which most notably repealed the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula. Included in this law is an important provision to halt implementation of CMS’ plan to unbundle all 10- and 90-day global codes.

Section 523 of that law requires CMS to periodically collect information on the services that surgeons furnish during these global periods, beginning no later than 2017, and use that information to ensure that the bundled payment amounts for surgical services are accurate. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is given the authority to withhold a portion of payment for services with a 10- or 90-day global period to incentivize the reporting of information. The Secretary can stop collecting this information from surgeons once the needed data can be obtained through other mechanisms, such as clinical data registries and electronic medical records.

Congressmen Bucshon and Bera championed this provision, along with nearly all physician members of the US House of Representatives. This change ensures a thorough, data-driven approach to appropriately valuing surgical services, including those provided by ObGyn subspecialists, such as urogynecologists and gynecologic oncologists.

Acknowledgment
The author thanks Barbara Levy, MD, ACOG Vice President for Health Policy, for her helpful comments.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Sometimes it’s difficult to figure out which way is forward. For the past few years, private insurers and the federal government (through the Medicare program) have been experimenting with and putting in place different ways of paying physicians for the care they provide. Many alternatives are designed to increase value for our nation’s health care dollars and improve quality of care, often through care coordination. Most involve different ways of “bundling” care—paying a single sum for a patient’s episode of care rather than separate payments each time a physician encounters a patient.

For more than 20 years, Medicare has bundled most surgeries, paying 1 sum to the physician and requiring only 1 copayment from the beneficiary patient. In this way, when a patient needs surgery, Medicare pays the surgeon 1 payment for preparation the day before surgery, for the surgery itself, and for either 10 or 90 days of follow-up care, depending on the specific procedure involved (TABLE 1). Similarly the patient has had 1 copay for the entire episode of care. This ­bundling is called global surgical codes, and it applies to coding, billing, and reimbursement.

This approach may change soon—and not for the better. In this article, I describe how the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) plan to eliminate global surgery bundling, as well as the efforts under way by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other organizations to stop the proposed change.

The CMS plan to eliminate surgical bundling
In a significant twist from the trend toward bundling and care coordination, CMS finalized its proposed policy in its 2015 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule final rule to transition all 10- and 90-day global surgical codes to 0-day global surgical codes by 2017 and 2018, respectively. Beginning in 2017 for 10-day global codes and 2018 for 90-day codes, physicians will be paid separately for the day of surgery and for evaluation and management (E&M) provided on the day before and any days after. Patients will have copays for each physician intervention.

CMS has decided to move forward with this change despite overwhelming concern and opposition on the part of both patients and physicians. This change would affect more than 4,200 services on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule—well over one-third of the 9,900 current procedural terminology (CPT) codes.

The new codes and increased paperwork and billing are daunting, and would result in an estimated 63 million additional claims per year to account for postsurgical E&M services. The cost to CMS alone for this huge new mountain of claims may be as high as $95 million per year. Moreover, under the new system, patients may not return for the full range of follow-up care needed if they get billed for every visit, possibly resulting in poorer outcomes.

CMS’ justification for unbundling
CMS argues that this change is needed because many surgeons are failing to provide as much care (as many E&M follow-up visits) as they’re paid to deliver under the 10- and 90-day codes. As evidence, CMS points to 3 reports published by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General:

Based largely on these reports, CMS has determined that it cannot verify the number of visits, level of service, and relative costs of the services included in a global package, in large part because the current valuation methodology relies on survey data estimating the resources used in a typical case, instead of on actual data.

In each of these reports, the Inspector General also found smaller numbers of cases where surgeons provided more E&M care than was covered under the global payment. In each report, the Inspector General suggests that CMS should do more to identify and correctly value misvalued codes. ACOG Vice President for Health Policy Barbara Levy, MD, who is also chair of the Relative Value Scale Update Committee, or RUC, makes a compelling case that the RUC has identified and corrected many global surgical codes since these reports were issued and is in the process of revising more codes. She also argues that the RUC is the appropriate place to address these issues.

Policy analysis finds that total RVUs would decline
CMS has indicated that it intends to use a formula for converting the 10- and 90-day global services into 0-day services by simply reducing the work relative value units (RVUs) for the service by the number of work RVUs in the postoperative visits. The American College of Surgeons asked Health Policy Alternatives (HPA), a consulting firm, to analyze the CMS decision. HPA found that “systematically convert[ing] all global surgical codes to 0-day global codes by backing out of the bundled E&M services reduces the total RVUs and each component (work, practice expense, and malpractice) for surgical codes. Specifically, for surgical specialties, the impact of this transition on all Medicare reimbursed codes results in the following reductions:

This modeling resulted in a total overall payment increase of 0.1% for generalists and a payment increase of 0.3% for medical specialists.”⁴

HPA’s findings related to the malpractice component are especially interesting for the ObGyn specialty. “Model results demonstrate that this policy results in significant redistribution of malpractice away from the main specialty provider of the surgical procedure into the entire group of providers (surgical and nonsurgical),” notes the HPA report.⁴ “Most impacted will be specialties with higher malpractice expenses, such as neurosurgeons and cardiac surgeons.”⁴ We could add ObGyns to that list.

ACOG cites numerous objections
ACOG is deeply involved in opposing this new CMS policy and preventing it from ever going into effect, working on our own, in coalition with our medical organization colleagues and patient organizations, and working closely with the US Congress.

