Surgery

A 45-year old woman was referred by her physician to my clinic for continued pain after total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The patient initially had undergone a robot-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingectomy, and excision of stage 1 endometriosis secondary to pelvic pain. Because of continued pain and new onset of persistent ovarian cysts, she once again underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, this time to remove both ovaries. Interestingly, severe periadnexal adhesions were noted in the second surgical report. A hemorrhagic cyst and a corpus luteal cyst were noted. Unfortunately, the patient continued to have left lower abdominal pain; thus, the referral to my clinic.

Given the history of pelvic pain, especially in light of severe periadnexal adhesions at the second surgery, I voiced my concern about possible ovarian remnant syndrome. At the patient’s initial visit, an estradiol (E2), progesterone (P4) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) test were ordered. Interestingly, while the E2 and P4 were quite low, the FSH was 10.9 IU/mL. Certainly, this was not consistent with menopause but could point to ovarian remnant syndrome.

A follow-up examination and ultrasound revealed a 15-mm exquisitely tender left adnexal mass, again consistent with ovarian remnant syndrome. My plan now is to proceed with surgery with the presumptive diagnosis of ovarian remnant syndrome.

Ovarian remnant syndrome (ORS), first described by Shemwell and Weed in 1970, is defined as a pelvic mass with residual ovarian tissue postoophorectomy.^1-3 ORS may be associated with endometriosis or ovarian cancer. Remnant ovarian tissue also may stimulate endometriosis and cyclic pelvic pain, similar to symptoms of the remnant itself.⁴

ORS is caused by surgical factors that limit surgical exposure or compromise surgical technique. Pelvic adhesions may be secondary to previous surgery, intraoperative bleeding, previous appendectomy, inflammatory bowel disease, pelvic inflammatory disease, or endometriosis, the latter of which is the most common cause of initial oophorectomy. Moreover, surgical technique may be causal. This includes inability to achieve adequate exposure, inability to restore normal anatomy, and imprecise site of surgical incision.^5-7

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Ryan S. Kooperman, DO, who recently completed his 2-year American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) Fellowship in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge, Ill., where I am currently the program director.

In 2016, Dr. Kooperman was the recipient of the National Outstanding Resident of the Year in Obstetrics and Gynecology (American Osteopathic Foundation/Medical Education Foundation of the American College of Osteopathic Obstetricians and Gynecologists). Dr. Kooperman is a very skilled surgeon and adroit clinician. He will be starting practice at Highland Park (Ill.) North Shore Hospital System in August 2019. It is a pleasure to welcome Dr. Kooperman to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.
 

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class.

References

1. Obstet Gynecol. 1970 Aug;36(2):299-303.

2. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989 Nov;29(4):433-5.

3. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Aug;24(4):210-4.

4. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1988 Feb;26(1):93-103.

5. Oncol Lett. 2014 Jul;8(1):3-6.

6. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Mar-Apr;18(2):194-9.

7. Fertil Steril. 2007 May;87(5):1005-9.

A 45-year old woman was referred by her physician to my clinic for continued pain after total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The patient initially had undergone a robot-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingectomy, and excision of stage 1 endometriosis secondary to pelvic pain. Because of continued pain and new onset of persistent ovarian cysts, she once again underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, this time to remove both ovaries. Interestingly, severe periadnexal adhesions were noted in the second surgical report. A hemorrhagic cyst and a corpus luteal cyst were noted. Unfortunately, the patient continued to have left lower abdominal pain; thus, the referral to my clinic.

Given the history of pelvic pain, especially in light of severe periadnexal adhesions at the second surgery, I voiced my concern about possible ovarian remnant syndrome. At the patient’s initial visit, an estradiol (E2), progesterone (P4) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) test were ordered. Interestingly, while the E2 and P4 were quite low, the FSH was 10.9 IU/mL. Certainly, this was not consistent with menopause but could point to ovarian remnant syndrome.

A follow-up examination and ultrasound revealed a 15-mm exquisitely tender left adnexal mass, again consistent with ovarian remnant syndrome. My plan now is to proceed with surgery with the presumptive diagnosis of ovarian remnant syndrome.

Ovarian remnant syndrome (ORS), first described by Shemwell and Weed in 1970, is defined as a pelvic mass with residual ovarian tissue postoophorectomy.^1-3 ORS may be associated with endometriosis or ovarian cancer. Remnant ovarian tissue also may stimulate endometriosis and cyclic pelvic pain, similar to symptoms of the remnant itself.⁴

ORS is caused by surgical factors that limit surgical exposure or compromise surgical technique. Pelvic adhesions may be secondary to previous surgery, intraoperative bleeding, previous appendectomy, inflammatory bowel disease, pelvic inflammatory disease, or endometriosis, the latter of which is the most common cause of initial oophorectomy. Moreover, surgical technique may be causal. This includes inability to achieve adequate exposure, inability to restore normal anatomy, and imprecise site of surgical incision.^5-7

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Ryan S. Kooperman, DO, who recently completed his 2-year American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) Fellowship in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge, Ill., where I am currently the program director.

In 2016, Dr. Kooperman was the recipient of the National Outstanding Resident of the Year in Obstetrics and Gynecology (American Osteopathic Foundation/Medical Education Foundation of the American College of Osteopathic Obstetricians and Gynecologists). Dr. Kooperman is a very skilled surgeon and adroit clinician. He will be starting practice at Highland Park (Ill.) North Shore Hospital System in August 2019. It is a pleasure to welcome Dr. Kooperman to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.
 

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class.

References

1. Obstet Gynecol. 1970 Aug;36(2):299-303.

2. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989 Nov;29(4):433-5.

3. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Aug;24(4):210-4.

4. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1988 Feb;26(1):93-103.

5. Oncol Lett. 2014 Jul;8(1):3-6.

6. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Mar-Apr;18(2):194-9.

7. Fertil Steril. 2007 May;87(5):1005-9.

A 45-year old woman was referred by her physician to my clinic for continued pain after total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The patient initially had undergone a robot-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingectomy, and excision of stage 1 endometriosis secondary to pelvic pain. Because of continued pain and new onset of persistent ovarian cysts, she once again underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, this time to remove both ovaries. Interestingly, severe periadnexal adhesions were noted in the second surgical report. A hemorrhagic cyst and a corpus luteal cyst were noted. Unfortunately, the patient continued to have left lower abdominal pain; thus, the referral to my clinic.

Given the history of pelvic pain, especially in light of severe periadnexal adhesions at the second surgery, I voiced my concern about possible ovarian remnant syndrome. At the patient’s initial visit, an estradiol (E2), progesterone (P4) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) test were ordered. Interestingly, while the E2 and P4 were quite low, the FSH was 10.9 IU/mL. Certainly, this was not consistent with menopause but could point to ovarian remnant syndrome.

A follow-up examination and ultrasound revealed a 15-mm exquisitely tender left adnexal mass, again consistent with ovarian remnant syndrome. My plan now is to proceed with surgery with the presumptive diagnosis of ovarian remnant syndrome.

Ovarian remnant syndrome (ORS), first described by Shemwell and Weed in 1970, is defined as a pelvic mass with residual ovarian tissue postoophorectomy.^1-3 ORS may be associated with endometriosis or ovarian cancer. Remnant ovarian tissue also may stimulate endometriosis and cyclic pelvic pain, similar to symptoms of the remnant itself.⁴

ORS is caused by surgical factors that limit surgical exposure or compromise surgical technique. Pelvic adhesions may be secondary to previous surgery, intraoperative bleeding, previous appendectomy, inflammatory bowel disease, pelvic inflammatory disease, or endometriosis, the latter of which is the most common cause of initial oophorectomy. Moreover, surgical technique may be causal. This includes inability to achieve adequate exposure, inability to restore normal anatomy, and imprecise site of surgical incision.^5-7

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Ryan S. Kooperman, DO, who recently completed his 2-year American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) Fellowship in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge, Ill., where I am currently the program director.

In 2016, Dr. Kooperman was the recipient of the National Outstanding Resident of the Year in Obstetrics and Gynecology (American Osteopathic Foundation/Medical Education Foundation of the American College of Osteopathic Obstetricians and Gynecologists). Dr. Kooperman is a very skilled surgeon and adroit clinician. He will be starting practice at Highland Park (Ill.) North Shore Hospital System in August 2019. It is a pleasure to welcome Dr. Kooperman to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.
 

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class.

References

1. Obstet Gynecol. 1970 Aug;36(2):299-303.

2. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989 Nov;29(4):433-5.

3. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Aug;24(4):210-4.

4. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1988 Feb;26(1):93-103.

5. Oncol Lett. 2014 Jul;8(1):3-6.

6. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Mar-Apr;18(2):194-9.

7. Fertil Steril. 2007 May;87(5):1005-9.

A landmark study of advanced endometrial cancer, GOG 258, was published in the New England Journal of Medicine this summer.¹ This clinical trial compared the use of carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy with a combination of chemotherapy with external beam radiation, exploring the notion of “more is better.” The results of the trial revealed that the “more” (chemotherapy with external beam radiation) was no better than chemotherapy alone with respect to overall survival. These results have challenged a creeping dogma in gynecologic oncology, which has seen many providers embrace combination therapy, particularly for patients with stage III (node-positive) endometrial cancer, a group of patients who made up approximately three-quarters of GOG 258’s study population. Many have been left searching for justification of their early adoption of combination therapy before the results of a trial such as this were available. For me it also raised a slightly different question: In the light of these results, what IS the role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the staging of endometrial cancers? If radiation to the nodal basins is no longer part of adjuvant therapy, then is pelvic lymphadenectomy or pelvic-only sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy enough in determining which patients need chemotherapy?

It was in the 1980s that the removal of clinically normal para-aortic lymph nodes (those residing between the renal and proximal common iliac vessels) became a part of surgical staging. This practice was endorsed by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) and the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) surgical committee in response to findings that 11% of women with clinical stage I endometrial cancer had microscopic lymph node metastases which were discovered only with routine pathologic evaluation of these tissues. Among those with pelvic lymph node metastases (stage IIIC disease), approximately one-third also harbored disease in para-aortic nodal regions.² Among all patients with endometrial cancer, including those with low-grade disease, only a small fraction (approximately 2%) have isolated para-aortic lymph nodes (positive para-aortic nodes, but negative pelvic nodes). However, among patients with deeply invasive higher-grade tumors, the likelihood of discovering isolated para-aortic metastases is higher at approximately 16%.³ Therefore, the dominant pattern of lymph node metastases and lymphatic dissemination of endometrial cancer appears to be via the parametrial channels laterally towards the pelvic basins, and then sequentially to the para-aortic regions. The direct lymphatic pathway to the para-aortic basins from the uterine fundus through the adnexal lymphatics misses the pelvic regions altogether and may seen logical, but actually is observed fairly infrequently.⁴

Over the subsequent decades, there have been debates and schools of thought regarding what is the optimal degree of lymphatic dissection for endometrial cancer staging. Some advocated for full pelvic and infrarenal para-aortic nodal dissections in all patients, including even those in the lowest risk for metastases. Others advocated for a more limited, inframesenteric para-aortic nodal dissection, although the origins of such a distinction appear to be largely arbitrary. The inferior mesenteric artery is not a physiologic landmark for lymphatic pathways, and approximately half of para-aortic metastases are located above the level of the inferior mesenteric artery. This limited sampling may have been preferred because of relative ease of dissection rather than diagnostic or therapeutic efficacy.

As the population became more obese, making para-aortic nodal dissections less feasible, and laparoscopic staging became accepted as the standard of care in endometrial cancer staging, there was a further push towards limiting the scope of lymphadenectomy. Selective algorithms, such as the so-called “Mayo clinic criteria,” were widely adopted. In this approach, gynecologic oncologists perform full pelvic and infrarenal para-aortic lymphadenectomies but only in the presence of a high-risk uterine feature such as tumor size greater than 2 cm, deep myometrial invasion, or grade 3 histology.³ While this reduced the number of para-aortic dissections being performed, it did not eliminate them, as approximately 40% of patients with endometrial cancer meet at least one of those criteria.

At this same time, we learned something else critical about the benefits, or lack thereof, of lymphadenectomy. Two landmark surgical-staging trials were published in 2009 which randomly assigned women to hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy or hysterectomy alone, and found no survival benefit for lymphadenectomy.^5,6 While these trial results initially were met with noisy backlash, particularly from those who had legitimate concerns regarding study design and conclusions that reach beyond the scope of this column, ultimately their findings (that there is no therapeutic benefit to surgically removing clinically normal lymph nodes) has become largely accepted. The subsequent findings of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cancer of the Endometrium (LACE) trial further support this, as there was no difference in survival found between patients who were randomly assigned to laparoscopic versus open staging for endometrial cancer, even despite a significantly lower rate of lymphadenectomy among the laparoscopic arm.⁷

SLN biopsy, in which the specific nodes which drain the uterus are selectively removed, represents the most recent development in lymph node assessment for endometrial cancer. On average, only three lymph nodes are removed per patient, and para-aortic nodes infrequently are removed, because it is rare that lymphatic pathways drain directly into the aortic basins after cervical injection. Yet despite this more limited dissection of lymph nodes, especially para-aortic, with SLN biopsy, surgeons still observe similar rates of IIIC disease, compared with full lymphadenectomy, suggesting that the presence or absence of lymphatic metastases still is able to be adequately determined. SLN biopsy misses only 3% of lymphatic disease.⁸ What is of particular interest to practitioners of the SLN approach is that “atypical” pathways are discovered approximately 20% of the time, and nodes are harvested from locations such as the presacral space or medial to the internal iliac vessels. These nodes are in locations previously overlooked by even the most comprehensive pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Therefore, while the para-aortic nodes may not be systematically removed with SLN biopsy, new and arguably more relevant regions are interrogated, which might explain its equivalent diagnostic virtue.

With this evolution in surgical-staging practice, what we have come to recognize is that the role of lymph node assessment is predominantly, if not exclusively, diagnostic. It can help us determine which patients are at risk for distant relapse and therefore candidates for systemic therapy (chemotherapy), versus those whose risk is predominantly of local relapse and can be adequately treated with local therapies alone, such as vaginal radiation. This brings us to the results of GOG 258. If defining the specific and complete extent of lymph node metastases (as if that was ever truly what surgeons were doing) is no longer necessary to guide the prescription and extent of external beam radiation, then lymph node dissection need only inform us of whether or not there are nodal metastases, not specifically the location of those nodal metastases. The prescription of chemotherapy is the same whether the disease is limited to the pelvic nodes or also includes the para-aortic nodes. While GOG 258 discovered more para-aortic failures among the chemotherapy-alone group, suggesting there may be some therapeutic role of radiation in preventing this, it should be noted that these para-aortic relapses did not negatively impact relapse-free survival, and these patients still can presumably be salvaged with external beam radiation to the site of para-aortic relapse.

It would seem logical that the results of GOG 258 further limit the potential role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in women with clinical stage I disease. Perhaps para-aortic dissection can be limited to women who are at highest risk for isolated para-aortic disease, such as those with deeply invasive high-grade tumors not successfully mapped with the highly targeted sentinel node biopsy technique? Most clinicians look forward to an era in which we no longer rely on crude dissections of disease-free tissue just to prove they are disease free, but instead can utilize more sophisticated diagnostic methods to recognize disseminated disease.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13;380(24):2317-26.

2. Cancer. 1987 Oct 15;60(8 Suppl):2035-41.

3. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109(1):11-8.

4. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 Mar;29(3):613-21.

5. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Dec 3;100(23):1707-16.

6. Lancet. 2009 Jan 10;373(9658):125-36.

7. JAMA. 2017 Mar 28;317(12):1224-33.

8. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Mar;18(3):384-92.

A landmark study of advanced endometrial cancer, GOG 258, was published in the New England Journal of Medicine this summer.¹ This clinical trial compared the use of carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy with a combination of chemotherapy with external beam radiation, exploring the notion of “more is better.” The results of the trial revealed that the “more” (chemotherapy with external beam radiation) was no better than chemotherapy alone with respect to overall survival. These results have challenged a creeping dogma in gynecologic oncology, which has seen many providers embrace combination therapy, particularly for patients with stage III (node-positive) endometrial cancer, a group of patients who made up approximately three-quarters of GOG 258’s study population. Many have been left searching for justification of their early adoption of combination therapy before the results of a trial such as this were available. For me it also raised a slightly different question: In the light of these results, what IS the role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the staging of endometrial cancers? If radiation to the nodal basins is no longer part of adjuvant therapy, then is pelvic lymphadenectomy or pelvic-only sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy enough in determining which patients need chemotherapy?