ACOG and 28 other medical organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), summarized our opposition in a letter to US House and Senate Democratic and Republican leaders in December 2014, saying that this new policy:

Detracts from quality of care, impedes patient access, and complicates patient copays

Undermines Medicare reform initiatives

Increases administrative burden

Obstructs clinical registry data collection and quality improvement

Additional ACOG concerns
ACOG added these concerns to our opposition to the CMS plan:

We have important allies
The American Association of Retired ­Persons (AARP) joined us in September 2014, when it formally asked CMS to abandon this new policy. In a letter to CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, AARP noted that, “from a beneficiary perspective, we are concerned that this unbundling could produce considerable confusion and cause beneficiaries to receive multiple explanations of Medicare benefits (and incur separate cost-sharing obligations) related to a single surgical procedure….[G]iven the obvious methodological uncertainty and complexity involved in determining appropriate values for a very large number of ‘new’ 0-day global services, and the likely confusion surrounding the resulting increase in Medicare claims, AARP has serious doubts regarding the benefit of this unbundling proposal. We suggest [that] CMS consider other available alternatives, including the re-valuation of global services whose current values are believed to be incorrect.”⁶

Also in September, 27 Republican and Democratic members of Congress wrote a strong letter to CMS echoing the medical community’s concerns. The letter and many months of congressional leadership have been spearheaded by Representatives Larry Bucshon, MD, and Ami Bera, MD—demonstrating the value of having physicians in elective office. Other physician members of Congress who have provided outstanding leadership include ACOG Fellows and Representatives Michael Burgess, MD, and Phil Roe, MD, as well as Representatives Tom Price, MD; Andy Harris, MD; Joe Heck, DO; Charles Boustany, MD; Raul Ruiz, MD; and Dan Benishek, MD.

This important group of physician leaders, ACOG, AARP, and the surgical community are hard at work to derail or significantly delay what most physicians and policy analysts see as a very bad idea.

Congress takes action
In April 2015, Congress passed HR2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Bill, which most notably repealed the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula. Included in this law is an important provision to halt implementation of CMS’ plan to unbundle all 10- and 90-day global codes.

Section 523 of that law requires CMS to periodically collect information on the services that surgeons furnish during these global periods, beginning no later than 2017, and use that information to ensure that the bundled payment amounts for surgical services are accurate. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is given the authority to withhold a portion of payment for services with a 10- or 90-day global period to incentivize the reporting of information. The Secretary can stop collecting this information from surgeons once the needed data can be obtained through other mechanisms, such as clinical data registries and electronic medical records.

Congressmen Bucshon and Bera championed this provision, along with nearly all physician members of the US House of Representatives. This change ensures a thorough, data-driven approach to appropriately valuing surgical services, including those provided by ObGyn subspecialists, such as urogynecologists and gynecologic oncologists.

Acknowledgment
The author thanks Barbara Levy, MD, ACOG Vice President for Health Policy, for her helpful comments.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Sometimes it’s difficult to figure out which way is forward. For the past few years, private insurers and the federal government (through the Medicare program) have been experimenting with and putting in place different ways of paying physicians for the care they provide. Many alternatives are designed to increase value for our nation’s health care dollars and improve quality of care, often through care coordination. Most involve different ways of “bundling” care—paying a single sum for a patient’s episode of care rather than separate payments each time a physician encounters a patient.

For more than 20 years, Medicare has bundled most surgeries, paying 1 sum to the physician and requiring only 1 copayment from the beneficiary patient. In this way, when a patient needs surgery, Medicare pays the surgeon 1 payment for preparation the day before surgery, for the surgery itself, and for either 10 or 90 days of follow-up care, depending on the specific procedure involved (TABLE 1). Similarly the patient has had 1 copay for the entire episode of care. This ­bundling is called global surgical codes, and it applies to coding, billing, and reimbursement.

This approach may change soon—and not for the better. In this article, I describe how the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) plan to eliminate global surgery bundling, as well as the efforts under way by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other organizations to stop the proposed change.

The CMS plan to eliminate surgical bundling
In a significant twist from the trend toward bundling and care coordination, CMS finalized its proposed policy in its 2015 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule final rule to transition all 10- and 90-day global surgical codes to 0-day global surgical codes by 2017 and 2018, respectively. Beginning in 2017 for 10-day global codes and 2018 for 90-day codes, physicians will be paid separately for the day of surgery and for evaluation and management (E&M) provided on the day before and any days after. Patients will have copays for each physician intervention.

CMS has decided to move forward with this change despite overwhelming concern and opposition on the part of both patients and physicians. This change would affect more than 4,200 services on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule—well over one-third of the 9,900 current procedural terminology (CPT) codes.

The new codes and increased paperwork and billing are daunting, and would result in an estimated 63 million additional claims per year to account for postsurgical E&M services. The cost to CMS alone for this huge new mountain of claims may be as high as $95 million per year. Moreover, under the new system, patients may not return for the full range of follow-up care needed if they get billed for every visit, possibly resulting in poorer outcomes.

CMS’ justification for unbundling
CMS argues that this change is needed because many surgeons are failing to provide as much care (as many E&M follow-up visits) as they’re paid to deliver under the 10- and 90-day codes. As evidence, CMS points to 3 reports published by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General:

Based largely on these reports, CMS has determined that it cannot verify the number of visits, level of service, and relative costs of the services included in a global package, in large part because the current valuation methodology relies on survey data estimating the resources used in a typical case, instead of on actual data.

In each of these reports, the Inspector General also found smaller numbers of cases where surgeons provided more E&M care than was covered under the global payment. In each report, the Inspector General suggests that CMS should do more to identify and correctly value misvalued codes. ACOG Vice President for Health Policy Barbara Levy, MD, who is also chair of the Relative Value Scale Update Committee, or RUC, makes a compelling case that the RUC has identified and corrected many global surgical codes since these reports were issued and is in the process of revising more codes. She also argues that the RUC is the appropriate place to address these issues.

Policy analysis finds that total RVUs would decline
CMS has indicated that it intends to use a formula for converting the 10- and 90-day global services into 0-day services by simply reducing the work relative value units (RVUs) for the service by the number of work RVUs in the postoperative visits. The American College of Surgeons asked Health Policy Alternatives (HPA), a consulting firm, to analyze the CMS decision. HPA found that “systematically convert[ing] all global surgical codes to 0-day global codes by backing out of the bundled E&M services reduces the total RVUs and each component (work, practice expense, and malpractice) for surgical codes. Specifically, for surgical specialties, the impact of this transition on all Medicare reimbursed codes results in the following reductions:

This modeling resulted in a total overall payment increase of 0.1% for generalists and a payment increase of 0.3% for medical specialists.”⁴

HPA’s findings related to the malpractice component are especially interesting for the ObGyn specialty. “Model results demonstrate that this policy results in significant redistribution of malpractice away from the main specialty provider of the surgical procedure into the entire group of providers (surgical and nonsurgical),” notes the HPA report.⁴ “Most impacted will be specialties with higher malpractice expenses, such as neurosurgeons and cardiac surgeons.”⁴ We could add ObGyns to that list.

ACOG cites numerous objections
ACOG is deeply involved in opposing this new CMS policy and preventing it from ever going into effect, working on our own, in coalition with our medical organization colleagues and patient organizations, and working closely with the US Congress.

ACOG and 28 other medical organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), summarized our opposition in a letter to US House and Senate Democratic and Republican leaders in December 2014, saying that this new policy:

Detracts from quality of care, impedes patient access, and complicates patient copays

Undermines Medicare reform initiatives

Increases administrative burden

Obstructs clinical registry data collection and quality improvement

Additional ACOG concerns
ACOG added these concerns to our opposition to the CMS plan:

We have important allies
The American Association of Retired ­Persons (AARP) joined us in September 2014, when it formally asked CMS to abandon this new policy. In a letter to CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, AARP noted that, “from a beneficiary perspective, we are concerned that this unbundling could produce considerable confusion and cause beneficiaries to receive multiple explanations of Medicare benefits (and incur separate cost-sharing obligations) related to a single surgical procedure….[G]iven the obvious methodological uncertainty and complexity involved in determining appropriate values for a very large number of ‘new’ 0-day global services, and the likely confusion surrounding the resulting increase in Medicare claims, AARP has serious doubts regarding the benefit of this unbundling proposal. We suggest [that] CMS consider other available alternatives, including the re-valuation of global services whose current values are believed to be incorrect.”⁶

Also in September, 27 Republican and Democratic members of Congress wrote a strong letter to CMS echoing the medical community’s concerns. The letter and many months of congressional leadership have been spearheaded by Representatives Larry Bucshon, MD, and Ami Bera, MD—demonstrating the value of having physicians in elective office. Other physician members of Congress who have provided outstanding leadership include ACOG Fellows and Representatives Michael Burgess, MD, and Phil Roe, MD, as well as Representatives Tom Price, MD; Andy Harris, MD; Joe Heck, DO; Charles Boustany, MD; Raul Ruiz, MD; and Dan Benishek, MD.

This important group of physician leaders, ACOG, AARP, and the surgical community are hard at work to derail or significantly delay what most physicians and policy analysts see as a very bad idea.

Congress takes action
In April 2015, Congress passed HR2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Bill, which most notably repealed the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula. Included in this law is an important provision to halt implementation of CMS’ plan to unbundle all 10- and 90-day global codes.

Section 523 of that law requires CMS to periodically collect information on the services that surgeons furnish during these global periods, beginning no later than 2017, and use that information to ensure that the bundled payment amounts for surgical services are accurate. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is given the authority to withhold a portion of payment for services with a 10- or 90-day global period to incentivize the reporting of information. The Secretary can stop collecting this information from surgeons once the needed data can be obtained through other mechanisms, such as clinical data registries and electronic medical records.

Congressmen Bucshon and Bera championed this provision, along with nearly all physician members of the US House of Representatives. This change ensures a thorough, data-driven approach to appropriately valuing surgical services, including those provided by ObGyn subspecialists, such as urogynecologists and gynecologic oncologists.

Acknowledgment
The author thanks Barbara Levy, MD, ACOG Vice President for Health Policy, for her helpful comments.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Delayed birth, intubation failure: $10M settlement
Two days shy of her due date, a woman went to an Army hospital to report bloody mucus discharge and sporadic contractions. She was 2 cm dilated and 50% effaced with the baby at –2 station. Fetal heart-rate monitor results were reassuring. She was discharged home but returned 5 hours later with increased pain and contractions. She was 5 cm dilated, 90% effaced; the baby was at –3 station. When contractions ceased, she was discharged. There had been no cervical change for 6 hours with a negative fern test. Fetal monitoring results were reassuring. 

The woman returned 3 hours later with increased pain and contractions. She had a fever and high white blood cell and neutrophil counts. She was 6 cm dilated, 90% effaced, but the baby was still at –3 station. Ampicillin sodium/sulbactam sodium was administered. The ObGyn was called 4 times over the next 2.5 hours, when fetal monitoring results worsened and bradycardia developed. The nurses treated fetal distress by changing the maternal position and performing amnioinfusion. Then the ObGyn came to the bedside and ordered cesarean delivery. The baby was born severely compromised from hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy and metabolic acidosis. The pediatrician responsible for the baby’s resuscitation failed to get a response with bag ventilation after 5 minutes; 2 attempts at intubation failed. When the chief of pediatrics arrived at 15 minutes, the infant was successfully intubated. The baby was transferred to another facility. The child has profound disabilities. 

Parents’ claim The hospital staff and physician did not deliver the baby in a timely manner when fetal distress was first noted. The pediatrician did not properly resuscitate the newborn.

Defendants’ defense Chorioamnionitis and funisitis caused or contributed to the infant’s injuries. Proper care was provided.

Verdict A $10 million Washington settlement was reached.

Did OCs cause this woman’s stroke?
A 40-year-old woman went to a clinic to obtain a prescription for birth control pills. A physician assistant (PA) conducted a complete physical examination. When no contraindications were found, a prescription for oral contraceptives (OCs) was provided. Two months later, the patient suffered a debilitating stroke. After the stroke, the patient was found to have a patent foramen ovale. 

Patient’s claim The risks and benefits of the OC were not fully explained  to the patient by the PA. She was not offered other contraceptive options. OCs are not safe for a woman her age due to a higher risk of stroke.

Defendants’ defense The patient used OCs in the past, and had received information from other physicians about their use. The stroke occurred because of the foramen ovale, not the use of OCs.

Verdict A Washington defense verdict was returned. 

Ureter injury not treated until the next day
During cesarean delivery, the ObGyn identified a small ureteral injury but did not repair it. The next day, the ObGyn consulted a urologist and ordered an intravenous ­pyelogram (IVP). The urologist identified a ureteral obstruction and surgically repaired the injury. The patient was required to use a nephros-tomy bag for 6 months until the nephrostomy was reversed. 