It was in the 1980s that the removal of clinically normal para-aortic lymph nodes (those residing between the renal and proximal common iliac vessels) became a part of surgical staging. This practice was endorsed by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) and the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) surgical committee in response to findings that 11% of women with clinical stage I endometrial cancer had microscopic lymph node metastases which were discovered only with routine pathologic evaluation of these tissues. Among those with pelvic lymph node metastases (stage IIIC disease), approximately one-third also harbored disease in para-aortic nodal regions.² Among all patients with endometrial cancer, including those with low-grade disease, only a small fraction (approximately 2%) have isolated para-aortic lymph nodes (positive para-aortic nodes, but negative pelvic nodes). However, among patients with deeply invasive higher-grade tumors, the likelihood of discovering isolated para-aortic metastases is higher at approximately 16%.³ Therefore, the dominant pattern of lymph node metastases and lymphatic dissemination of endometrial cancer appears to be via the parametrial channels laterally towards the pelvic basins, and then sequentially to the para-aortic regions. The direct lymphatic pathway to the para-aortic basins from the uterine fundus through the adnexal lymphatics misses the pelvic regions altogether and may seen logical, but actually is observed fairly infrequently.⁴

Over the subsequent decades, there have been debates and schools of thought regarding what is the optimal degree of lymphatic dissection for endometrial cancer staging. Some advocated for full pelvic and infrarenal para-aortic nodal dissections in all patients, including even those in the lowest risk for metastases. Others advocated for a more limited, inframesenteric para-aortic nodal dissection, although the origins of such a distinction appear to be largely arbitrary. The inferior mesenteric artery is not a physiologic landmark for lymphatic pathways, and approximately half of para-aortic metastases are located above the level of the inferior mesenteric artery. This limited sampling may have been preferred because of relative ease of dissection rather than diagnostic or therapeutic efficacy.

As the population became more obese, making para-aortic nodal dissections less feasible, and laparoscopic staging became accepted as the standard of care in endometrial cancer staging, there was a further push towards limiting the scope of lymphadenectomy. Selective algorithms, such as the so-called “Mayo clinic criteria,” were widely adopted. In this approach, gynecologic oncologists perform full pelvic and infrarenal para-aortic lymphadenectomies but only in the presence of a high-risk uterine feature such as tumor size greater than 2 cm, deep myometrial invasion, or grade 3 histology.³ While this reduced the number of para-aortic dissections being performed, it did not eliminate them, as approximately 40% of patients with endometrial cancer meet at least one of those criteria.

At this same time, we learned something else critical about the benefits, or lack thereof, of lymphadenectomy. Two landmark surgical-staging trials were published in 2009 which randomly assigned women to hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy or hysterectomy alone, and found no survival benefit for lymphadenectomy.^5,6 While these trial results initially were met with noisy backlash, particularly from those who had legitimate concerns regarding study design and conclusions that reach beyond the scope of this column, ultimately their findings (that there is no therapeutic benefit to surgically removing clinically normal lymph nodes) has become largely accepted. The subsequent findings of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cancer of the Endometrium (LACE) trial further support this, as there was no difference in survival found between patients who were randomly assigned to laparoscopic versus open staging for endometrial cancer, even despite a significantly lower rate of lymphadenectomy among the laparoscopic arm.⁷

SLN biopsy, in which the specific nodes which drain the uterus are selectively removed, represents the most recent development in lymph node assessment for endometrial cancer. On average, only three lymph nodes are removed per patient, and para-aortic nodes infrequently are removed, because it is rare that lymphatic pathways drain directly into the aortic basins after cervical injection. Yet despite this more limited dissection of lymph nodes, especially para-aortic, with SLN biopsy, surgeons still observe similar rates of IIIC disease, compared with full lymphadenectomy, suggesting that the presence or absence of lymphatic metastases still is able to be adequately determined. SLN biopsy misses only 3% of lymphatic disease.⁸ What is of particular interest to practitioners of the SLN approach is that “atypical” pathways are discovered approximately 20% of the time, and nodes are harvested from locations such as the presacral space or medial to the internal iliac vessels. These nodes are in locations previously overlooked by even the most comprehensive pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Therefore, while the para-aortic nodes may not be systematically removed with SLN biopsy, new and arguably more relevant regions are interrogated, which might explain its equivalent diagnostic virtue.

With this evolution in surgical-staging practice, what we have come to recognize is that the role of lymph node assessment is predominantly, if not exclusively, diagnostic. It can help us determine which patients are at risk for distant relapse and therefore candidates for systemic therapy (chemotherapy), versus those whose risk is predominantly of local relapse and can be adequately treated with local therapies alone, such as vaginal radiation. This brings us to the results of GOG 258. If defining the specific and complete extent of lymph node metastases (as if that was ever truly what surgeons were doing) is no longer necessary to guide the prescription and extent of external beam radiation, then lymph node dissection need only inform us of whether or not there are nodal metastases, not specifically the location of those nodal metastases. The prescription of chemotherapy is the same whether the disease is limited to the pelvic nodes or also includes the para-aortic nodes. While GOG 258 discovered more para-aortic failures among the chemotherapy-alone group, suggesting there may be some therapeutic role of radiation in preventing this, it should be noted that these para-aortic relapses did not negatively impact relapse-free survival, and these patients still can presumably be salvaged with external beam radiation to the site of para-aortic relapse.

It would seem logical that the results of GOG 258 further limit the potential role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in women with clinical stage I disease. Perhaps para-aortic dissection can be limited to women who are at highest risk for isolated para-aortic disease, such as those with deeply invasive high-grade tumors not successfully mapped with the highly targeted sentinel node biopsy technique? Most clinicians look forward to an era in which we no longer rely on crude dissections of disease-free tissue just to prove they are disease free, but instead can utilize more sophisticated diagnostic methods to recognize disseminated disease.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13;380(24):2317-26.

2. Cancer. 1987 Oct 15;60(8 Suppl):2035-41.

3. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109(1):11-8.

4. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 Mar;29(3):613-21.

5. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Dec 3;100(23):1707-16.

6. Lancet. 2009 Jan 10;373(9658):125-36.

7. JAMA. 2017 Mar 28;317(12):1224-33.

8. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Mar;18(3):384-92.

A landmark study of advanced endometrial cancer, GOG 258, was published in the New England Journal of Medicine this summer.¹ This clinical trial compared the use of carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy with a combination of chemotherapy with external beam radiation, exploring the notion of “more is better.” The results of the trial revealed that the “more” (chemotherapy with external beam radiation) was no better than chemotherapy alone with respect to overall survival. These results have challenged a creeping dogma in gynecologic oncology, which has seen many providers embrace combination therapy, particularly for patients with stage III (node-positive) endometrial cancer, a group of patients who made up approximately three-quarters of GOG 258’s study population. Many have been left searching for justification of their early adoption of combination therapy before the results of a trial such as this were available. For me it also raised a slightly different question: In the light of these results, what IS the role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the staging of endometrial cancers? If radiation to the nodal basins is no longer part of adjuvant therapy, then is pelvic lymphadenectomy or pelvic-only sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy enough in determining which patients need chemotherapy?

It was in the 1980s that the removal of clinically normal para-aortic lymph nodes (those residing between the renal and proximal common iliac vessels) became a part of surgical staging. This practice was endorsed by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) and the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) surgical committee in response to findings that 11% of women with clinical stage I endometrial cancer had microscopic lymph node metastases which were discovered only with routine pathologic evaluation of these tissues. Among those with pelvic lymph node metastases (stage IIIC disease), approximately one-third also harbored disease in para-aortic nodal regions.² Among all patients with endometrial cancer, including those with low-grade disease, only a small fraction (approximately 2%) have isolated para-aortic lymph nodes (positive para-aortic nodes, but negative pelvic nodes). However, among patients with deeply invasive higher-grade tumors, the likelihood of discovering isolated para-aortic metastases is higher at approximately 16%.³ Therefore, the dominant pattern of lymph node metastases and lymphatic dissemination of endometrial cancer appears to be via the parametrial channels laterally towards the pelvic basins, and then sequentially to the para-aortic regions. The direct lymphatic pathway to the para-aortic basins from the uterine fundus through the adnexal lymphatics misses the pelvic regions altogether and may seen logical, but actually is observed fairly infrequently.⁴

Over the subsequent decades, there have been debates and schools of thought regarding what is the optimal degree of lymphatic dissection for endometrial cancer staging. Some advocated for full pelvic and infrarenal para-aortic nodal dissections in all patients, including even those in the lowest risk for metastases. Others advocated for a more limited, inframesenteric para-aortic nodal dissection, although the origins of such a distinction appear to be largely arbitrary. The inferior mesenteric artery is not a physiologic landmark for lymphatic pathways, and approximately half of para-aortic metastases are located above the level of the inferior mesenteric artery. This limited sampling may have been preferred because of relative ease of dissection rather than diagnostic or therapeutic efficacy.

As the population became more obese, making para-aortic nodal dissections less feasible, and laparoscopic staging became accepted as the standard of care in endometrial cancer staging, there was a further push towards limiting the scope of lymphadenectomy. Selective algorithms, such as the so-called “Mayo clinic criteria,” were widely adopted. In this approach, gynecologic oncologists perform full pelvic and infrarenal para-aortic lymphadenectomies but only in the presence of a high-risk uterine feature such as tumor size greater than 2 cm, deep myometrial invasion, or grade 3 histology.³ While this reduced the number of para-aortic dissections being performed, it did not eliminate them, as approximately 40% of patients with endometrial cancer meet at least one of those criteria.

At this same time, we learned something else critical about the benefits, or lack thereof, of lymphadenectomy. Two landmark surgical-staging trials were published in 2009 which randomly assigned women to hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy or hysterectomy alone, and found no survival benefit for lymphadenectomy.^5,6 While these trial results initially were met with noisy backlash, particularly from those who had legitimate concerns regarding study design and conclusions that reach beyond the scope of this column, ultimately their findings (that there is no therapeutic benefit to surgically removing clinically normal lymph nodes) has become largely accepted. The subsequent findings of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cancer of the Endometrium (LACE) trial further support this, as there was no difference in survival found between patients who were randomly assigned to laparoscopic versus open staging for endometrial cancer, even despite a significantly lower rate of lymphadenectomy among the laparoscopic arm.⁷

SLN biopsy, in which the specific nodes which drain the uterus are selectively removed, represents the most recent development in lymph node assessment for endometrial cancer. On average, only three lymph nodes are removed per patient, and para-aortic nodes infrequently are removed, because it is rare that lymphatic pathways drain directly into the aortic basins after cervical injection. Yet despite this more limited dissection of lymph nodes, especially para-aortic, with SLN biopsy, surgeons still observe similar rates of IIIC disease, compared with full lymphadenectomy, suggesting that the presence or absence of lymphatic metastases still is able to be adequately determined. SLN biopsy misses only 3% of lymphatic disease.⁸ What is of particular interest to practitioners of the SLN approach is that “atypical” pathways are discovered approximately 20% of the time, and nodes are harvested from locations such as the presacral space or medial to the internal iliac vessels. These nodes are in locations previously overlooked by even the most comprehensive pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Therefore, while the para-aortic nodes may not be systematically removed with SLN biopsy, new and arguably more relevant regions are interrogated, which might explain its equivalent diagnostic virtue.

With this evolution in surgical-staging practice, what we have come to recognize is that the role of lymph node assessment is predominantly, if not exclusively, diagnostic. It can help us determine which patients are at risk for distant relapse and therefore candidates for systemic therapy (chemotherapy), versus those whose risk is predominantly of local relapse and can be adequately treated with local therapies alone, such as vaginal radiation. This brings us to the results of GOG 258. If defining the specific and complete extent of lymph node metastases (as if that was ever truly what surgeons were doing) is no longer necessary to guide the prescription and extent of external beam radiation, then lymph node dissection need only inform us of whether or not there are nodal metastases, not specifically the location of those nodal metastases. The prescription of chemotherapy is the same whether the disease is limited to the pelvic nodes or also includes the para-aortic nodes. While GOG 258 discovered more para-aortic failures among the chemotherapy-alone group, suggesting there may be some therapeutic role of radiation in preventing this, it should be noted that these para-aortic relapses did not negatively impact relapse-free survival, and these patients still can presumably be salvaged with external beam radiation to the site of para-aortic relapse.

It would seem logical that the results of GOG 258 further limit the potential role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in women with clinical stage I disease. Perhaps para-aortic dissection can be limited to women who are at highest risk for isolated para-aortic disease, such as those with deeply invasive high-grade tumors not successfully mapped with the highly targeted sentinel node biopsy technique? Most clinicians look forward to an era in which we no longer rely on crude dissections of disease-free tissue just to prove they are disease free, but instead can utilize more sophisticated diagnostic methods to recognize disseminated disease.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13;380(24):2317-26.

2. Cancer. 1987 Oct 15;60(8 Suppl):2035-41.

3. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109(1):11-8.

4. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 Mar;29(3):613-21.

5. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Dec 3;100(23):1707-16.

6. Lancet. 2009 Jan 10;373(9658):125-36.

7. JAMA. 2017 Mar 28;317(12):1224-33.

8. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Mar;18(3):384-92.

MELBOURNE – A majority of minor surgeries can be performed in hemophilia A patients receiving emicizumab therapy without requiring prophylactic treatment with coagulation factors, according to data presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Elena Santagostino, MD, PhD, from the Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center at Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico in Milan presented data from 399 patients involved in the four HAVEN trials of the humanized bispecific monoclonal antibody emicizumab (Hemlibra), which is Food and Drug Administration–approved for the prevention of bleeding episodes in individuals with hemophilia A, with or without inhibitors.

The analysis focused on the 126 patients (31.6%) who underwent at least one surgical procedure during the studies. Of the 233 surgeries, there were 215 minor procedures performed in 115 patients, and 18 major surgeries in 18 patients. All patients were receiving ongoing treatment with emicizumab, and there was no change to that treatment regimen during surgery.

“It is clear that surgery is a challenge for hemophilia,” Dr. Santagostino said. “It is a challenge for bleeding, it is a challenge for thrombosis, it is a challenge for any new drug, and this is why there is a lot of interest around this topic.”

Overall, 65.6% of minor surgeries were performed without any prophylactic coagulation factor treatment, and 90.8% of minor surgeries were conducted without postoperative bleeds requiring treatment. There were no cases of thrombosis reported.

The surgeries that did not require prophylactic coagulation factor included 42 dental procedures, 25 central venous access devices, 17 endoscopic procedures, and 12 joint procedures.

While the HAVEN studies did not allow for elective major surgery, there were still 18 unplanned major surgical situations that arose during the course of the studies. These included three hip, one knee, and one ankle arthroplasties; three synovectomies; and some dental, central venous line, and endoscopic biopsy procedures.

Of these, 15 involved prophylactic coagulant factor administration, but three procedures – including one synovectomy – were performed without prophylaxis and none resulted in a bleed.

There was one complicated bleed that occurred in a patient undergoing multiple procedures including a synovectomy, joint debridement and chondroplasty, who received prolonged treatment with recombinant Factor VIIa.

Dr. Santagostino said the findings showed surgery could be safely performed in patients who were being treated with emicizumab, both with and without inhibitors.

“A large number of minor procedures can be done without adding coagulation factors,” she said in an interview. “This is true for less invasive surgeries, such as catheter-related central venous line procedures. Even several endoscopic procedures, like a single biopsy, can be done reasonably safely.”

However she said there was still a lack of experience in dealing with hemophilia A patients who were undergoing cancer surgery, or who had significant comorbidities that might put them at higher risk of thrombosis.

“These are special patients populations that are still not investigated in the trial setting,” she said.

Commenting on the data, session cochair Liane Khoo, MD, from the Haemophilia Treatment Centre at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney, said the results showed surgery could be performed in hemophilia A patients with and without inhibitors.

“The more we have the medication and the more experience we have, then we become more confident in using it,” she said.

The study was funded by F. Hoffman-La Roche and Chugai Pharmaceutical. Dr. Santagostino reported consultancies and speakers bureau engagements with the pharmaceutical sector.