Patient’s claim The ObGyn was negligent in failing to immediately treat the ureter injury. The delay in repair necessitated the use of the nephrostomy bag.

Physician’s defense A ureter injury is a known complication of the procedure. The ObGyn did not cause the obstruction. Failure to perform an immediate repair was due to his concern that the patient might have lost too much blood during cesarean delivery. Bringing in the urologist the next day was appropriate. The patient completely recovered.

Verdict A $484,141 Mississippi verdict was returned.

Patient didn’t want male physician
After a woman experienced sexual assault in college, she did not want a male physician to perform a vaginal examination. When pregnant, she discussed that request with her nurse midwives. While she was in labor, a male ObGyn examined her. 

Patient’s claim The nurse midwives failed to document her request not to be examined by a male clinician. The patient experienced severe emotional distress.

Defendants’ defense The midwives claimed they were never told of the patient’s aversion to having a male physician examine her. The male physician and the birthing center denied knowledge of the request.

Verdict A $270,000 Washington verdict was returned.

Symptoms attributed to anesthesia: $2M
A 62-year-old woman underwent treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). Hysteroscopy revealed a retroverted uterus containing a 3-cm polyp. During resection of the polyp, the uterus was perforated and bowel was drawn into the uterus. The injury was not recognized. The patient was discharged home the same day.

The next day, she phoned to report vomiting, abdominal pain, and urinary retention. The gynecologist attributed the symptoms to anesthesia and told the patient to allow more time for resolution.

The patient went to an emergency department (ED) 48 hours later with a distended abdomen and severe pain. She was transferred to a regional hospital with acute sepsis. A small bowel perforation was identified, requiring extensive treatment, including hysterectomy and resection of 27 cm of small bowel. 

Patient’s claim The gynecologist was negligent in failing to recognize the injury intraoperatively. He didn’t examine the patient when she first reported symptoms.

Physician’s defense The injuries are known risks of the procedure. The patient’s complaints could reasonably be associated with post­anesthesia residuals.

Verdict A $5 million Virginia verdict was reduced to $2 million by the statutory cap.

Did nosebleeds cause baby’s disabilities?
After a 33-year-old woman had a nosebleed she noted decreased fetal movement. At the ED, preterm labor was ruled out, fetal monitoring results were normal, and she was discharged. She returned that afternoon with a nosebleed. After 4 hours, when fetal monitoring results were normal, she was again discharged.

The next morning, an otolaryngologist cauterized her right nostril. After another nosebleed, the physician packed the right nasal cavity. She returned with bleeding from the left nostril and remained at the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) clinic for several hours until the bleeding stopped.

The following day, she returned to the ENT clinic asking that the packing be removed, but it needed to remain. She called a covering ObGyn to request anti-anxiety medication because the packing was making her feel claustrophobic.

The next day, after additional nosebleeds, she was taken to the ED with mild contractions. Her hematocrit was 25.6% and her hemoglobin level was 8.8 g/dL. When fetal heart-rate monitoring was nonreassuring, a cesarean delivery was expedited. The child has profound physical and developmental disabilities, uses a feeding tube and ventilator, and needs 24-hour care. 

Parents’ claim The mother and fetus were never properly assessed or treated. 

Defendants’ defense The physicians denied negligence and disputed the severity of most of the nosebleeds. At each ED presentation, hematocrit and hemoglobin levels were normal and the mother was stable at discharge. When fetal monitoring was performed, the results were normal. When the mother left the ENT clinic after the third visit, she was told to go to the ED or call 911 if she had another nosebleed, which she did not do. When she went to the ED with contractions, staff reacted to fetal distress and performed emergency cesarean delivery.

Verdict A Texas defense verdict was returned.

Difficult neonatal resuscitation: $8.4M
A nuchal cord was discovered at delivery. The child has cerebral palsy, a seizure disorder, and developmental delays. He cannot walk or talk, uses a feeding tube, and requires 24-hour care. 

Parents’ claim Monitoring showed fetal distress for 5 hours, but the staff failed to perform a cesarean delivery or have a neonatal resuscitation team ready at delivery. After delivery, the baby was deprived of oxygen for 8 minutes before intubation. A back-up team should have been available.

Medical center’s defense Proper care was given. The resuscitation team was in a surgical suite.

Verdict An $8.4 million Georgia verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements, & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Delayed birth, intubation failure: $10M settlement
Two days shy of her due date, a woman went to an Army hospital to report bloody mucus discharge and sporadic contractions. She was 2 cm dilated and 50% effaced with the baby at –2 station. Fetal heart-rate monitor results were reassuring. She was discharged home but returned 5 hours later with increased pain and contractions. She was 5 cm dilated, 90% effaced; the baby was at –3 station. When contractions ceased, she was discharged. There had been no cervical change for 6 hours with a negative fern test. Fetal monitoring results were reassuring. 

The woman returned 3 hours later with increased pain and contractions. She had a fever and high white blood cell and neutrophil counts. She was 6 cm dilated, 90% effaced, but the baby was still at –3 station. Ampicillin sodium/sulbactam sodium was administered. The ObGyn was called 4 times over the next 2.5 hours, when fetal monitoring results worsened and bradycardia developed. The nurses treated fetal distress by changing the maternal position and performing amnioinfusion. Then the ObGyn came to the bedside and ordered cesarean delivery. The baby was born severely compromised from hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy and metabolic acidosis. The pediatrician responsible for the baby’s resuscitation failed to get a response with bag ventilation after 5 minutes; 2 attempts at intubation failed. When the chief of pediatrics arrived at 15 minutes, the infant was successfully intubated. The baby was transferred to another facility. The child has profound disabilities. 

Parents’ claim The hospital staff and physician did not deliver the baby in a timely manner when fetal distress was first noted. The pediatrician did not properly resuscitate the newborn.

Defendants’ defense Chorioamnionitis and funisitis caused or contributed to the infant’s injuries. Proper care was provided.

Verdict A $10 million Washington settlement was reached.

Did OCs cause this woman’s stroke?
A 40-year-old woman went to a clinic to obtain a prescription for birth control pills. A physician assistant (PA) conducted a complete physical examination. When no contraindications were found, a prescription for oral contraceptives (OCs) was provided. Two months later, the patient suffered a debilitating stroke. After the stroke, the patient was found to have a patent foramen ovale. 

Patient’s claim The risks and benefits of the OC were not fully explained  to the patient by the PA. She was not offered other contraceptive options. OCs are not safe for a woman her age due to a higher risk of stroke.

Defendants’ defense The patient used OCs in the past, and had received information from other physicians about their use. The stroke occurred because of the foramen ovale, not the use of OCs.

Verdict A Washington defense verdict was returned. 

Ureter injury not treated until the next day
During cesarean delivery, the ObGyn identified a small ureteral injury but did not repair it. The next day, the ObGyn consulted a urologist and ordered an intravenous ­pyelogram (IVP). The urologist identified a ureteral obstruction and surgically repaired the injury. The patient was required to use a nephros-tomy bag for 6 months until the nephrostomy was reversed. 

Patient’s claim The ObGyn was negligent in failing to immediately treat the ureter injury. The delay in repair necessitated the use of the nephrostomy bag.

Physician’s defense A ureter injury is a known complication of the procedure. The ObGyn did not cause the obstruction. Failure to perform an immediate repair was due to his concern that the patient might have lost too much blood during cesarean delivery. Bringing in the urologist the next day was appropriate. The patient completely recovered.

Verdict A $484,141 Mississippi verdict was returned.

Patient didn’t want male physician
After a woman experienced sexual assault in college, she did not want a male physician to perform a vaginal examination. When pregnant, she discussed that request with her nurse midwives. While she was in labor, a male ObGyn examined her. 

Patient’s claim The nurse midwives failed to document her request not to be examined by a male clinician. The patient experienced severe emotional distress.

Defendants’ defense The midwives claimed they were never told of the patient’s aversion to having a male physician examine her. The male physician and the birthing center denied knowledge of the request.

Verdict A $270,000 Washington verdict was returned.

Symptoms attributed to anesthesia: $2M
A 62-year-old woman underwent treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). Hysteroscopy revealed a retroverted uterus containing a 3-cm polyp. During resection of the polyp, the uterus was perforated and bowel was drawn into the uterus. The injury was not recognized. The patient was discharged home the same day.

The next day, she phoned to report vomiting, abdominal pain, and urinary retention. The gynecologist attributed the symptoms to anesthesia and told the patient to allow more time for resolution.

The patient went to an emergency department (ED) 48 hours later with a distended abdomen and severe pain. She was transferred to a regional hospital with acute sepsis. A small bowel perforation was identified, requiring extensive treatment, including hysterectomy and resection of 27 cm of small bowel. 

Patient’s claim The gynecologist was negligent in failing to recognize the injury intraoperatively. He didn’t examine the patient when she first reported symptoms.

Physician’s defense The injuries are known risks of the procedure. The patient’s complaints could reasonably be associated with post­anesthesia residuals.

Verdict A $5 million Virginia verdict was reduced to $2 million by the statutory cap.

Did nosebleeds cause baby’s disabilities?
After a 33-year-old woman had a nosebleed she noted decreased fetal movement. At the ED, preterm labor was ruled out, fetal monitoring results were normal, and she was discharged. She returned that afternoon with a nosebleed. After 4 hours, when fetal monitoring results were normal, she was again discharged.

The next morning, an otolaryngologist cauterized her right nostril. After another nosebleed, the physician packed the right nasal cavity. She returned with bleeding from the left nostril and remained at the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) clinic for several hours until the bleeding stopped.

The following day, she returned to the ENT clinic asking that the packing be removed, but it needed to remain. She called a covering ObGyn to request anti-anxiety medication because the packing was making her feel claustrophobic.

The next day, after additional nosebleeds, she was taken to the ED with mild contractions. Her hematocrit was 25.6% and her hemoglobin level was 8.8 g/dL. When fetal heart-rate monitoring was nonreassuring, a cesarean delivery was expedited. The child has profound physical and developmental disabilities, uses a feeding tube and ventilator, and needs 24-hour care. 

Parents’ claim The mother and fetus were never properly assessed or treated. 

Defendants’ defense The physicians denied negligence and disputed the severity of most of the nosebleeds. At each ED presentation, hematocrit and hemoglobin levels were normal and the mother was stable at discharge. When fetal monitoring was performed, the results were normal. When the mother left the ENT clinic after the third visit, she was told to go to the ED or call 911 if she had another nosebleed, which she did not do. When she went to the ED with contractions, staff reacted to fetal distress and performed emergency cesarean delivery.

Verdict A Texas defense verdict was returned.

Difficult neonatal resuscitation: $8.4M
A nuchal cord was discovered at delivery. The child has cerebral palsy, a seizure disorder, and developmental delays. He cannot walk or talk, uses a feeding tube, and requires 24-hour care. 

Parents’ claim Monitoring showed fetal distress for 5 hours, but the staff failed to perform a cesarean delivery or have a neonatal resuscitation team ready at delivery. After delivery, the baby was deprived of oxygen for 8 minutes before intubation. A back-up team should have been available.

Medical center’s defense Proper care was given. The resuscitation team was in a surgical suite.

Verdict An $8.4 million Georgia verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements, & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Delayed birth, intubation failure: $10M settlement
Two days shy of her due date, a woman went to an Army hospital to report bloody mucus discharge and sporadic contractions. She was 2 cm dilated and 50% effaced with the baby at –2 station. Fetal heart-rate monitor results were reassuring. She was discharged home but returned 5 hours later with increased pain and contractions. She was 5 cm dilated, 90% effaced; the baby was at –3 station. When contractions ceased, she was discharged. There had been no cervical change for 6 hours with a negative fern test. Fetal monitoring results were reassuring. 