SOURCE: Santagostino E et al. 2019 ISTH Congress, Abstract OC 60.1.

MELBOURNE – A majority of minor surgeries can be performed in hemophilia A patients receiving emicizumab therapy without requiring prophylactic treatment with coagulation factors, according to data presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Elena Santagostino, MD, PhD, from the Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center at Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico in Milan presented data from 399 patients involved in the four HAVEN trials of the humanized bispecific monoclonal antibody emicizumab (Hemlibra), which is Food and Drug Administration–approved for the prevention of bleeding episodes in individuals with hemophilia A, with or without inhibitors.

The analysis focused on the 126 patients (31.6%) who underwent at least one surgical procedure during the studies. Of the 233 surgeries, there were 215 minor procedures performed in 115 patients, and 18 major surgeries in 18 patients. All patients were receiving ongoing treatment with emicizumab, and there was no change to that treatment regimen during surgery.

“It is clear that surgery is a challenge for hemophilia,” Dr. Santagostino said. “It is a challenge for bleeding, it is a challenge for thrombosis, it is a challenge for any new drug, and this is why there is a lot of interest around this topic.”

Overall, 65.6% of minor surgeries were performed without any prophylactic coagulation factor treatment, and 90.8% of minor surgeries were conducted without postoperative bleeds requiring treatment. There were no cases of thrombosis reported.

The surgeries that did not require prophylactic coagulation factor included 42 dental procedures, 25 central venous access devices, 17 endoscopic procedures, and 12 joint procedures.

While the HAVEN studies did not allow for elective major surgery, there were still 18 unplanned major surgical situations that arose during the course of the studies. These included three hip, one knee, and one ankle arthroplasties; three synovectomies; and some dental, central venous line, and endoscopic biopsy procedures.

Of these, 15 involved prophylactic coagulant factor administration, but three procedures – including one synovectomy – were performed without prophylaxis and none resulted in a bleed.

There was one complicated bleed that occurred in a patient undergoing multiple procedures including a synovectomy, joint debridement and chondroplasty, who received prolonged treatment with recombinant Factor VIIa.

Dr. Santagostino said the findings showed surgery could be safely performed in patients who were being treated with emicizumab, both with and without inhibitors.

“A large number of minor procedures can be done without adding coagulation factors,” she said in an interview. “This is true for less invasive surgeries, such as catheter-related central venous line procedures. Even several endoscopic procedures, like a single biopsy, can be done reasonably safely.”

However she said there was still a lack of experience in dealing with hemophilia A patients who were undergoing cancer surgery, or who had significant comorbidities that might put them at higher risk of thrombosis.

“These are special patients populations that are still not investigated in the trial setting,” she said.

Commenting on the data, session cochair Liane Khoo, MD, from the Haemophilia Treatment Centre at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney, said the results showed surgery could be performed in hemophilia A patients with and without inhibitors.

“The more we have the medication and the more experience we have, then we become more confident in using it,” she said.

The study was funded by F. Hoffman-La Roche and Chugai Pharmaceutical. Dr. Santagostino reported consultancies and speakers bureau engagements with the pharmaceutical sector.

SOURCE: Santagostino E et al. 2019 ISTH Congress, Abstract OC 60.1.

MELBOURNE – A majority of minor surgeries can be performed in hemophilia A patients receiving emicizumab therapy without requiring prophylactic treatment with coagulation factors, according to data presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Elena Santagostino, MD, PhD, from the Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center at Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico in Milan presented data from 399 patients involved in the four HAVEN trials of the humanized bispecific monoclonal antibody emicizumab (Hemlibra), which is Food and Drug Administration–approved for the prevention of bleeding episodes in individuals with hemophilia A, with or without inhibitors.

The analysis focused on the 126 patients (31.6%) who underwent at least one surgical procedure during the studies. Of the 233 surgeries, there were 215 minor procedures performed in 115 patients, and 18 major surgeries in 18 patients. All patients were receiving ongoing treatment with emicizumab, and there was no change to that treatment regimen during surgery.

“It is clear that surgery is a challenge for hemophilia,” Dr. Santagostino said. “It is a challenge for bleeding, it is a challenge for thrombosis, it is a challenge for any new drug, and this is why there is a lot of interest around this topic.”

Overall, 65.6% of minor surgeries were performed without any prophylactic coagulation factor treatment, and 90.8% of minor surgeries were conducted without postoperative bleeds requiring treatment. There were no cases of thrombosis reported.

The surgeries that did not require prophylactic coagulation factor included 42 dental procedures, 25 central venous access devices, 17 endoscopic procedures, and 12 joint procedures.

While the HAVEN studies did not allow for elective major surgery, there were still 18 unplanned major surgical situations that arose during the course of the studies. These included three hip, one knee, and one ankle arthroplasties; three synovectomies; and some dental, central venous line, and endoscopic biopsy procedures.

Of these, 15 involved prophylactic coagulant factor administration, but three procedures – including one synovectomy – were performed without prophylaxis and none resulted in a bleed.

There was one complicated bleed that occurred in a patient undergoing multiple procedures including a synovectomy, joint debridement and chondroplasty, who received prolonged treatment with recombinant Factor VIIa.

Dr. Santagostino said the findings showed surgery could be safely performed in patients who were being treated with emicizumab, both with and without inhibitors.

“A large number of minor procedures can be done without adding coagulation factors,” she said in an interview. “This is true for less invasive surgeries, such as catheter-related central venous line procedures. Even several endoscopic procedures, like a single biopsy, can be done reasonably safely.”

However she said there was still a lack of experience in dealing with hemophilia A patients who were undergoing cancer surgery, or who had significant comorbidities that might put them at higher risk of thrombosis.

“These are special patients populations that are still not investigated in the trial setting,” she said.

Commenting on the data, session cochair Liane Khoo, MD, from the Haemophilia Treatment Centre at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney, said the results showed surgery could be performed in hemophilia A patients with and without inhibitors.

“The more we have the medication and the more experience we have, then we become more confident in using it,” she said.

The study was funded by F. Hoffman-La Roche and Chugai Pharmaceutical. Dr. Santagostino reported consultancies and speakers bureau engagements with the pharmaceutical sector.

SOURCE: Santagostino E et al. 2019 ISTH Congress, Abstract OC 60.1.

About 7% of women who receive opioid painkillers after even minor gynecological surgeries are getting fresh opioid prescriptions months later – showing that persistent opioid use can follow such surgeries.

©BananaStock/thinkstockphotos.com

For a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Jason D. Wright, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues looked at insurance claims data from 729,625 opioid-naive women, median age 44 years, who had undergone a myomectomy; a minimally invasive, vaginal, or abdominal hysterectomy; an open or laparoscopic oophorectomy; endometrial ablation; tubal ligation; or dilation and curettage. The vast majority of subjects, 93%, had commercial health insurance, with the rest enrolled in Medicaid. Women undergoing multiple surgical procedures, with serious comorbidities, or who underwent another surgery within 6 months of the initial one, were excluded from the analysis.

Dr. Wright and colleagues found that 60% of patients in the cohort received an initial opioid prescription in the perioperative period. Additional opioids were then prescribed to 6.8% (P less than .001) of those women between 90 and 180 days after surgery. The rate of additional prescriptions varied by year across the study period, from 2009 to 2016, and declined to 6% by the final year of the study. The rate of further opioid prescriptions varied according to procedure: 4.8% for myomectomy, 6.6% for minimally invasive hysterectomy, 6.7% for abdominal hysterectomy, 6.3% for endometrial ablation, 7% for tubal ligation, and 7.2% for dilation and curettage (P less than .001).

Factors significantly increasing likelihood of a new prescription included younger age and a history of depression, anxiety, or a substance abuse disorder. Also, a higher total dose of opioids initially prescribed, and a greater number of days supplied, were associated with increased risk for an additional prescription.

“These data demonstrate that the rate of new persistent opioid use after common gynecologic procedures is substantial,” Dr. Wright and colleagues wrote in their analysis, noting that prior studies across a wide range of surgeries have shown rates of new persistent opioid use to be between 3% and 8%. “Careful risk assessment of patients preoperatively may be useful to mitigate opioid misuse in high risk populations,” the investigators wrote. “Women with underlying psychosocial disorders, medical comorbidities, or a history of substance use disorder are at particular risk for persistent opioid use and should be prescribed opioids with extra caution.”

Dr. Wright and colleagues’ study “provides powerful data that should cause gynecological surgeons to pause when writing an opioid prescription,” David M. Jaspan, DO, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Is an opioid the best first line medication for this patient? Would an NSAID work better? Is multimodal medication an option? What are the patient characteristics that may be associated with persistent use?”

Dr. Wright and colleagues noted among the study’s limitations the fact that actual opioid use could not be measured, nor could use of nonopioid painkillers.

Dr. Wright has served as a consultant for Tesaro and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Alfred I. Neugut disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical firms. Dr. Dawn L. Hershman received a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation/Conquer Cancer Foundation. The remaining coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Wright JD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003358.

About 7% of women who receive opioid painkillers after even minor gynecological surgeries are getting fresh opioid prescriptions months later – showing that persistent opioid use can follow such surgeries.

©BananaStock/thinkstockphotos.com

For a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Jason D. Wright, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues looked at insurance claims data from 729,625 opioid-naive women, median age 44 years, who had undergone a myomectomy; a minimally invasive, vaginal, or abdominal hysterectomy; an open or laparoscopic oophorectomy; endometrial ablation; tubal ligation; or dilation and curettage. The vast majority of subjects, 93%, had commercial health insurance, with the rest enrolled in Medicaid. Women undergoing multiple surgical procedures, with serious comorbidities, or who underwent another surgery within 6 months of the initial one, were excluded from the analysis.

Dr. Wright and colleagues found that 60% of patients in the cohort received an initial opioid prescription in the perioperative period. Additional opioids were then prescribed to 6.8% (P less than .001) of those women between 90 and 180 days after surgery. The rate of additional prescriptions varied by year across the study period, from 2009 to 2016, and declined to 6% by the final year of the study. The rate of further opioid prescriptions varied according to procedure: 4.8% for myomectomy, 6.6% for minimally invasive hysterectomy, 6.7% for abdominal hysterectomy, 6.3% for endometrial ablation, 7% for tubal ligation, and 7.2% for dilation and curettage (P less than .001).

Factors significantly increasing likelihood of a new prescription included younger age and a history of depression, anxiety, or a substance abuse disorder. Also, a higher total dose of opioids initially prescribed, and a greater number of days supplied, were associated with increased risk for an additional prescription.

“These data demonstrate that the rate of new persistent opioid use after common gynecologic procedures is substantial,” Dr. Wright and colleagues wrote in their analysis, noting that prior studies across a wide range of surgeries have shown rates of new persistent opioid use to be between 3% and 8%. “Careful risk assessment of patients preoperatively may be useful to mitigate opioid misuse in high risk populations,” the investigators wrote. “Women with underlying psychosocial disorders, medical comorbidities, or a history of substance use disorder are at particular risk for persistent opioid use and should be prescribed opioids with extra caution.”

Dr. Wright and colleagues’ study “provides powerful data that should cause gynecological surgeons to pause when writing an opioid prescription,” David M. Jaspan, DO, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Is an opioid the best first line medication for this patient? Would an NSAID work better? Is multimodal medication an option? What are the patient characteristics that may be associated with persistent use?”

Dr. Wright and colleagues noted among the study’s limitations the fact that actual opioid use could not be measured, nor could use of nonopioid painkillers.

Dr. Wright has served as a consultant for Tesaro and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Alfred I. Neugut disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical firms. Dr. Dawn L. Hershman received a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation/Conquer Cancer Foundation. The remaining coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Wright JD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003358.

About 7% of women who receive opioid painkillers after even minor gynecological surgeries are getting fresh opioid prescriptions months later – showing that persistent opioid use can follow such surgeries.

©BananaStock/thinkstockphotos.com

For a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Jason D. Wright, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues looked at insurance claims data from 729,625 opioid-naive women, median age 44 years, who had undergone a myomectomy; a minimally invasive, vaginal, or abdominal hysterectomy; an open or laparoscopic oophorectomy; endometrial ablation; tubal ligation; or dilation and curettage. The vast majority of subjects, 93%, had commercial health insurance, with the rest enrolled in Medicaid. Women undergoing multiple surgical procedures, with serious comorbidities, or who underwent another surgery within 6 months of the initial one, were excluded from the analysis.

Dr. Wright and colleagues found that 60% of patients in the cohort received an initial opioid prescription in the perioperative period. Additional opioids were then prescribed to 6.8% (P less than .001) of those women between 90 and 180 days after surgery. The rate of additional prescriptions varied by year across the study period, from 2009 to 2016, and declined to 6% by the final year of the study. The rate of further opioid prescriptions varied according to procedure: 4.8% for myomectomy, 6.6% for minimally invasive hysterectomy, 6.7% for abdominal hysterectomy, 6.3% for endometrial ablation, 7% for tubal ligation, and 7.2% for dilation and curettage (P less than .001).

Factors significantly increasing likelihood of a new prescription included younger age and a history of depression, anxiety, or a substance abuse disorder. Also, a higher total dose of opioids initially prescribed, and a greater number of days supplied, were associated with increased risk for an additional prescription.

“These data demonstrate that the rate of new persistent opioid use after common gynecologic procedures is substantial,” Dr. Wright and colleagues wrote in their analysis, noting that prior studies across a wide range of surgeries have shown rates of new persistent opioid use to be between 3% and 8%. “Careful risk assessment of patients preoperatively may be useful to mitigate opioid misuse in high risk populations,” the investigators wrote. “Women with underlying psychosocial disorders, medical comorbidities, or a history of substance use disorder are at particular risk for persistent opioid use and should be prescribed opioids with extra caution.”

Dr. Wright and colleagues’ study “provides powerful data that should cause gynecological surgeons to pause when writing an opioid prescription,” David M. Jaspan, DO, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Is an opioid the best first line medication for this patient? Would an NSAID work better? Is multimodal medication an option? What are the patient characteristics that may be associated with persistent use?”

Dr. Wright and colleagues noted among the study’s limitations the fact that actual opioid use could not be measured, nor could use of nonopioid painkillers.

Dr. Wright has served as a consultant for Tesaro and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Alfred I. Neugut disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical firms. Dr. Dawn L. Hershman received a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation/Conquer Cancer Foundation. The remaining coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Wright JD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003358.

AUSTIN, TEX. – The majority of skin-related pediatric inpatient admissions in the United States involve treatment for cellulitis, results from a large study of national data showed.

“Skin conditions significantly affect pediatric inpatients, and dermatologists ought be accessible for consultation to enhance care and costs,” the study’s first author, Marcus L. Elias, said in an interview prior to the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

According to Mr. Elias, who is a 4th-year medical student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School–Newark, few national studies on skin diseases for pediatric inpatients have been published in the medical literature. Earlier this year, researchers examined inpatient dermatologic conditions in patients aged 18 years and older (J Am Acad Dermatol 2019;80[2]:425-32), but Mr. Elias and associates set out to analyze the burden of inpatient pediatric dermatologic conditions on a national basis. “We wanted to see if the same conditions that were hospitalizing adults were also hospitalizing kids,” he said. “We found that this was indeed the case.”

The researchers queried the National Inpatient Sample database for all cases involving patients aged 18 years and younger during 2001-2013. The search yielded a sample of 16,837,857 patients. From this, the researchers analyzed diagnosis-related groups for dermatologic conditions denoting the principal diagnosis at discharge, which left a final sample of 84,090 patients. Frequency and chi-squared tests were used to analyze categorical variables.

More than half of patients (54%) were male, 36% were white, 48% had Medicaid insurance, and 43% had private insurance. Mr. Elias reported that the median length of stay for patients was 2 days and the median cost of care was $6,289.50 for each case. More than three-quarters of pediatric inpatients with dermatologic diagnoses were treated for “cellulitis” (66,147 cases, or 79%), with most cases involving the legs (16,875 cases, or 20%). Other pediatric inpatients were admitted for “minor skin disorder without complications” (5,458 cases, or 7%), and “minor skin disorder with complications” (2,822 cases, or 3%). A total of 64 patients died during the study period. Of these, 31 cases (50%) involved “skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,” the study found.

“We were surprised that the major cause of mortality for our patients was classified as ‘skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,’ as a similar diagnosis-related groupings exist denoting that complications did arise,” Mr. Elias said. “Still, it is not possible for us to determine if the mortality was from the skin graft/debridement or another cause entirely. It is possible that the procedure was without complications, only to have the patient succumb to an ancillary process.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the function of dermatologic consults for hospitalized patients was not examined. “We also cannot draw conclusions as to whether improved outpatient therapy reduces the need for hospitalization,” he said. Mr. Elias reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

AUSTIN, TEX. – The majority of skin-related pediatric inpatient admissions in the United States involve treatment for cellulitis, results from a large study of national data showed.

“Skin conditions significantly affect pediatric inpatients, and dermatologists ought be accessible for consultation to enhance care and costs,” the study’s first author, Marcus L. Elias, said in an interview prior to the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

According to Mr. Elias, who is a 4th-year medical student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School–Newark, few national studies on skin diseases for pediatric inpatients have been published in the medical literature. Earlier this year, researchers examined inpatient dermatologic conditions in patients aged 18 years and older (J Am Acad Dermatol 2019;80[2]:425-32), but Mr. Elias and associates set out to analyze the burden of inpatient pediatric dermatologic conditions on a national basis. “We wanted to see if the same conditions that were hospitalizing adults were also hospitalizing kids,” he said. “We found that this was indeed the case.”

The researchers queried the National Inpatient Sample database for all cases involving patients aged 18 years and younger during 2001-2013. The search yielded a sample of 16,837,857 patients. From this, the researchers analyzed diagnosis-related groups for dermatologic conditions denoting the principal diagnosis at discharge, which left a final sample of 84,090 patients. Frequency and chi-squared tests were used to analyze categorical variables.

More than half of patients (54%) were male, 36% were white, 48% had Medicaid insurance, and 43% had private insurance. Mr. Elias reported that the median length of stay for patients was 2 days and the median cost of care was $6,289.50 for each case. More than three-quarters of pediatric inpatients with dermatologic diagnoses were treated for “cellulitis” (66,147 cases, or 79%), with most cases involving the legs (16,875 cases, or 20%). Other pediatric inpatients were admitted for “minor skin disorder without complications” (5,458 cases, or 7%), and “minor skin disorder with complications” (2,822 cases, or 3%). A total of 64 patients died during the study period. Of these, 31 cases (50%) involved “skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,” the study found.

“We were surprised that the major cause of mortality for our patients was classified as ‘skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,’ as a similar diagnosis-related groupings exist denoting that complications did arise,” Mr. Elias said. “Still, it is not possible for us to determine if the mortality was from the skin graft/debridement or another cause entirely. It is possible that the procedure was without complications, only to have the patient succumb to an ancillary process.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the function of dermatologic consults for hospitalized patients was not examined. “We also cannot draw conclusions as to whether improved outpatient therapy reduces the need for hospitalization,” he said. Mr. Elias reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

AUSTIN, TEX. – The majority of skin-related pediatric inpatient admissions in the United States involve treatment for cellulitis, results from a large study of national data showed.

“Skin conditions significantly affect pediatric inpatients, and dermatologists ought be accessible for consultation to enhance care and costs,” the study’s first author, Marcus L. Elias, said in an interview prior to the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

According to Mr. Elias, who is a 4th-year medical student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School–Newark, few national studies on skin diseases for pediatric inpatients have been published in the medical literature. Earlier this year, researchers examined inpatient dermatologic conditions in patients aged 18 years and older (J Am Acad Dermatol 2019;80[2]:425-32), but Mr. Elias and associates set out to analyze the burden of inpatient pediatric dermatologic conditions on a national basis. “We wanted to see if the same conditions that were hospitalizing adults were also hospitalizing kids,” he said. “We found that this was indeed the case.”

The researchers queried the National Inpatient Sample database for all cases involving patients aged 18 years and younger during 2001-2013. The search yielded a sample of 16,837,857 patients. From this, the researchers analyzed diagnosis-related groups for dermatologic conditions denoting the principal diagnosis at discharge, which left a final sample of 84,090 patients. Frequency and chi-squared tests were used to analyze categorical variables.

More than half of patients (54%) were male, 36% were white, 48% had Medicaid insurance, and 43% had private insurance. Mr. Elias reported that the median length of stay for patients was 2 days and the median cost of care was $6,289.50 for each case. More than three-quarters of pediatric inpatients with dermatologic diagnoses were treated for “cellulitis” (66,147 cases, or 79%), with most cases involving the legs (16,875 cases, or 20%). Other pediatric inpatients were admitted for “minor skin disorder without complications” (5,458 cases, or 7%), and “minor skin disorder with complications” (2,822 cases, or 3%). A total of 64 patients died during the study period. Of these, 31 cases (50%) involved “skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,” the study found.

“We were surprised that the major cause of mortality for our patients was classified as ‘skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,’ as a similar diagnosis-related groupings exist denoting that complications did arise,” Mr. Elias said. “Still, it is not possible for us to determine if the mortality was from the skin graft/debridement or another cause entirely. It is possible that the procedure was without complications, only to have the patient succumb to an ancillary process.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the function of dermatologic consults for hospitalized patients was not examined. “We also cannot draw conclusions as to whether improved outpatient therapy reduces the need for hospitalization,” he said. Mr. Elias reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy is gaining favor as an approach to sterilization, including in the vaginal delivery setting.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

“[It is] probably the newest thing on the block ... this is becoming super widespread,” Eve Espey, MD, said of the procedure during a contraceptive update at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Although evidence directly supporting bilateral salpingectomy for sterilization is lacking, there are good reasons to consider it, she said.

For example, the procedure is likely more effective than tubal ligation with no increased risk for complications, and is probably more likely to cut ovarian cancer risk than is tubal ligation, explained Dr. Espey, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the family planning fellowship at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“So we don’t actually have good [randomized controlled trials] on effectiveness for [bilateral] salpingectomy, but it is most like a partial salpingectomy, which is highly effective, so there is reason to believe that it might be more effective,” she added. The downsides are that the procedure may take longer, it may impair ovarian blood supply, and long-term population-level data on outcomes are lacking.

ACOG said in a 2015 committee opinion that when counseling women, bilateral salpingectomy can be discussed and considered “a method that provides effective contraception,” but also stressed the need for randomized controlled trials to support any related reduction in ovarian cancer risk. That opinion (#620) was replaced in April 2019 by Committee Opinion #774, which addresses opportunistic salpingectomy for epithelial ovarian cancer prevention, and which states that “the risks and benefits of salpingectomy should be discussed with patients who desire permanent sterilization.”

“[The Society of Gynecologic Oncology] is much, much more emphatic,” Dr. Espey said, citing a 2013 Clinical Practice Statement calling for discussion and consideration of risk-reducing salpingectomy in lieu of tubal ligation for women at average risk of ovarian cancer (after childbearing).

Dr. Espey also noted that during a recent grand rounds on sterilization, about 90% of participants said they were doing bilateral salpingectomy in the setting of vaginal delivery. “So I think we’re going to see this coming not just with C-section, but also with vaginal delivery.”

Dr. Espey reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy is gaining favor as an approach to sterilization, including in the vaginal delivery setting.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

“[It is] probably the newest thing on the block ... this is becoming super widespread,” Eve Espey, MD, said of the procedure during a contraceptive update at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Although evidence directly supporting bilateral salpingectomy for sterilization is lacking, there are good reasons to consider it, she said.

For example, the procedure is likely more effective than tubal ligation with no increased risk for complications, and is probably more likely to cut ovarian cancer risk than is tubal ligation, explained Dr. Espey, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the family planning fellowship at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“So we don’t actually have good [randomized controlled trials] on effectiveness for [bilateral] salpingectomy, but it is most like a partial salpingectomy, which is highly effective, so there is reason to believe that it might be more effective,” she added. The downsides are that the procedure may take longer, it may impair ovarian blood supply, and long-term population-level data on outcomes are lacking.

ACOG said in a 2015 committee opinion that when counseling women, bilateral salpingectomy can be discussed and considered “a method that provides effective contraception,” but also stressed the need for randomized controlled trials to support any related reduction in ovarian cancer risk. That opinion (#620) was replaced in April 2019 by Committee Opinion #774, which addresses opportunistic salpingectomy for epithelial ovarian cancer prevention, and which states that “the risks and benefits of salpingectomy should be discussed with patients who desire permanent sterilization.”

“[The Society of Gynecologic Oncology] is much, much more emphatic,” Dr. Espey said, citing a 2013 Clinical Practice Statement calling for discussion and consideration of risk-reducing salpingectomy in lieu of tubal ligation for women at average risk of ovarian cancer (after childbearing).

Dr. Espey also noted that during a recent grand rounds on sterilization, about 90% of participants said they were doing bilateral salpingectomy in the setting of vaginal delivery. “So I think we’re going to see this coming not just with C-section, but also with vaginal delivery.”

Dr. Espey reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy is gaining favor as an approach to sterilization, including in the vaginal delivery setting.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

“[It is] probably the newest thing on the block ... this is becoming super widespread,” Eve Espey, MD, said of the procedure during a contraceptive update at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Although evidence directly supporting bilateral salpingectomy for sterilization is lacking, there are good reasons to consider it, she said.

For example, the procedure is likely more effective than tubal ligation with no increased risk for complications, and is probably more likely to cut ovarian cancer risk than is tubal ligation, explained Dr. Espey, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the family planning fellowship at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“So we don’t actually have good [randomized controlled trials] on effectiveness for [bilateral] salpingectomy, but it is most like a partial salpingectomy, which is highly effective, so there is reason to believe that it might be more effective,” she added. The downsides are that the procedure may take longer, it may impair ovarian blood supply, and long-term population-level data on outcomes are lacking.

ACOG said in a 2015 committee opinion that when counseling women, bilateral salpingectomy can be discussed and considered “a method that provides effective contraception,” but also stressed the need for randomized controlled trials to support any related reduction in ovarian cancer risk. That opinion (#620) was replaced in April 2019 by Committee Opinion #774, which addresses opportunistic salpingectomy for epithelial ovarian cancer prevention, and which states that “the risks and benefits of salpingectomy should be discussed with patients who desire permanent sterilization.”

“[The Society of Gynecologic Oncology] is much, much more emphatic,” Dr. Espey said, citing a 2013 Clinical Practice Statement calling for discussion and consideration of risk-reducing salpingectomy in lieu of tubal ligation for women at average risk of ovarian cancer (after childbearing).

Dr. Espey also noted that during a recent grand rounds on sterilization, about 90% of participants said they were doing bilateral salpingectomy in the setting of vaginal delivery. “So I think we’re going to see this coming not just with C-section, but also with vaginal delivery.”

Dr. Espey reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Individuals with microvascular disease (MVD) showed a significantly increased risk of lower limb amputation in the absence of peripheral artery disease (PAD), according to the results of a large database analysis published online in Circulation.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

Furthermore, those who had both MVD and PAD had a greater than 20-fold increased risk of amputation than if they had either PAD or MVD alone, according to Joshua A. Beckman, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues.

“The novelty of these findings becomes clear when put into the current framework of critical limb ischemia,” they wrote.

“In a recent state of the art review of [critical limb ischemia], MVD as a whole or its components did not receive a single mention. Our work shows that MVD helps identify a population not previously considered at particularly high risk for amputation and, when added to PAD, identify a group of patients at very high risk for amputation,” they continued.

Dr. Beckman and colleagues assessed individuals in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS), a prospective longitudinal cohort of veterans. They included all VACS participants who were alive as of April 1, 2003 with the baseline as a participant’s first clinic visit on or after this date. Participants were followed from baseline to the minimum of: date of lower extremity amputation, death, or Dec. 31, 2014.

They assessed four levels of vascular involvement: neither MVD nor PAD, MVD alone, PAD alone, and MVD plus PAD, with the primary outcome being lower limb amputation, all based on a variety of measures including appropriate ICD-9 or CPT codes.

The rate of incident amputation over a median of 9.3 years of follow-up was 1.16 per 1000 person-years. At the time of amputation, retinopathy was present in 69%, nephropathy in 67%, and neuropathy in 78% of participants.

After multivariable adjustment for 216 demographic characteristics, cardiovascular disease risk factors, and other potential confounders, they found that, compared with participants without either vascular disease, the presence of MVD alone was associated with a 3.7-fold increased risk of amputation, PAD alone conferred a 13.9-fold elevated risk of amputation, and the combination of PAD and MVD was associated with a 22.7-fold increased risk of amputation.

They also found that the location of amputation also varied depending on the type of vascular disease at the time of amputation.

Participants with MVD alone accounted for 18% of all amputations, 21% of below ankle amputations, 15% of below knee amputations, and 6% of all above knee amputations. Participants with PAD alone accounted for 22% of all amputations, 17% of below ankle, 25% of below knee, and 39% of above knee amputations. The combination of MVD and PAD accounted for 45% of all amputation and caused the most amputation at all limb levels. In addition, they found a statistically significant variation in vascular involvement and level of amputation, with MVD more likely to cause a below-ankle amputation and PAD more likely to cause below- and above-knee amputations (P less than .001)

“MVD likely participates importantly in the development of adverse limb events in PAD and suggests additional patient populations who may benefit from greater foot surveillance to minimize amputation,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the American Heart Association. Dr. Beckman reported consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies and serving on the DSMC for Bayer and Novartis.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Beckman JA et al. Circulation. 2019. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.040672.

Individuals with microvascular disease (MVD) showed a significantly increased risk of lower limb amputation in the absence of peripheral artery disease (PAD), according to the results of a large database analysis published online in Circulation.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

Furthermore, those who had both MVD and PAD had a greater than 20-fold increased risk of amputation than if they had either PAD or MVD alone, according to Joshua A. Beckman, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues.

“The novelty of these findings becomes clear when put into the current framework of critical limb ischemia,” they wrote.

“In a recent state of the art review of [critical limb ischemia], MVD as a whole or its components did not receive a single mention. Our work shows that MVD helps identify a population not previously considered at particularly high risk for amputation and, when added to PAD, identify a group of patients at very high risk for amputation,” they continued.

Dr. Beckman and colleagues assessed individuals in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS), a prospective longitudinal cohort of veterans. They included all VACS participants who were alive as of April 1, 2003 with the baseline as a participant’s first clinic visit on or after this date. Participants were followed from baseline to the minimum of: date of lower extremity amputation, death, or Dec. 31, 2014.

They assessed four levels of vascular involvement: neither MVD nor PAD, MVD alone, PAD alone, and MVD plus PAD, with the primary outcome being lower limb amputation, all based on a variety of measures including appropriate ICD-9 or CPT codes.

The rate of incident amputation over a median of 9.3 years of follow-up was 1.16 per 1000 person-years. At the time of amputation, retinopathy was present in 69%, nephropathy in 67%, and neuropathy in 78% of participants.

After multivariable adjustment for 216 demographic characteristics, cardiovascular disease risk factors, and other potential confounders, they found that, compared with participants without either vascular disease, the presence of MVD alone was associated with a 3.7-fold increased risk of amputation, PAD alone conferred a 13.9-fold elevated risk of amputation, and the combination of PAD and MVD was associated with a 22.7-fold increased risk of amputation.

They also found that the location of amputation also varied depending on the type of vascular disease at the time of amputation.

Participants with MVD alone accounted for 18% of all amputations, 21% of below ankle amputations, 15% of below knee amputations, and 6% of all above knee amputations. Participants with PAD alone accounted for 22% of all amputations, 17% of below ankle, 25% of below knee, and 39% of above knee amputations. The combination of MVD and PAD accounted for 45% of all amputation and caused the most amputation at all limb levels. In addition, they found a statistically significant variation in vascular involvement and level of amputation, with MVD more likely to cause a below-ankle amputation and PAD more likely to cause below- and above-knee amputations (P less than .001)

“MVD likely participates importantly in the development of adverse limb events in PAD and suggests additional patient populations who may benefit from greater foot surveillance to minimize amputation,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the American Heart Association. Dr. Beckman reported consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies and serving on the DSMC for Bayer and Novartis.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Beckman JA et al. Circulation. 2019. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.040672.

Individuals with microvascular disease (MVD) showed a significantly increased risk of lower limb amputation in the absence of peripheral artery disease (PAD), according to the results of a large database analysis published online in Circulation.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

Furthermore, those who had both MVD and PAD had a greater than 20-fold increased risk of amputation than if they had either PAD or MVD alone, according to Joshua A. Beckman, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues.