The woman returned 3 hours later with increased pain and contractions. She had a fever and high white blood cell and neutrophil counts. She was 6 cm dilated, 90% effaced, but the baby was still at –3 station. Ampicillin sodium/sulbactam sodium was administered. The ObGyn was called 4 times over the next 2.5 hours, when fetal monitoring results worsened and bradycardia developed. The nurses treated fetal distress by changing the maternal position and performing amnioinfusion. Then the ObGyn came to the bedside and ordered cesarean delivery. The baby was born severely compromised from hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy and metabolic acidosis. The pediatrician responsible for the baby’s resuscitation failed to get a response with bag ventilation after 5 minutes; 2 attempts at intubation failed. When the chief of pediatrics arrived at 15 minutes, the infant was successfully intubated. The baby was transferred to another facility. The child has profound disabilities. 

Parents’ claim The hospital staff and physician did not deliver the baby in a timely manner when fetal distress was first noted. The pediatrician did not properly resuscitate the newborn.

Defendants’ defense Chorioamnionitis and funisitis caused or contributed to the infant’s injuries. Proper care was provided.

Verdict A $10 million Washington settlement was reached.

Did OCs cause this woman’s stroke?
A 40-year-old woman went to a clinic to obtain a prescription for birth control pills. A physician assistant (PA) conducted a complete physical examination. When no contraindications were found, a prescription for oral contraceptives (OCs) was provided. Two months later, the patient suffered a debilitating stroke. After the stroke, the patient was found to have a patent foramen ovale. 

Patient’s claim The risks and benefits of the OC were not fully explained  to the patient by the PA. She was not offered other contraceptive options. OCs are not safe for a woman her age due to a higher risk of stroke.

Defendants’ defense The patient used OCs in the past, and had received information from other physicians about their use. The stroke occurred because of the foramen ovale, not the use of OCs.

Verdict A Washington defense verdict was returned. 

Ureter injury not treated until the next day
During cesarean delivery, the ObGyn identified a small ureteral injury but did not repair it. The next day, the ObGyn consulted a urologist and ordered an intravenous ­pyelogram (IVP). The urologist identified a ureteral obstruction and surgically repaired the injury. The patient was required to use a nephros-tomy bag for 6 months until the nephrostomy was reversed. 

Patient’s claim The ObGyn was negligent in failing to immediately treat the ureter injury. The delay in repair necessitated the use of the nephrostomy bag.

Physician’s defense A ureter injury is a known complication of the procedure. The ObGyn did not cause the obstruction. Failure to perform an immediate repair was due to his concern that the patient might have lost too much blood during cesarean delivery. Bringing in the urologist the next day was appropriate. The patient completely recovered.

Verdict A $484,141 Mississippi verdict was returned.

Patient didn’t want male physician
After a woman experienced sexual assault in college, she did not want a male physician to perform a vaginal examination. When pregnant, she discussed that request with her nurse midwives. While she was in labor, a male ObGyn examined her. 

Patient’s claim The nurse midwives failed to document her request not to be examined by a male clinician. The patient experienced severe emotional distress.

Defendants’ defense The midwives claimed they were never told of the patient’s aversion to having a male physician examine her. The male physician and the birthing center denied knowledge of the request.

Verdict A $270,000 Washington verdict was returned.

Symptoms attributed to anesthesia: $2M
A 62-year-old woman underwent treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). Hysteroscopy revealed a retroverted uterus containing a 3-cm polyp. During resection of the polyp, the uterus was perforated and bowel was drawn into the uterus. The injury was not recognized. The patient was discharged home the same day.

The next day, she phoned to report vomiting, abdominal pain, and urinary retention. The gynecologist attributed the symptoms to anesthesia and told the patient to allow more time for resolution.

The patient went to an emergency department (ED) 48 hours later with a distended abdomen and severe pain. She was transferred to a regional hospital with acute sepsis. A small bowel perforation was identified, requiring extensive treatment, including hysterectomy and resection of 27 cm of small bowel. 

Patient’s claim The gynecologist was negligent in failing to recognize the injury intraoperatively. He didn’t examine the patient when she first reported symptoms.

Physician’s defense The injuries are known risks of the procedure. The patient’s complaints could reasonably be associated with post­anesthesia residuals.

Verdict A $5 million Virginia verdict was reduced to $2 million by the statutory cap.

Did nosebleeds cause baby’s disabilities?
After a 33-year-old woman had a nosebleed she noted decreased fetal movement. At the ED, preterm labor was ruled out, fetal monitoring results were normal, and she was discharged. She returned that afternoon with a nosebleed. After 4 hours, when fetal monitoring results were normal, she was again discharged.

The next morning, an otolaryngologist cauterized her right nostril. After another nosebleed, the physician packed the right nasal cavity. She returned with bleeding from the left nostril and remained at the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) clinic for several hours until the bleeding stopped.

The following day, she returned to the ENT clinic asking that the packing be removed, but it needed to remain. She called a covering ObGyn to request anti-anxiety medication because the packing was making her feel claustrophobic.

The next day, after additional nosebleeds, she was taken to the ED with mild contractions. Her hematocrit was 25.6% and her hemoglobin level was 8.8 g/dL. When fetal heart-rate monitoring was nonreassuring, a cesarean delivery was expedited. The child has profound physical and developmental disabilities, uses a feeding tube and ventilator, and needs 24-hour care. 

Parents’ claim The mother and fetus were never properly assessed or treated. 

Defendants’ defense The physicians denied negligence and disputed the severity of most of the nosebleeds. At each ED presentation, hematocrit and hemoglobin levels were normal and the mother was stable at discharge. When fetal monitoring was performed, the results were normal. When the mother left the ENT clinic after the third visit, she was told to go to the ED or call 911 if she had another nosebleed, which she did not do. When she went to the ED with contractions, staff reacted to fetal distress and performed emergency cesarean delivery.

Verdict A Texas defense verdict was returned.

Difficult neonatal resuscitation: $8.4M
A nuchal cord was discovered at delivery. The child has cerebral palsy, a seizure disorder, and developmental delays. He cannot walk or talk, uses a feeding tube, and requires 24-hour care. 