“The novelty of these findings becomes clear when put into the current framework of critical limb ischemia,” they wrote.

“In a recent state of the art review of [critical limb ischemia], MVD as a whole or its components did not receive a single mention. Our work shows that MVD helps identify a population not previously considered at particularly high risk for amputation and, when added to PAD, identify a group of patients at very high risk for amputation,” they continued.

Dr. Beckman and colleagues assessed individuals in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS), a prospective longitudinal cohort of veterans. They included all VACS participants who were alive as of April 1, 2003 with the baseline as a participant’s first clinic visit on or after this date. Participants were followed from baseline to the minimum of: date of lower extremity amputation, death, or Dec. 31, 2014.

They assessed four levels of vascular involvement: neither MVD nor PAD, MVD alone, PAD alone, and MVD plus PAD, with the primary outcome being lower limb amputation, all based on a variety of measures including appropriate ICD-9 or CPT codes.

The rate of incident amputation over a median of 9.3 years of follow-up was 1.16 per 1000 person-years. At the time of amputation, retinopathy was present in 69%, nephropathy in 67%, and neuropathy in 78% of participants.

After multivariable adjustment for 216 demographic characteristics, cardiovascular disease risk factors, and other potential confounders, they found that, compared with participants without either vascular disease, the presence of MVD alone was associated with a 3.7-fold increased risk of amputation, PAD alone conferred a 13.9-fold elevated risk of amputation, and the combination of PAD and MVD was associated with a 22.7-fold increased risk of amputation.

They also found that the location of amputation also varied depending on the type of vascular disease at the time of amputation.

Participants with MVD alone accounted for 18% of all amputations, 21% of below ankle amputations, 15% of below knee amputations, and 6% of all above knee amputations. Participants with PAD alone accounted for 22% of all amputations, 17% of below ankle, 25% of below knee, and 39% of above knee amputations. The combination of MVD and PAD accounted for 45% of all amputation and caused the most amputation at all limb levels. In addition, they found a statistically significant variation in vascular involvement and level of amputation, with MVD more likely to cause a below-ankle amputation and PAD more likely to cause below- and above-knee amputations (P less than .001)

“MVD likely participates importantly in the development of adverse limb events in PAD and suggests additional patient populations who may benefit from greater foot surveillance to minimize amputation,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the American Heart Association. Dr. Beckman reported consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies and serving on the DSMC for Bayer and Novartis.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Beckman JA et al. Circulation. 2019. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.040672.

Postpartum blood loss greater than 1,000 mL occurs in approximately 7% of cesarean delivery (CD) procedures with the administration of oxytocin alone or oxytocin plus misoprostol.¹ Rapid identification and control of hemorrhage is essential to avoid escalating coagulopathy and maternal instability. In cases of excess blood loss, clinicians request assistance from colleagues, endeavor to identify the cause of the bleeding, utilize additional uterotonics (methylergonovine, carboprost, misoprostol), perform uterine massage, warm the uterus, repair lacerations and replace blood products. If blood loss continues after these initial measures, obstetricians may consider uterine artery embolization (UAE) or hysterectomy. While UAE is a highly effective measure to control postpartum hemorrhage, it is not available at all obstetric hospitals. Even when available, there may be a significant time delay from the decision to consult an interventional radiologist to completion of the embolization procedure.

To avoid the permanent sterilization of a hysterectomy, or to obtain time for UAE or correction of coagulopathy, additional uterus-sparing surgical interventions should be considered. These include: 1) progressive uterine devascularization, 2) uterine compression sutures, and 3) intrauterine balloon tamponade. One caveat is that there is very little high-quality evidence from randomized trials to compare the efficacy or outcome of these uterine-sparing surgical interventions. Most of our evidence is based on limited case series and expert recommendations.

Uterine devascularization

Many techniques have been described for performing progressive uterine devascularization. Most experts recommend first performing an O’Leary suture, ligating both ascending uterine arteries and accompanying veins at a point approximately 2 cm closer to the cervix than the uterine incision (FIGURE 1). An absorbable suture is passed through the myometrium, being sure to remain medial to the ascending uterine vessels. Clear visualization of the vessels posteriorly is essential, usually necessitating exteriorization of the uterus. The needle is then driven through an avascular space in the broad ligament close to the uterine vessels, and the suture is tied down. Ureteral injury can be avoided by extending the bladder flap laterally to the level of the round ligament and mobilizing the vesicouterine peritoneum inferiorly, with the suture placed directly on endopelvic fascia. If necessary, the utero-ovarian ligament can be ligated in a second step, just below the uterine-tubal junction. The progressive devascularization intervention can be limited to the first or second steps if bleeding is well controlled.

In our experience, bilateral O’Leary sutures are highly effective at controlling ongoing uterine bleeding, particularly from the lower uterine segment. In the event that they are not successful, placement does not preclude later use of UAE.

Uterine compression sutures

Compression sutures are most often used in the setting of refractory uterine atony. They also may be helpful for controlling focal atony or bleeding from a placental implantation site. More than a dozen different types of uterine compression sutures have been reported in the literature; the B-Lynch, Hyman, and Pereira sutures are most commonly performed.²

Continue to: The B-Lynch suture³ is performed with...

1. Take bites on either side of the right edge of the hysterotomy incision (A and B). Place these bites approximately 3 cm from the edge of the hysterotomy incision.
2. Loop the suture around the fundus and reenter the uterus through the posterior uterine wall at point C, which is directly posterior to point B.
3. Exit the posterior wall of the uterus through point D.
4. Loop the suture over the uterine fundus.
5. Anchor the suture in the lower uterine segment by taking bites on either side of the left edge of the uterine hysterotomy incision (points E and F).
6. Pull the two ends of the suture tight while an assistant squeezes the uterus to aid compression.
7. Place a surgical knot to secure the suture.
8. Close the hysterotomy incision.

The B-Lynch suture was described with an open hysterotomy incision,³ which avoids closing off the lower uterine segment. We have successfully performed a modific tion on a closed uterus, taking care to not drive the lower uterine sutures through both the anterior and posterior walls.

The Hayman suture⁴ was proposed with two important modifications: The suture is placed through-and-through the lower uterine segment with a closed hysterotomy, and the suture can be fixed to the uterine fundus to avoid slippage. This vertical compression suture (FIGURE 3) is performed by placing two to four vertical #2 chromic sutures directly through the anterior to posterior uterine wall, tying the suture on the fundus using a 3-throw technique to minimize slippage of the first knot. In the original description, Hayman also described injecting carboprost into the uterine fundus to stimulate uterine contraction and regularly inspecting the vagina to evaluate the extent of continued bleeding.⁴

Intrauterine balloon tamponade

Many types of balloon tamponade devices have been developed, ranging from the humble condom tied to a Foley urinary catheter to the sophisticated Bakri^6,7 and Belfort-Dildy⁸ balloon tamponade devices. Intrauterine balloon tamponade is highly effective in controlling excess bleeding following vaginal delivery and less effective when used following a CD. In one study of 226 women with postpartum hemorrhage treated with a Bakri balloon the success rate was 89% and 66% following vaginal delivery and CD, respectively.⁹

Continue to: When using balloon tamponade during a CD...

When using balloon tamponade during a CD, some experts recommend partially closing the transverse hysterotomy incision by placing sutures to close edges of the hysterotomy, followed by insertion of the balloon into the uterus and the stem through the cervix into the vagina. Attachment of the stem to a collection bag should help to quickly assess the rate of blood loss. The balloon is inflated after the hysterotomy is closed. Following inflation of an intrauterine balloon, blood loss should decrease almost immediately.¹⁰ If excessive blood loss continues for more than 10 minutes, additional uterus-sparing interventions or hysterectomy may be required. Following successful balloon tamponade, the balloon may be deflated 12 to 24 hours postpartum when maternal stabilization and normal coagulation have been achieved. If bleeding resumes, the balloon may be reinflated and UAE should be considered.

Combined interventions: Uterine devascularization plus uterine compression sutures

There are no high-quality randomized trials comparing the devascularization plus compression sutures versus a single intervention alone, and case series and case reports on this topic are lacking. If uterine devascularization alone does not sufficiently control bleeding, adding a uterine compression stitch might resolve the hemorrhage. Both procedures require only suture material, which is immediately available in all operating rooms. Hence, this combination of interventions can be executed quickly.

Uterine sandwich: Intrauterine balloon tamponade plus uterine compression sutures

CD for placenta previa is associated with an increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage, with bleeding from the lower uterine segment greatly contributing to total blood loss. While O’Leary sutures can stem the flow of bleeding in this area, the use of both an intrauterine balloon tamponade plus uterine compression sutures—a so-called uterine sandwich—may result in maximal reduction in blood loss.^11,12

In one randomized trial, 106 women undergoing CD for a placenta previa were randomly assigned to uterine devascularization alone or double transverse compression suture at the lower uterine segment plus intrauterine Foley catheter balloon. Compared with women receiving devascularization alone, the combination of compression suture plus intrauterine balloon significantly reduced blood loss (1,350 mL vs 750 mL, respectively; P = .0001).¹³

Underutilization of uterine-sparing interventions

In a nationwide study of 50 consecutive Danish peripartum hysterectomy cases, an audit committee concluded that 24% of the hysterectomies could have been avoided, and an additional 30% of hysterectomies might have been avoided, if uterine-sparing surgical interventions had been utilized.¹⁴ In a recent survey of senior ObGyn residents in France, greater than 70% of respondents reported that they had not mastered uterine-sparing techniques of uterine devascularization and compression sutures, nor peripartum hysterectomy.¹⁵ Together, these studies suggest that uterine-sparing interventions are underutilized and that with more training and practice clinicians would become facile with these interventions.

The cornerstones of uterine-sparing surgical interventions are simplicity, safety, and efficacy. If a combination of pharmacologic and multiple uterine-sparing surgical interventions do not control the bleeding, the patient may need an emergency hysterectomy or, if stable, a UAE. While devascularization and compression sutures are described during CD, it is reasonable to use them after vaginal delivery if the next reasonable step would be a laparotomy. When you next face the clinical challenge of a postpartum hemorrhage, rapid recognition of excess blood loss, early identification of the cause, swift pharmacologic treatment, and timely escalation of surgical interventions will help you reduce the risk of hysterectomy and severe maternal morbidity.

Postpartum blood loss greater than 1,000 mL occurs in approximately 7% of cesarean delivery (CD) procedures with the administration of oxytocin alone or oxytocin plus misoprostol.¹ Rapid identification and control of hemorrhage is essential to avoid escalating coagulopathy and maternal instability. In cases of excess blood loss, clinicians request assistance from colleagues, endeavor to identify the cause of the bleeding, utilize additional uterotonics (methylergonovine, carboprost, misoprostol), perform uterine massage, warm the uterus, repair lacerations and replace blood products. If blood loss continues after these initial measures, obstetricians may consider uterine artery embolization (UAE) or hysterectomy. While UAE is a highly effective measure to control postpartum hemorrhage, it is not available at all obstetric hospitals. Even when available, there may be a significant time delay from the decision to consult an interventional radiologist to completion of the embolization procedure.

To avoid the permanent sterilization of a hysterectomy, or to obtain time for UAE or correction of coagulopathy, additional uterus-sparing surgical interventions should be considered. These include: 1) progressive uterine devascularization, 2) uterine compression sutures, and 3) intrauterine balloon tamponade. One caveat is that there is very little high-quality evidence from randomized trials to compare the efficacy or outcome of these uterine-sparing surgical interventions. Most of our evidence is based on limited case series and expert recommendations.

Uterine devascularization

Many techniques have been described for performing progressive uterine devascularization. Most experts recommend first performing an O’Leary suture, ligating both ascending uterine arteries and accompanying veins at a point approximately 2 cm closer to the cervix than the uterine incision (FIGURE 1). An absorbable suture is passed through the myometrium, being sure to remain medial to the ascending uterine vessels. Clear visualization of the vessels posteriorly is essential, usually necessitating exteriorization of the uterus. The needle is then driven through an avascular space in the broad ligament close to the uterine vessels, and the suture is tied down. Ureteral injury can be avoided by extending the bladder flap laterally to the level of the round ligament and mobilizing the vesicouterine peritoneum inferiorly, with the suture placed directly on endopelvic fascia. If necessary, the utero-ovarian ligament can be ligated in a second step, just below the uterine-tubal junction. The progressive devascularization intervention can be limited to the first or second steps if bleeding is well controlled.

In our experience, bilateral O’Leary sutures are highly effective at controlling ongoing uterine bleeding, particularly from the lower uterine segment. In the event that they are not successful, placement does not preclude later use of UAE.

Uterine compression sutures

Compression sutures are most often used in the setting of refractory uterine atony. They also may be helpful for controlling focal atony or bleeding from a placental implantation site. More than a dozen different types of uterine compression sutures have been reported in the literature; the B-Lynch, Hyman, and Pereira sutures are most commonly performed.²

Continue to: The B-Lynch suture³ is performed with...

1. Take bites on either side of the right edge of the hysterotomy incision (A and B). Place these bites approximately 3 cm from the edge of the hysterotomy incision.
2. Loop the suture around the fundus and reenter the uterus through the posterior uterine wall at point C, which is directly posterior to point B.
3. Exit the posterior wall of the uterus through point D.
4. Loop the suture over the uterine fundus.
5. Anchor the suture in the lower uterine segment by taking bites on either side of the left edge of the uterine hysterotomy incision (points E and F).
6. Pull the two ends of the suture tight while an assistant squeezes the uterus to aid compression.
7. Place a surgical knot to secure the suture.
8. Close the hysterotomy incision.

The B-Lynch suture was described with an open hysterotomy incision,³ which avoids closing off the lower uterine segment. We have successfully performed a modific tion on a closed uterus, taking care to not drive the lower uterine sutures through both the anterior and posterior walls.

The Hayman suture⁴ was proposed with two important modifications: The suture is placed through-and-through the lower uterine segment with a closed hysterotomy, and the suture can be fixed to the uterine fundus to avoid slippage. This vertical compression suture (FIGURE 3) is performed by placing two to four vertical #2 chromic sutures directly through the anterior to posterior uterine wall, tying the suture on the fundus using a 3-throw technique to minimize slippage of the first knot. In the original description, Hayman also described injecting carboprost into the uterine fundus to stimulate uterine contraction and regularly inspecting the vagina to evaluate the extent of continued bleeding.⁴

Intrauterine balloon tamponade

Many types of balloon tamponade devices have been developed, ranging from the humble condom tied to a Foley urinary catheter to the sophisticated Bakri^6,7 and Belfort-Dildy⁸ balloon tamponade devices. Intrauterine balloon tamponade is highly effective in controlling excess bleeding following vaginal delivery and less effective when used following a CD. In one study of 226 women with postpartum hemorrhage treated with a Bakri balloon the success rate was 89% and 66% following vaginal delivery and CD, respectively.⁹

Continue to: When using balloon tamponade during a CD...

When using balloon tamponade during a CD, some experts recommend partially closing the transverse hysterotomy incision by placing sutures to close edges of the hysterotomy, followed by insertion of the balloon into the uterus and the stem through the cervix into the vagina. Attachment of the stem to a collection bag should help to quickly assess the rate of blood loss. The balloon is inflated after the hysterotomy is closed. Following inflation of an intrauterine balloon, blood loss should decrease almost immediately.¹⁰ If excessive blood loss continues for more than 10 minutes, additional uterus-sparing interventions or hysterectomy may be required. Following successful balloon tamponade, the balloon may be deflated 12 to 24 hours postpartum when maternal stabilization and normal coagulation have been achieved. If bleeding resumes, the balloon may be reinflated and UAE should be considered.

Combined interventions: Uterine devascularization plus uterine compression sutures

There are no high-quality randomized trials comparing the devascularization plus compression sutures versus a single intervention alone, and case series and case reports on this topic are lacking. If uterine devascularization alone does not sufficiently control bleeding, adding a uterine compression stitch might resolve the hemorrhage. Both procedures require only suture material, which is immediately available in all operating rooms. Hence, this combination of interventions can be executed quickly.

Uterine sandwich: Intrauterine balloon tamponade plus uterine compression sutures

CD for placenta previa is associated with an increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage, with bleeding from the lower uterine segment greatly contributing to total blood loss. While O’Leary sutures can stem the flow of bleeding in this area, the use of both an intrauterine balloon tamponade plus uterine compression sutures—a so-called uterine sandwich—may result in maximal reduction in blood loss.^11,12

In one randomized trial, 106 women undergoing CD for a placenta previa were randomly assigned to uterine devascularization alone or double transverse compression suture at the lower uterine segment plus intrauterine Foley catheter balloon. Compared with women receiving devascularization alone, the combination of compression suture plus intrauterine balloon significantly reduced blood loss (1,350 mL vs 750 mL, respectively; P = .0001).¹³

Underutilization of uterine-sparing interventions

In a nationwide study of 50 consecutive Danish peripartum hysterectomy cases, an audit committee concluded that 24% of the hysterectomies could have been avoided, and an additional 30% of hysterectomies might have been avoided, if uterine-sparing surgical interventions had been utilized.¹⁴ In a recent survey of senior ObGyn residents in France, greater than 70% of respondents reported that they had not mastered uterine-sparing techniques of uterine devascularization and compression sutures, nor peripartum hysterectomy.¹⁵ Together, these studies suggest that uterine-sparing interventions are underutilized and that with more training and practice clinicians would become facile with these interventions.

The cornerstones of uterine-sparing surgical interventions are simplicity, safety, and efficacy. If a combination of pharmacologic and multiple uterine-sparing surgical interventions do not control the bleeding, the patient may need an emergency hysterectomy or, if stable, a UAE. While devascularization and compression sutures are described during CD, it is reasonable to use them after vaginal delivery if the next reasonable step would be a laparotomy. When you next face the clinical challenge of a postpartum hemorrhage, rapid recognition of excess blood loss, early identification of the cause, swift pharmacologic treatment, and timely escalation of surgical interventions will help you reduce the risk of hysterectomy and severe maternal morbidity.

Postpartum blood loss greater than 1,000 mL occurs in approximately 7% of cesarean delivery (CD) procedures with the administration of oxytocin alone or oxytocin plus misoprostol.¹ Rapid identification and control of hemorrhage is essential to avoid escalating coagulopathy and maternal instability. In cases of excess blood loss, clinicians request assistance from colleagues, endeavor to identify the cause of the bleeding, utilize additional uterotonics (methylergonovine, carboprost, misoprostol), perform uterine massage, warm the uterus, repair lacerations and replace blood products. If blood loss continues after these initial measures, obstetricians may consider uterine artery embolization (UAE) or hysterectomy. While UAE is a highly effective measure to control postpartum hemorrhage, it is not available at all obstetric hospitals. Even when available, there may be a significant time delay from the decision to consult an interventional radiologist to completion of the embolization procedure.

To avoid the permanent sterilization of a hysterectomy, or to obtain time for UAE or correction of coagulopathy, additional uterus-sparing surgical interventions should be considered. These include: 1) progressive uterine devascularization, 2) uterine compression sutures, and 3) intrauterine balloon tamponade. One caveat is that there is very little high-quality evidence from randomized trials to compare the efficacy or outcome of these uterine-sparing surgical interventions. Most of our evidence is based on limited case series and expert recommendations.

Uterine devascularization

Many techniques have been described for performing progressive uterine devascularization. Most experts recommend first performing an O’Leary suture, ligating both ascending uterine arteries and accompanying veins at a point approximately 2 cm closer to the cervix than the uterine incision (FIGURE 1). An absorbable suture is passed through the myometrium, being sure to remain medial to the ascending uterine vessels. Clear visualization of the vessels posteriorly is essential, usually necessitating exteriorization of the uterus. The needle is then driven through an avascular space in the broad ligament close to the uterine vessels, and the suture is tied down. Ureteral injury can be avoided by extending the bladder flap laterally to the level of the round ligament and mobilizing the vesicouterine peritoneum inferiorly, with the suture placed directly on endopelvic fascia. If necessary, the utero-ovarian ligament can be ligated in a second step, just below the uterine-tubal junction. The progressive devascularization intervention can be limited to the first or second steps if bleeding is well controlled.

In our experience, bilateral O’Leary sutures are highly effective at controlling ongoing uterine bleeding, particularly from the lower uterine segment. In the event that they are not successful, placement does not preclude later use of UAE.

Uterine compression sutures

Compression sutures are most often used in the setting of refractory uterine atony. They also may be helpful for controlling focal atony or bleeding from a placental implantation site. More than a dozen different types of uterine compression sutures have been reported in the literature; the B-Lynch, Hyman, and Pereira sutures are most commonly performed.²

Continue to: The B-Lynch suture³ is performed with...

1. Take bites on either side of the right edge of the hysterotomy incision (A and B). Place these bites approximately 3 cm from the edge of the hysterotomy incision.
2. Loop the suture around the fundus and reenter the uterus through the posterior uterine wall at point C, which is directly posterior to point B.
3. Exit the posterior wall of the uterus through point D.
4. Loop the suture over the uterine fundus.
5. Anchor the suture in the lower uterine segment by taking bites on either side of the left edge of the uterine hysterotomy incision (points E and F).
6. Pull the two ends of the suture tight while an assistant squeezes the uterus to aid compression.
7. Place a surgical knot to secure the suture.
8. Close the hysterotomy incision.

The B-Lynch suture was described with an open hysterotomy incision,³ which avoids closing off the lower uterine segment. We have successfully performed a modific tion on a closed uterus, taking care to not drive the lower uterine sutures through both the anterior and posterior walls.

The Hayman suture⁴ was proposed with two important modifications: The suture is placed through-and-through the lower uterine segment with a closed hysterotomy, and the suture can be fixed to the uterine fundus to avoid slippage. This vertical compression suture (FIGURE 3) is performed by placing two to four vertical #2 chromic sutures directly through the anterior to posterior uterine wall, tying the suture on the fundus using a 3-throw technique to minimize slippage of the first knot. In the original description, Hayman also described injecting carboprost into the uterine fundus to stimulate uterine contraction and regularly inspecting the vagina to evaluate the extent of continued bleeding.⁴

Intrauterine balloon tamponade

Many types of balloon tamponade devices have been developed, ranging from the humble condom tied to a Foley urinary catheter to the sophisticated Bakri^6,7 and Belfort-Dildy⁸ balloon tamponade devices. Intrauterine balloon tamponade is highly effective in controlling excess bleeding following vaginal delivery and less effective when used following a CD. In one study of 226 women with postpartum hemorrhage treated with a Bakri balloon the success rate was 89% and 66% following vaginal delivery and CD, respectively.⁹

Continue to: When using balloon tamponade during a CD...

When using balloon tamponade during a CD, some experts recommend partially closing the transverse hysterotomy incision by placing sutures to close edges of the hysterotomy, followed by insertion of the balloon into the uterus and the stem through the cervix into the vagina. Attachment of the stem to a collection bag should help to quickly assess the rate of blood loss. The balloon is inflated after the hysterotomy is closed. Following inflation of an intrauterine balloon, blood loss should decrease almost immediately.¹⁰ If excessive blood loss continues for more than 10 minutes, additional uterus-sparing interventions or hysterectomy may be required. Following successful balloon tamponade, the balloon may be deflated 12 to 24 hours postpartum when maternal stabilization and normal coagulation have been achieved. If bleeding resumes, the balloon may be reinflated and UAE should be considered.

Combined interventions: Uterine devascularization plus uterine compression sutures

There are no high-quality randomized trials comparing the devascularization plus compression sutures versus a single intervention alone, and case series and case reports on this topic are lacking. If uterine devascularization alone does not sufficiently control bleeding, adding a uterine compression stitch might resolve the hemorrhage. Both procedures require only suture material, which is immediately available in all operating rooms. Hence, this combination of interventions can be executed quickly.

Uterine sandwich: Intrauterine balloon tamponade plus uterine compression sutures

CD for placenta previa is associated with an increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage, with bleeding from the lower uterine segment greatly contributing to total blood loss. While O’Leary sutures can stem the flow of bleeding in this area, the use of both an intrauterine balloon tamponade plus uterine compression sutures—a so-called uterine sandwich—may result in maximal reduction in blood loss.^11,12

In one randomized trial, 106 women undergoing CD for a placenta previa were randomly assigned to uterine devascularization alone or double transverse compression suture at the lower uterine segment plus intrauterine Foley catheter balloon. Compared with women receiving devascularization alone, the combination of compression suture plus intrauterine balloon significantly reduced blood loss (1,350 mL vs 750 mL, respectively; P = .0001).¹³

Underutilization of uterine-sparing interventions

In a nationwide study of 50 consecutive Danish peripartum hysterectomy cases, an audit committee concluded that 24% of the hysterectomies could have been avoided, and an additional 30% of hysterectomies might have been avoided, if uterine-sparing surgical interventions had been utilized.¹⁴ In a recent survey of senior ObGyn residents in France, greater than 70% of respondents reported that they had not mastered uterine-sparing techniques of uterine devascularization and compression sutures, nor peripartum hysterectomy.¹⁵ Together, these studies suggest that uterine-sparing interventions are underutilized and that with more training and practice clinicians would become facile with these interventions.

The cornerstones of uterine-sparing surgical interventions are simplicity, safety, and efficacy. If a combination of pharmacologic and multiple uterine-sparing surgical interventions do not control the bleeding, the patient may need an emergency hysterectomy or, if stable, a UAE. While devascularization and compression sutures are described during CD, it is reasonable to use them after vaginal delivery if the next reasonable step would be a laparotomy. When you next face the clinical challenge of a postpartum hemorrhage, rapid recognition of excess blood loss, early identification of the cause, swift pharmacologic treatment, and timely escalation of surgical interventions will help you reduce the risk of hysterectomy and severe maternal morbidity.

CASE Complications with mesh placement for SUI

A 47-year-old woman (G4 P3013) presents 5 months posthysterectomy with evidence of urinary tract infection (UTI). Escherichia coli is isolated, and she responds to antibiotic therapy.

Her surgical history includes a mini-sling procedure using a needleless device and mesh placement in order to correct progressive worsening of loss of urine when coughing and sneezing. She also reported slight pelvic pain, dysuria, and urgency upon urination at that time. After subsequent development of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), she underwent the vaginal hysterectomy.

Following her UTI treatment, a host of problems occur for the patient, including pelvic pain and dyspareunia. Her male partner reports “feeling something during sex,” especially at the anterior vaginal wall. A plain radiograph of the abdomen identifies a 2 cm x 2 cm stone over the vaginal mesh. In consultation with female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery subspecialists, lithotripsy is performed, with the stone fragmented. The patient remains symptomatic, however.

The mesh is noted to be eroding through the vaginal wall. An attempt is made to excise the mesh, initially via transuretheral resection, then through a laparoscopic approach. Due to the mesh being embedded in the tissue, however, an open approach is undertaken. Extensive excision of the mesh and stone fragments is performed. Postoperatively, the patient reports “dry vagina,” with no other genitourinary complaints.

The patient sues. She sues the mesh manufacturer. She also seeks to sue the gynecologist who placed the sling and vaginal mesh (as she says she was not informed of “all the risks” of vaginal mesh placement. She is part of a class action lawsuit, along with thousands of other women.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

The device manufacturer settled out of court with the class action suit. (The gynecologist was never formally a defendant because the patient/plaintiff was advised to “drop the physician from the suit.”) The attorneys representing the class action received 40% of the award plus presented costs for the representation. The class as a whole received a little more than 50% of the negotiated award. The patient in this case received $60,000.

Medical background

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a prevalent condition; it affects 35% of women.¹ Overall, 80% of women aged 80 or younger will undergo some form of surgery for POP during their lifetime.² The pathophysiology of SUI includes urethral hypermobility and intrinsic sphincter deficiency.³

Surgical correction for urinary incontinence: A timeline

Use of the gracilis muscle flap to surgically correct urinary incontinence was introduced in 1907. This technique has been replaced by today’s more common Burch procedure, which was first described in 1961. Surgical mesh use dates back to the 1950s, when it was primarily used for abdominal hernia repair. Tension-free tape was introduced in 1995.^4-6

Continue to: In the late 1990s the US Food and Drug Administration...

In the late 1990s the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permitted use of the first transvaginal meshes, which were designed to treat SUI—the midurethral sling. These mesh slings were so successful that similar meshes were developed to treat POP.⁷ Almost immediately there were problems with the new POP devices, and 3 years later Boston Scientific recalled its device.⁸ Nonetheless, the FDA cleared more than 150 devices using surgical mesh for urogynecologic indications (FIGURE).⁹

Mesh complications

Managing complications from intravesical mesh is a clinically challenging problem. Bladder perforation, stone formation, and penetration through the vagina can occur. Bladder-related complications can manifest as recurrent UTIs and obstructive urinary symptoms, especially in association with stone formation. From the gynecologic perspective, the more common complications with mesh utilization are pelvic pain, groin pain, dyspareunia, contracture and scarring of mesh, and narrowing of the vaginal canal.¹⁰ Mesh erosion problems will occur in an estimated 10% to 25% of transvaginal mesh POP implants.¹¹

In 2008, a comparison of transvaginal mesh to native tissue repair (suture-based) or other (biologic) grafts was published.¹² The bottom line: there is insufficient evidence to suggest that transvaginal mesh significantly improves outcomes for both posterior and apical defects.

Legal background

Mesh used for surgical purposes is a medical device, which legally is a product—a special product to be sure, but a product nonetheless. Products are subject to product liability rules. Mesh is also subject to an FDA regulatory system. We will briefly discuss products liability and the regulation of devices, both of which have played important roles in mesh-related injuries.

Products liability

As a general matter, defective products subject their manufacturer and seller to liability. There are several legal theories regarding product liability: negligence (in which the defect was caused through carelessness), breach of warranty or guarantee (in addition to express warranties, there are a number of implied warranties for products, including that it is fit for its intended purpose), and strict liability (there was a defect in the product, but it may not have been because of negligence). The product may be defective in the way it was designed, manufactured, or packaged, or it may be defective because adequate instructions and warning were not given to consumers.

Of course, not every product involved in an injury is defective—most automobile accidents, for example, are not the result of any defect in the automobile. In medicine, almost no product (device or pharmaceutical) is entirely safe. In some ways they are unavoidably unsafe and bound to cause some injuries. But when injuries are caused by a defect in the product (design or manufacturing defect or failure to warn), then there may be products liability. Most products liability cases arise under state law.

FDA’s device regulations

Both drugs and medical devices are subject to FDA review and ordinarily require some form of FDA clearance before they may be marketed. In the case of devices, the FDA has 3 classes, with an increase in risk to the user from Class I to III. Various levels of FDA review are required before marketing of the device is permitted, again with the intensity of review increasing from I to III as follows:

• Class I devices pose the least risk, have the least regulation, and are subject to general controls (ie, manufacturing and marketing practices).
• Class II devices pose slightly higher risks and are subject to special controls in addition to the criteria for Class I.
• Class III devices pose the most risk to patients and require premarket approval (scientific review and studies are required to ensure efficacy and safety).¹³

Continue to: There are a number of limits on manufacturer liability for defective devices...

There are a number of limits on manufacturer liability for defective devices. For Class III devices, the thorough FDA review of the safety of a device may limit the ability of an injured patient to sue based on the state product liability laws.¹⁴ For the most part, this “preemption” of state law has not played a major role in mesh litigation because they were initially classified as Class II devices which did not require or include a detailed FDA review.¹⁵

The duty to warn of the dangers and risk of medical devices means that manufacturers (or sellers) of devices are obligated to inform health care providers and other medical personnel of the risks. Unlike other manufacturers, device manufacturers do not have to directly warn consumers—because physicians deal directly with patients and prescribe the devices. Therefore, the health care providers, rather than the manufacturers, are obligated to inform the patient.¹⁶ This is known as the learned intermediary rule. Manufacturers may still be liable for failure to warn if they do not convey to health care providers proper warnings.

Manufacturers and sellers are not the only entities that may be subject to liability caused by medical devices. Hospitals or other entities that stock and care for devices are responsible for maintaining the safety and functionality of devices in their care.

Health care providers also may be responsible for injuries from medical devices. Generally, that liability is based on negligence. Negligence may relate to selecting an improper device, installing or using it incorrectly, or failing to give the patient adequate information (or informed consent) about the device and alternatives to it.¹⁷

A look at the mesh mess

There are a lot of distressing problems and professional disappointments in dissecting the “mesh mess,” including a failure of the FDA to regulate effectively, the extended sale and promotion of intrinsic sphincter deficiency mesh products, the improper use of mesh by physicians even after the risks were known, and, in some instances, the taking advantage of injured patients by attorneys and businesses.¹⁸ A lot of finger pointing also has occurred.¹⁹ We will recount some of the lowlights of this unfortunate tale.