Parents’ claim Monitoring showed fetal distress for 5 hours, but the staff failed to perform a cesarean delivery or have a neonatal resuscitation team ready at delivery. After delivery, the baby was deprived of oxygen for 8 minutes before intubation. A back-up team should have been available.

Medical center’s defense Proper care was given. The resuscitation team was in a surgical suite.

Verdict An $8.4 million Georgia verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements, & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Click here to download the PDF.

To date, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening for fetal trisomy has been offered primarily to women at increased risk for fetal aneuploidy, but not to the general pregnancy population. Recently, the results of a large, prospective, multicenter, blinded study were published, demonstrating that the Harmony test for risk assessment of trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) outperforms combined first trimester screening in the general pregnancy population. This supplement examines the crucial findings of cfDNA analysis for Down syndrome screening in the general pregnancy population using the Harmony test.

The Harmony Prenatal Test is developed by Ariosa Diagnostics. Ariosa Diagnostics is a laboratory certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA). As with other laboratory-developed tests, this testing service has not been cleared or approved by the US FDA or any other federal regulatory agencies. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) services based on cell-free DNA analyses are not diagnostic; high-risk results should be confirmed by diagnostic testing. Data have not been submitted to or evaluated by Federal regulatory agencies and the test is not for sale as an In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) in the US or the EU.

To view an exclusive video on the pivotal findings discussed in this supplement, click here.

Click here to download the PDF.

To date, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening for fetal trisomy has been offered primarily to women at increased risk for fetal aneuploidy, but not to the general pregnancy population. Recently, the results of a large, prospective, multicenter, blinded study were published, demonstrating that the Harmony test for risk assessment of trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) outperforms combined first trimester screening in the general pregnancy population. This supplement examines the crucial findings of cfDNA analysis for Down syndrome screening in the general pregnancy population using the Harmony test.

The Harmony Prenatal Test is developed by Ariosa Diagnostics. Ariosa Diagnostics is a laboratory certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA). As with other laboratory-developed tests, this testing service has not been cleared or approved by the US FDA or any other federal regulatory agencies. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) services based on cell-free DNA analyses are not diagnostic; high-risk results should be confirmed by diagnostic testing. Data have not been submitted to or evaluated by Federal regulatory agencies and the test is not for sale as an In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) in the US or the EU.

To view an exclusive video on the pivotal findings discussed in this supplement, click here.

Click here to download the PDF.

To date, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening for fetal trisomy has been offered primarily to women at increased risk for fetal aneuploidy, but not to the general pregnancy population. Recently, the results of a large, prospective, multicenter, blinded study were published, demonstrating that the Harmony test for risk assessment of trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) outperforms combined first trimester screening in the general pregnancy population. This supplement examines the crucial findings of cfDNA analysis for Down syndrome screening in the general pregnancy population using the Harmony test.

The Harmony Prenatal Test is developed by Ariosa Diagnostics. Ariosa Diagnostics is a laboratory certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA). As with other laboratory-developed tests, this testing service has not been cleared or approved by the US FDA or any other federal regulatory agencies. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) services based on cell-free DNA analyses are not diagnostic; high-risk results should be confirmed by diagnostic testing. Data have not been submitted to or evaluated by Federal regulatory agencies and the test is not for sale as an In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) in the US or the EU.

To view an exclusive video on the pivotal findings discussed in this supplement, click here.

The preferred imaging method to evaluate the majority of adnexal cysts is ultrasonography, which can help characterize the cyst type. Common benign adnexal cyst types include simple, hemorrhagic, endometrioma, and mature teratoma (dermoid cyst). In this part 2 of a 4-part series on cystic adnexal pathology, we focus on imaging signs for, and follow-up of, endometriomas and mature teratomas.

Endometriomas

Endometriomas are common, typically benign, cysts that produce homogenous, low-level internal echoes and a “ground glass” appearance on ultrasonography. No internal flow is apparent on color Doppler. The presence of tiny echogenic wall foci can distinguish an endometrioma from a hemorrhagic cyst.

Rarely, endometriomas may undergo malignant transformation. Usually this occurs with cysts greater than 9 cm and in patients aged 45 years or older. A malignancy often exhibits rapid growth or the development of a solid nodule with flow on color Doppler.

Management

Although surgery remains the first-line management for women with symptomatic or enlarging endometriomas, there appears to be a role for sonographic observation, with continuous progestational treatment, in women with small (< 5 cm) asymptomatic endometriomas.

The Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound 2010 Consensus Conference Statement recommended¹:

• Short-interval follow-up (6 to 12 weeks) in reproductive-aged women to ensure acute hemorrhagic cysts are not mistaken for endometriomas
• If not removed surgically, sonographic follow-up is recommended, with frequency of follow up based on patient age and symptoms and cyst size and characteristics.

In FIGURES 1 through 11 (slides of image collections), we present several cases, including one of a 25-year-old patient presenting with pelvic pain and dyspareunia who was later found to have bilateral endometriomas.

Mature teratomas

Mature cystic teratomas display several telltale signs on imaging, including:

• hyperechoic lines/dots (“dermoid mesh”) corresponding to hair/skeletal components
• “Rokitanski nodule” – a peripherally placed mass of sebum, bones, and hair
• posterior acoustic shadowing
• cystic or floating spherical structures
• no internal flow on color Doppler

Rarely, dermoid cysts may undergo malignant transformation. Usually this occurs in cysts greater than 10 cm and in patients aged 50 years or older. Internal flow on color Doppler, branching, or invasion into adjacent structures can indicate malignancy.

Management

The traditional treatment for dermoid cysts is surgical. However, given the ability for accurate diagnosis with vaginal ultrasonography, there appears to be a role for sonographic observation in asymptomatic women with small dermoids.²

If the cyst is not surgically removed, the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound 2010 Consensus Conference Statement recommended initial sonographic follow up at no more than 6 months to 1 year to ensure no change in size or internal architecture.¹

In FIGURES 12 through 24 below (slides of image collections), we offer imaging from the case presentation and follow-up of a 19-year-old patient with pelvic pain who has a history of ovarian cystectomy for dermoid cyst, as well as 6 additional case illustrations.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Figure 14

Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17

Figure 18

Figure 19

Figure 20

Figure 21

Figure 22

Figure 23

Figure 24

Share your thoughts on this article! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The preferred imaging method to evaluate the majority of adnexal cysts is ultrasonography, which can help characterize the cyst type. Common benign adnexal cyst types include simple, hemorrhagic, endometrioma, and mature teratoma (dermoid cyst). In this part 2 of a 4-part series on cystic adnexal pathology, we focus on imaging signs for, and follow-up of, endometriomas and mature teratomas.