Continue to: The FDA, in the 1990s, classified the first POP and SUI mesh...

The FDA, in the 1990s, classified the first POP and SUI mesh as Class II after deciding these products were “substantially equivalent” to older surgical meshes. This, of course, proved not to be the case.²⁰ The FDA started receiving thousands of reports of adverse events and, in 2008, warned physicians to be vigilant for adverse events from the mesh. The FDA’s notification recommendations regarding mesh included the following¹³:

• Obtain specialized training for each mesh implantation technique, and be cognizant of risks.

• Be vigilant for potential adverse events from mesh, including erosion and infection.
• Be observant for complications associated with tools of transvaginal placement (ie, bowel, bladder, and vessel perforation).
• Inform patients that implantation of mesh is permanent and complications may require additional surgery for correction.
• Be aware that complications may affect quality of life—eg, pain with intercourse, scarring, and vaginal wall narrowing (POP repair).
• Provide patients with written copy of patient labeling from the surgical mesh manufacturer.

In 2011, the FDA issued a formal warning to providers that transvaginal mesh posed meaningful risks beyond nonmesh surgery. The FDA’s bulletin draws attention to how the mesh is placed more so than the material per se.^19,21 Mesh was a Class II device for sacrocolpopexy or midurethral sling and, similarly, the transvaginal kit was also a Class II device. Overall, use of mesh midurethral slings has been well received as treatment for SUI. The FDA also accepted it for POP, however, but with increasingly strong warnings. The FDA’s 2011 communication stated, “This update is to inform you that serious complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP are not rare….Furthermore, it is not clear that transvaginal POP repair with mesh is more effective than traditional non-mesh repair in all patients with POP and it may expose patients to greater risk.”^7,13

In 2014 the FDA proposed reclassifying mesh to a Class III device, which would require that manufacturers obtain approval, based on safety and effectiveness, before selling mesh. Not until 2016 did the FDA actually reclassify the mess as Class III. Of course, during this time, mesh manufacturers were well aware of the substantial problems the products were causing.¹³

After serious problems with mesh became well known, and especially after FDA warnings, the use of mesh other than as indicated by the FDA was increasingly risky from a legal (as well as a health) standpoint. As long as mesh was still on the market, of course, it was available for use. But use of mesh for POP procedures without good indications in a way that was contrary to the FDA warnings might well be negligent.

Changes to informed consent

The FDA warnings also should have changed the informed consent for the use of mesh.²² Informed consent commonly consists of the following:

1. informing the patient of the proposed procedure
2. describing risks (and benefits) of the proposed process
3. explaining reasonable alternatives
4. noting the risks of taking no action.

Information that is material to a decision should be disclosed. If mesh were going to be used, after the problems of mesh were known and identified by the FDA (other than midurethral slings as treatment of SUI), the risks should have been clearly identified for patients, with alternatives outlined. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics has 8 fundamental concepts with regard to informed consent that are worth keeping in mind²³:

1. Obtaining informed consent for medical treatment and research is an ethical requirement.
2. The process expresses respect for the patient as a person.
3. It protects patients against unwanted treatment and allows patients’ active involvement in medical planning and care.
4. Communication is of paramount importance.
5. Informed consent is a process and not a signature on a form.
6. A commitment to informed consent and to provision of medical benefit to the patient are linked to provision of care.
7. If obtaining informed consent is impossible, a designated surrogate should be identified representing the patient’s best interests.
8. Knowledge on the part of the provider regarding state and federal requirements is necessary.

Continue to: Lawsuits line up...

Lawsuits line up

The widespread use of a product with a significant percentage of injuries and eventually with warnings about injuries from use sounds like the formula for a lot of lawsuits. This certainly has happened. A large number of suits—both class actions and individual actions—were filed as a result of mesh injuries.²⁴ These suits were overwhelmingly against the manufacturer, although some included physicians.⁷ Device makers are more attractive defendants for several reasons. First, they have very deep pockets. In addition, jurors are generally much less sympathetic to large companies than to doctors. Large class actions meant that there were many different patients among the plaintiffs, and medical malpractice claims in most states have a number of trial difficulties not present in other product liability cases. Common defendants have included Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

Some of the cases resulted in very large damage awards against manufacturers based on various kinds of product(s) liability. Many other cases were settled or tried with relatively small damages. There were, in addition, a number of instances in which the manufacturers were not liable. Of the 32 plaintiffs who have gone to trial thus far, 24 have obtained verdicts totaling $345 million ($14 million average). The cases that have settled have been for much less—perhaps $60,000 on average. A number of cases remain unresolved. To date, the estimate is that 100,000 women have received almost $8 billion from 7 device manufacturers to resolve claims.²⁵

Some state attorneys general have gotten into the process as well. Attorneys general from California, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Washington have filed lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson, claiming that they deceived doctors and patients about the risks of their pelvic mesh. The states claim that marketing and instructional literature should have contained more information about the risks. Some physicians in these states have expressed concern that these lawsuit risks may do more harm than good because the suits conflate mesh used to treat incontinence with the more risky mesh for POP.²⁶

The “ugly” of class action lawsuits

We have discussed both the sad (the injuries to patients) and the bad (the slow regulatory response and continuing injuries). (The ethics of the marketing by the manufacturers might also be raised as the bad.²⁷) Next, let’s look briefly at the ugly.

Some of the patients affected by mesh injuries have been victimized a second time by medical “lenders” and some of their attorneys. Press reports describe patients with modest awards paying 40% in attorney fees (on the high side for personal injury settlements) plus extravagant costs—leaving modest amounts of actual recovery.²⁵

Worse still, a process of “medical lending” has arisen in mesh cases.²⁸ Medical lenders may contact mesh victims offering to pay up front for surgery to remove mesh, and then place a lien against the settlement for repayment at a much higher rate. They might pay the surgeon $2,500 for the surgery, but place a lien on the settlement amount for $60,000.^29,30 In addition, there are allegations that lawyers may recruit the doctors to overstate the injuries or do unnecessary removal surgery because that will likely up the award.³¹ A quick Google search indicates dozens of offers of cash now for your mesh lawsuit (transvaginal and hernia repair).

The patient in our hypothetical case at the beginning had a fairly typical experience. She was a member of a class filing and received a modest settlement. The attorneys representing the class were allowed by the court to charge substantial attorneys’ fees and costs. The patient had the good sense to avoid medical lenders, although other members of the class did use medical lenders and are now filing complaints about the way they were treated by these lenders.

CASE Complications with mesh placement for SUI

A 47-year-old woman (G4 P3013) presents 5 months posthysterectomy with evidence of urinary tract infection (UTI). Escherichia coli is isolated, and she responds to antibiotic therapy.

Her surgical history includes a mini-sling procedure using a needleless device and mesh placement in order to correct progressive worsening of loss of urine when coughing and sneezing. She also reported slight pelvic pain, dysuria, and urgency upon urination at that time. After subsequent development of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), she underwent the vaginal hysterectomy.

Following her UTI treatment, a host of problems occur for the patient, including pelvic pain and dyspareunia. Her male partner reports “feeling something during sex,” especially at the anterior vaginal wall. A plain radiograph of the abdomen identifies a 2 cm x 2 cm stone over the vaginal mesh. In consultation with female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery subspecialists, lithotripsy is performed, with the stone fragmented. The patient remains symptomatic, however.

The mesh is noted to be eroding through the vaginal wall. An attempt is made to excise the mesh, initially via transuretheral resection, then through a laparoscopic approach. Due to the mesh being embedded in the tissue, however, an open approach is undertaken. Extensive excision of the mesh and stone fragments is performed. Postoperatively, the patient reports “dry vagina,” with no other genitourinary complaints.

The patient sues. She sues the mesh manufacturer. She also seeks to sue the gynecologist who placed the sling and vaginal mesh (as she says she was not informed of “all the risks” of vaginal mesh placement. She is part of a class action lawsuit, along with thousands of other women.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

The device manufacturer settled out of court with the class action suit. (The gynecologist was never formally a defendant because the patient/plaintiff was advised to “drop the physician from the suit.”) The attorneys representing the class action received 40% of the award plus presented costs for the representation. The class as a whole received a little more than 50% of the negotiated award. The patient in this case received $60,000.

Medical background

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a prevalent condition; it affects 35% of women.¹ Overall, 80% of women aged 80 or younger will undergo some form of surgery for POP during their lifetime.² The pathophysiology of SUI includes urethral hypermobility and intrinsic sphincter deficiency.³

Surgical correction for urinary incontinence: A timeline

Use of the gracilis muscle flap to surgically correct urinary incontinence was introduced in 1907. This technique has been replaced by today’s more common Burch procedure, which was first described in 1961. Surgical mesh use dates back to the 1950s, when it was primarily used for abdominal hernia repair. Tension-free tape was introduced in 1995.^4-6

Continue to: In the late 1990s the US Food and Drug Administration...

In the late 1990s the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permitted use of the first transvaginal meshes, which were designed to treat SUI—the midurethral sling. These mesh slings were so successful that similar meshes were developed to treat POP.⁷ Almost immediately there were problems with the new POP devices, and 3 years later Boston Scientific recalled its device.⁸ Nonetheless, the FDA cleared more than 150 devices using surgical mesh for urogynecologic indications (FIGURE).⁹

Mesh complications

Managing complications from intravesical mesh is a clinically challenging problem. Bladder perforation, stone formation, and penetration through the vagina can occur. Bladder-related complications can manifest as recurrent UTIs and obstructive urinary symptoms, especially in association with stone formation. From the gynecologic perspective, the more common complications with mesh utilization are pelvic pain, groin pain, dyspareunia, contracture and scarring of mesh, and narrowing of the vaginal canal.¹⁰ Mesh erosion problems will occur in an estimated 10% to 25% of transvaginal mesh POP implants.¹¹

In 2008, a comparison of transvaginal mesh to native tissue repair (suture-based) or other (biologic) grafts was published.¹² The bottom line: there is insufficient evidence to suggest that transvaginal mesh significantly improves outcomes for both posterior and apical defects.

Legal background

Mesh used for surgical purposes is a medical device, which legally is a product—a special product to be sure, but a product nonetheless. Products are subject to product liability rules. Mesh is also subject to an FDA regulatory system. We will briefly discuss products liability and the regulation of devices, both of which have played important roles in mesh-related injuries.

Products liability

As a general matter, defective products subject their manufacturer and seller to liability. There are several legal theories regarding product liability: negligence (in which the defect was caused through carelessness), breach of warranty or guarantee (in addition to express warranties, there are a number of implied warranties for products, including that it is fit for its intended purpose), and strict liability (there was a defect in the product, but it may not have been because of negligence). The product may be defective in the way it was designed, manufactured, or packaged, or it may be defective because adequate instructions and warning were not given to consumers.

Of course, not every product involved in an injury is defective—most automobile accidents, for example, are not the result of any defect in the automobile. In medicine, almost no product (device or pharmaceutical) is entirely safe. In some ways they are unavoidably unsafe and bound to cause some injuries. But when injuries are caused by a defect in the product (design or manufacturing defect or failure to warn), then there may be products liability. Most products liability cases arise under state law.

FDA’s device regulations

Both drugs and medical devices are subject to FDA review and ordinarily require some form of FDA clearance before they may be marketed. In the case of devices, the FDA has 3 classes, with an increase in risk to the user from Class I to III. Various levels of FDA review are required before marketing of the device is permitted, again with the intensity of review increasing from I to III as follows:

• Class I devices pose the least risk, have the least regulation, and are subject to general controls (ie, manufacturing and marketing practices).
• Class II devices pose slightly higher risks and are subject to special controls in addition to the criteria for Class I.
• Class III devices pose the most risk to patients and require premarket approval (scientific review and studies are required to ensure efficacy and safety).¹³

Continue to: There are a number of limits on manufacturer liability for defective devices...

There are a number of limits on manufacturer liability for defective devices. For Class III devices, the thorough FDA review of the safety of a device may limit the ability of an injured patient to sue based on the state product liability laws.¹⁴ For the most part, this “preemption” of state law has not played a major role in mesh litigation because they were initially classified as Class II devices which did not require or include a detailed FDA review.¹⁵

The duty to warn of the dangers and risk of medical devices means that manufacturers (or sellers) of devices are obligated to inform health care providers and other medical personnel of the risks. Unlike other manufacturers, device manufacturers do not have to directly warn consumers—because physicians deal directly with patients and prescribe the devices. Therefore, the health care providers, rather than the manufacturers, are obligated to inform the patient.¹⁶ This is known as the learned intermediary rule. Manufacturers may still be liable for failure to warn if they do not convey to health care providers proper warnings.

Manufacturers and sellers are not the only entities that may be subject to liability caused by medical devices. Hospitals or other entities that stock and care for devices are responsible for maintaining the safety and functionality of devices in their care.

Health care providers also may be responsible for injuries from medical devices. Generally, that liability is based on negligence. Negligence may relate to selecting an improper device, installing or using it incorrectly, or failing to give the patient adequate information (or informed consent) about the device and alternatives to it.¹⁷

A look at the mesh mess

There are a lot of distressing problems and professional disappointments in dissecting the “mesh mess,” including a failure of the FDA to regulate effectively, the extended sale and promotion of intrinsic sphincter deficiency mesh products, the improper use of mesh by physicians even after the risks were known, and, in some instances, the taking advantage of injured patients by attorneys and businesses.¹⁸ A lot of finger pointing also has occurred.¹⁹ We will recount some of the lowlights of this unfortunate tale.

Continue to: The FDA, in the 1990s, classified the first POP and SUI mesh...

The FDA, in the 1990s, classified the first POP and SUI mesh as Class II after deciding these products were “substantially equivalent” to older surgical meshes. This, of course, proved not to be the case.²⁰ The FDA started receiving thousands of reports of adverse events and, in 2008, warned physicians to be vigilant for adverse events from the mesh. The FDA’s notification recommendations regarding mesh included the following¹³:

• Obtain specialized training for each mesh implantation technique, and be cognizant of risks.

• Be vigilant for potential adverse events from mesh, including erosion and infection.
• Be observant for complications associated with tools of transvaginal placement (ie, bowel, bladder, and vessel perforation).
• Inform patients that implantation of mesh is permanent and complications may require additional surgery for correction.
• Be aware that complications may affect quality of life—eg, pain with intercourse, scarring, and vaginal wall narrowing (POP repair).
• Provide patients with written copy of patient labeling from the surgical mesh manufacturer.

In 2011, the FDA issued a formal warning to providers that transvaginal mesh posed meaningful risks beyond nonmesh surgery. The FDA’s bulletin draws attention to how the mesh is placed more so than the material per se.^19,21 Mesh was a Class II device for sacrocolpopexy or midurethral sling and, similarly, the transvaginal kit was also a Class II device. Overall, use of mesh midurethral slings has been well received as treatment for SUI. The FDA also accepted it for POP, however, but with increasingly strong warnings. The FDA’s 2011 communication stated, “This update is to inform you that serious complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP are not rare….Furthermore, it is not clear that transvaginal POP repair with mesh is more effective than traditional non-mesh repair in all patients with POP and it may expose patients to greater risk.”^7,13

In 2014 the FDA proposed reclassifying mesh to a Class III device, which would require that manufacturers obtain approval, based on safety and effectiveness, before selling mesh. Not until 2016 did the FDA actually reclassify the mess as Class III. Of course, during this time, mesh manufacturers were well aware of the substantial problems the products were causing.¹³

After serious problems with mesh became well known, and especially after FDA warnings, the use of mesh other than as indicated by the FDA was increasingly risky from a legal (as well as a health) standpoint. As long as mesh was still on the market, of course, it was available for use. But use of mesh for POP procedures without good indications in a way that was contrary to the FDA warnings might well be negligent.

Changes to informed consent

The FDA warnings also should have changed the informed consent for the use of mesh.²² Informed consent commonly consists of the following:

1. informing the patient of the proposed procedure
2. describing risks (and benefits) of the proposed process
3. explaining reasonable alternatives
4. noting the risks of taking no action.