Endometriomas

Endometriomas are common, typically benign, cysts that produce homogenous, low-level internal echoes and a “ground glass” appearance on ultrasonography. No internal flow is apparent on color Doppler. The presence of tiny echogenic wall foci can distinguish an endometrioma from a hemorrhagic cyst.

Rarely, endometriomas may undergo malignant transformation. Usually this occurs with cysts greater than 9 cm and in patients aged 45 years or older. A malignancy often exhibits rapid growth or the development of a solid nodule with flow on color Doppler.

Management

Although surgery remains the first-line management for women with symptomatic or enlarging endometriomas, there appears to be a role for sonographic observation, with continuous progestational treatment, in women with small (< 5 cm) asymptomatic endometriomas.

The Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound 2010 Consensus Conference Statement recommended¹:

• Short-interval follow-up (6 to 12 weeks) in reproductive-aged women to ensure acute hemorrhagic cysts are not mistaken for endometriomas
• If not removed surgically, sonographic follow-up is recommended, with frequency of follow up based on patient age and symptoms and cyst size and characteristics.

In FIGURES 1 through 11 (slides of image collections), we present several cases, including one of a 25-year-old patient presenting with pelvic pain and dyspareunia who was later found to have bilateral endometriomas.

Mature teratomas

Mature cystic teratomas display several telltale signs on imaging, including:

• hyperechoic lines/dots (“dermoid mesh”) corresponding to hair/skeletal components
• “Rokitanski nodule” – a peripherally placed mass of sebum, bones, and hair
• posterior acoustic shadowing
• cystic or floating spherical structures
• no internal flow on color Doppler

Rarely, dermoid cysts may undergo malignant transformation. Usually this occurs in cysts greater than 10 cm and in patients aged 50 years or older. Internal flow on color Doppler, branching, or invasion into adjacent structures can indicate malignancy.

Management

The traditional treatment for dermoid cysts is surgical. However, given the ability for accurate diagnosis with vaginal ultrasonography, there appears to be a role for sonographic observation in asymptomatic women with small dermoids.²

If the cyst is not surgically removed, the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound 2010 Consensus Conference Statement recommended initial sonographic follow up at no more than 6 months to 1 year to ensure no change in size or internal architecture.¹

In FIGURES 12 through 24 below (slides of image collections), we offer imaging from the case presentation and follow-up of a 19-year-old patient with pelvic pain who has a history of ovarian cystectomy for dermoid cyst, as well as 6 additional case illustrations.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Figure 14

Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17

Figure 18

Figure 19

Figure 20

Figure 21

Figure 22

Figure 23

Figure 24

Share your thoughts on this article! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The preferred imaging method to evaluate the majority of adnexal cysts is ultrasonography, which can help characterize the cyst type. Common benign adnexal cyst types include simple, hemorrhagic, endometrioma, and mature teratoma (dermoid cyst). In this part 2 of a 4-part series on cystic adnexal pathology, we focus on imaging signs for, and follow-up of, endometriomas and mature teratomas.

Endometriomas

Endometriomas are common, typically benign, cysts that produce homogenous, low-level internal echoes and a “ground glass” appearance on ultrasonography. No internal flow is apparent on color Doppler. The presence of tiny echogenic wall foci can distinguish an endometrioma from a hemorrhagic cyst.

Rarely, endometriomas may undergo malignant transformation. Usually this occurs with cysts greater than 9 cm and in patients aged 45 years or older. A malignancy often exhibits rapid growth or the development of a solid nodule with flow on color Doppler.

Management

Although surgery remains the first-line management for women with symptomatic or enlarging endometriomas, there appears to be a role for sonographic observation, with continuous progestational treatment, in women with small (< 5 cm) asymptomatic endometriomas.

The Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound 2010 Consensus Conference Statement recommended¹:

• Short-interval follow-up (6 to 12 weeks) in reproductive-aged women to ensure acute hemorrhagic cysts are not mistaken for endometriomas
• If not removed surgically, sonographic follow-up is recommended, with frequency of follow up based on patient age and symptoms and cyst size and characteristics.

In FIGURES 1 through 11 (slides of image collections), we present several cases, including one of a 25-year-old patient presenting with pelvic pain and dyspareunia who was later found to have bilateral endometriomas.

Mature teratomas

Mature cystic teratomas display several telltale signs on imaging, including:

• hyperechoic lines/dots (“dermoid mesh”) corresponding to hair/skeletal components
• “Rokitanski nodule” – a peripherally placed mass of sebum, bones, and hair
• posterior acoustic shadowing
• cystic or floating spherical structures
• no internal flow on color Doppler

Rarely, dermoid cysts may undergo malignant transformation. Usually this occurs in cysts greater than 10 cm and in patients aged 50 years or older. Internal flow on color Doppler, branching, or invasion into adjacent structures can indicate malignancy.

Management

The traditional treatment for dermoid cysts is surgical. However, given the ability for accurate diagnosis with vaginal ultrasonography, there appears to be a role for sonographic observation in asymptomatic women with small dermoids.²

If the cyst is not surgically removed, the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound 2010 Consensus Conference Statement recommended initial sonographic follow up at no more than 6 months to 1 year to ensure no change in size or internal architecture.¹

In FIGURES 12 through 24 below (slides of image collections), we offer imaging from the case presentation and follow-up of a 19-year-old patient with pelvic pain who has a history of ovarian cystectomy for dermoid cyst, as well as 6 additional case illustrations.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Figure 14

Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17

Figure 18

Figure 19

Figure 20

Figure 21

Figure 22

Figure 23

Figure 24

Share your thoughts on this article! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.