Information that is material to a decision should be disclosed. If mesh were going to be used, after the problems of mesh were known and identified by the FDA (other than midurethral slings as treatment of SUI), the risks should have been clearly identified for patients, with alternatives outlined. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics has 8 fundamental concepts with regard to informed consent that are worth keeping in mind²³:

1. Obtaining informed consent for medical treatment and research is an ethical requirement.
2. The process expresses respect for the patient as a person.
3. It protects patients against unwanted treatment and allows patients’ active involvement in medical planning and care.
4. Communication is of paramount importance.
5. Informed consent is a process and not a signature on a form.
6. A commitment to informed consent and to provision of medical benefit to the patient are linked to provision of care.
7. If obtaining informed consent is impossible, a designated surrogate should be identified representing the patient’s best interests.
8. Knowledge on the part of the provider regarding state and federal requirements is necessary.

Continue to: Lawsuits line up...

Lawsuits line up

The widespread use of a product with a significant percentage of injuries and eventually with warnings about injuries from use sounds like the formula for a lot of lawsuits. This certainly has happened. A large number of suits—both class actions and individual actions—were filed as a result of mesh injuries.²⁴ These suits were overwhelmingly against the manufacturer, although some included physicians.⁷ Device makers are more attractive defendants for several reasons. First, they have very deep pockets. In addition, jurors are generally much less sympathetic to large companies than to doctors. Large class actions meant that there were many different patients among the plaintiffs, and medical malpractice claims in most states have a number of trial difficulties not present in other product liability cases. Common defendants have included Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

Some of the cases resulted in very large damage awards against manufacturers based on various kinds of product(s) liability. Many other cases were settled or tried with relatively small damages. There were, in addition, a number of instances in which the manufacturers were not liable. Of the 32 plaintiffs who have gone to trial thus far, 24 have obtained verdicts totaling $345 million ($14 million average). The cases that have settled have been for much less—perhaps $60,000 on average. A number of cases remain unresolved. To date, the estimate is that 100,000 women have received almost $8 billion from 7 device manufacturers to resolve claims.²⁵

Some state attorneys general have gotten into the process as well. Attorneys general from California, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Washington have filed lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson, claiming that they deceived doctors and patients about the risks of their pelvic mesh. The states claim that marketing and instructional literature should have contained more information about the risks. Some physicians in these states have expressed concern that these lawsuit risks may do more harm than good because the suits conflate mesh used to treat incontinence with the more risky mesh for POP.²⁶

The “ugly” of class action lawsuits

We have discussed both the sad (the injuries to patients) and the bad (the slow regulatory response and continuing injuries). (The ethics of the marketing by the manufacturers might also be raised as the bad.²⁷) Next, let’s look briefly at the ugly.

Some of the patients affected by mesh injuries have been victimized a second time by medical “lenders” and some of their attorneys. Press reports describe patients with modest awards paying 40% in attorney fees (on the high side for personal injury settlements) plus extravagant costs—leaving modest amounts of actual recovery.²⁵

Worse still, a process of “medical lending” has arisen in mesh cases.²⁸ Medical lenders may contact mesh victims offering to pay up front for surgery to remove mesh, and then place a lien against the settlement for repayment at a much higher rate. They might pay the surgeon $2,500 for the surgery, but place a lien on the settlement amount for $60,000.^29,30 In addition, there are allegations that lawyers may recruit the doctors to overstate the injuries or do unnecessary removal surgery because that will likely up the award.³¹ A quick Google search indicates dozens of offers of cash now for your mesh lawsuit (transvaginal and hernia repair).

The patient in our hypothetical case at the beginning had a fairly typical experience. She was a member of a class filing and received a modest settlement. The attorneys representing the class were allowed by the court to charge substantial attorneys’ fees and costs. The patient had the good sense to avoid medical lenders, although other members of the class did use medical lenders and are now filing complaints about the way they were treated by these lenders.

CASE Complications with mesh placement for SUI

A 47-year-old woman (G4 P3013) presents 5 months posthysterectomy with evidence of urinary tract infection (UTI). Escherichia coli is isolated, and she responds to antibiotic therapy.

Her surgical history includes a mini-sling procedure using a needleless device and mesh placement in order to correct progressive worsening of loss of urine when coughing and sneezing. She also reported slight pelvic pain, dysuria, and urgency upon urination at that time. After subsequent development of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), she underwent the vaginal hysterectomy.

Following her UTI treatment, a host of problems occur for the patient, including pelvic pain and dyspareunia. Her male partner reports “feeling something during sex,” especially at the anterior vaginal wall. A plain radiograph of the abdomen identifies a 2 cm x 2 cm stone over the vaginal mesh. In consultation with female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery subspecialists, lithotripsy is performed, with the stone fragmented. The patient remains symptomatic, however.

The mesh is noted to be eroding through the vaginal wall. An attempt is made to excise the mesh, initially via transuretheral resection, then through a laparoscopic approach. Due to the mesh being embedded in the tissue, however, an open approach is undertaken. Extensive excision of the mesh and stone fragments is performed. Postoperatively, the patient reports “dry vagina,” with no other genitourinary complaints.

The patient sues. She sues the mesh manufacturer. She also seeks to sue the gynecologist who placed the sling and vaginal mesh (as she says she was not informed of “all the risks” of vaginal mesh placement. She is part of a class action lawsuit, along with thousands of other women.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

The device manufacturer settled out of court with the class action suit. (The gynecologist was never formally a defendant because the patient/plaintiff was advised to “drop the physician from the suit.”) The attorneys representing the class action received 40% of the award plus presented costs for the representation. The class as a whole received a little more than 50% of the negotiated award. The patient in this case received $60,000.

Medical background

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a prevalent condition; it affects 35% of women.¹ Overall, 80% of women aged 80 or younger will undergo some form of surgery for POP during their lifetime.² The pathophysiology of SUI includes urethral hypermobility and intrinsic sphincter deficiency.³

Surgical correction for urinary incontinence: A timeline

Use of the gracilis muscle flap to surgically correct urinary incontinence was introduced in 1907. This technique has been replaced by today’s more common Burch procedure, which was first described in 1961. Surgical mesh use dates back to the 1950s, when it was primarily used for abdominal hernia repair. Tension-free tape was introduced in 1995.^4-6

Continue to: In the late 1990s the US Food and Drug Administration...

In the late 1990s the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permitted use of the first transvaginal meshes, which were designed to treat SUI—the midurethral sling. These mesh slings were so successful that similar meshes were developed to treat POP.⁷ Almost immediately there were problems with the new POP devices, and 3 years later Boston Scientific recalled its device.⁸ Nonetheless, the FDA cleared more than 150 devices using surgical mesh for urogynecologic indications (FIGURE).⁹

Mesh complications

Managing complications from intravesical mesh is a clinically challenging problem. Bladder perforation, stone formation, and penetration through the vagina can occur. Bladder-related complications can manifest as recurrent UTIs and obstructive urinary symptoms, especially in association with stone formation. From the gynecologic perspective, the more common complications with mesh utilization are pelvic pain, groin pain, dyspareunia, contracture and scarring of mesh, and narrowing of the vaginal canal.¹⁰ Mesh erosion problems will occur in an estimated 10% to 25% of transvaginal mesh POP implants.¹¹

In 2008, a comparison of transvaginal mesh to native tissue repair (suture-based) or other (biologic) grafts was published.¹² The bottom line: there is insufficient evidence to suggest that transvaginal mesh significantly improves outcomes for both posterior and apical defects.

Legal background

Mesh used for surgical purposes is a medical device, which legally is a product—a special product to be sure, but a product nonetheless. Products are subject to product liability rules. Mesh is also subject to an FDA regulatory system. We will briefly discuss products liability and the regulation of devices, both of which have played important roles in mesh-related injuries.

Products liability

As a general matter, defective products subject their manufacturer and seller to liability. There are several legal theories regarding product liability: negligence (in which the defect was caused through carelessness), breach of warranty or guarantee (in addition to express warranties, there are a number of implied warranties for products, including that it is fit for its intended purpose), and strict liability (there was a defect in the product, but it may not have been because of negligence). The product may be defective in the way it was designed, manufactured, or packaged, or it may be defective because adequate instructions and warning were not given to consumers.

Of course, not every product involved in an injury is defective—most automobile accidents, for example, are not the result of any defect in the automobile. In medicine, almost no product (device or pharmaceutical) is entirely safe. In some ways they are unavoidably unsafe and bound to cause some injuries. But when injuries are caused by a defect in the product (design or manufacturing defect or failure to warn), then there may be products liability. Most products liability cases arise under state law.

FDA’s device regulations

Both drugs and medical devices are subject to FDA review and ordinarily require some form of FDA clearance before they may be marketed. In the case of devices, the FDA has 3 classes, with an increase in risk to the user from Class I to III. Various levels of FDA review are required before marketing of the device is permitted, again with the intensity of review increasing from I to III as follows:

• Class I devices pose the least risk, have the least regulation, and are subject to general controls (ie, manufacturing and marketing practices).
• Class II devices pose slightly higher risks and are subject to special controls in addition to the criteria for Class I.
• Class III devices pose the most risk to patients and require premarket approval (scientific review and studies are required to ensure efficacy and safety).¹³

Continue to: There are a number of limits on manufacturer liability for defective devices...

There are a number of limits on manufacturer liability for defective devices. For Class III devices, the thorough FDA review of the safety of a device may limit the ability of an injured patient to sue based on the state product liability laws.¹⁴ For the most part, this “preemption” of state law has not played a major role in mesh litigation because they were initially classified as Class II devices which did not require or include a detailed FDA review.¹⁵

The duty to warn of the dangers and risk of medical devices means that manufacturers (or sellers) of devices are obligated to inform health care providers and other medical personnel of the risks. Unlike other manufacturers, device manufacturers do not have to directly warn consumers—because physicians deal directly with patients and prescribe the devices. Therefore, the health care providers, rather than the manufacturers, are obligated to inform the patient.¹⁶ This is known as the learned intermediary rule. Manufacturers may still be liable for failure to warn if they do not convey to health care providers proper warnings.

Manufacturers and sellers are not the only entities that may be subject to liability caused by medical devices. Hospitals or other entities that stock and care for devices are responsible for maintaining the safety and functionality of devices in their care.

Health care providers also may be responsible for injuries from medical devices. Generally, that liability is based on negligence. Negligence may relate to selecting an improper device, installing or using it incorrectly, or failing to give the patient adequate information (or informed consent) about the device and alternatives to it.¹⁷

A look at the mesh mess

There are a lot of distressing problems and professional disappointments in dissecting the “mesh mess,” including a failure of the FDA to regulate effectively, the extended sale and promotion of intrinsic sphincter deficiency mesh products, the improper use of mesh by physicians even after the risks were known, and, in some instances, the taking advantage of injured patients by attorneys and businesses.¹⁸ A lot of finger pointing also has occurred.¹⁹ We will recount some of the lowlights of this unfortunate tale.

Continue to: The FDA, in the 1990s, classified the first POP and SUI mesh...

The FDA, in the 1990s, classified the first POP and SUI mesh as Class II after deciding these products were “substantially equivalent” to older surgical meshes. This, of course, proved not to be the case.²⁰ The FDA started receiving thousands of reports of adverse events and, in 2008, warned physicians to be vigilant for adverse events from the mesh. The FDA’s notification recommendations regarding mesh included the following¹³:

• Obtain specialized training for each mesh implantation technique, and be cognizant of risks.

• Be vigilant for potential adverse events from mesh, including erosion and infection.
• Be observant for complications associated with tools of transvaginal placement (ie, bowel, bladder, and vessel perforation).
• Inform patients that implantation of mesh is permanent and complications may require additional surgery for correction.
• Be aware that complications may affect quality of life—eg, pain with intercourse, scarring, and vaginal wall narrowing (POP repair).
• Provide patients with written copy of patient labeling from the surgical mesh manufacturer.

In 2011, the FDA issued a formal warning to providers that transvaginal mesh posed meaningful risks beyond nonmesh surgery. The FDA’s bulletin draws attention to how the mesh is placed more so than the material per se.^19,21 Mesh was a Class II device for sacrocolpopexy or midurethral sling and, similarly, the transvaginal kit was also a Class II device. Overall, use of mesh midurethral slings has been well received as treatment for SUI. The FDA also accepted it for POP, however, but with increasingly strong warnings. The FDA’s 2011 communication stated, “This update is to inform you that serious complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP are not rare….Furthermore, it is not clear that transvaginal POP repair with mesh is more effective than traditional non-mesh repair in all patients with POP and it may expose patients to greater risk.”^7,13

In 2014 the FDA proposed reclassifying mesh to a Class III device, which would require that manufacturers obtain approval, based on safety and effectiveness, before selling mesh. Not until 2016 did the FDA actually reclassify the mess as Class III. Of course, during this time, mesh manufacturers were well aware of the substantial problems the products were causing.¹³

After serious problems with mesh became well known, and especially after FDA warnings, the use of mesh other than as indicated by the FDA was increasingly risky from a legal (as well as a health) standpoint. As long as mesh was still on the market, of course, it was available for use. But use of mesh for POP procedures without good indications in a way that was contrary to the FDA warnings might well be negligent.

Changes to informed consent

The FDA warnings also should have changed the informed consent for the use of mesh.²² Informed consent commonly consists of the following:

1. informing the patient of the proposed procedure
2. describing risks (and benefits) of the proposed process
3. explaining reasonable alternatives
4. noting the risks of taking no action.

Information that is material to a decision should be disclosed. If mesh were going to be used, after the problems of mesh were known and identified by the FDA (other than midurethral slings as treatment of SUI), the risks should have been clearly identified for patients, with alternatives outlined. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics has 8 fundamental concepts with regard to informed consent that are worth keeping in mind²³:

1. Obtaining informed consent for medical treatment and research is an ethical requirement.
2. The process expresses respect for the patient as a person.
3. It protects patients against unwanted treatment and allows patients’ active involvement in medical planning and care.
4. Communication is of paramount importance.
5. Informed consent is a process and not a signature on a form.
6. A commitment to informed consent and to provision of medical benefit to the patient are linked to provision of care.
7. If obtaining informed consent is impossible, a designated surrogate should be identified representing the patient’s best interests.
8. Knowledge on the part of the provider regarding state and federal requirements is necessary.

Continue to: Lawsuits line up...

Lawsuits line up

The widespread use of a product with a significant percentage of injuries and eventually with warnings about injuries from use sounds like the formula for a lot of lawsuits. This certainly has happened. A large number of suits—both class actions and individual actions—were filed as a result of mesh injuries.²⁴ These suits were overwhelmingly against the manufacturer, although some included physicians.⁷ Device makers are more attractive defendants for several reasons. First, they have very deep pockets. In addition, jurors are generally much less sympathetic to large companies than to doctors. Large class actions meant that there were many different patients among the plaintiffs, and medical malpractice claims in most states have a number of trial difficulties not present in other product liability cases. Common defendants have included Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

Some of the cases resulted in very large damage awards against manufacturers based on various kinds of product(s) liability. Many other cases were settled or tried with relatively small damages. There were, in addition, a number of instances in which the manufacturers were not liable. Of the 32 plaintiffs who have gone to trial thus far, 24 have obtained verdicts totaling $345 million ($14 million average). The cases that have settled have been for much less—perhaps $60,000 on average. A number of cases remain unresolved. To date, the estimate is that 100,000 women have received almost $8 billion from 7 device manufacturers to resolve claims.²⁵

Some state attorneys general have gotten into the process as well. Attorneys general from California, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Washington have filed lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson, claiming that they deceived doctors and patients about the risks of their pelvic mesh. The states claim that marketing and instructional literature should have contained more information about the risks. Some physicians in these states have expressed concern that these lawsuit risks may do more harm than good because the suits conflate mesh used to treat incontinence with the more risky mesh for POP.²⁶

The “ugly” of class action lawsuits

We have discussed both the sad (the injuries to patients) and the bad (the slow regulatory response and continuing injuries). (The ethics of the marketing by the manufacturers might also be raised as the bad.²⁷) Next, let’s look briefly at the ugly.

Some of the patients affected by mesh injuries have been victimized a second time by medical “lenders” and some of their attorneys. Press reports describe patients with modest awards paying 40% in attorney fees (on the high side for personal injury settlements) plus extravagant costs—leaving modest amounts of actual recovery.²⁵

Worse still, a process of “medical lending” has arisen in mesh cases.²⁸ Medical lenders may contact mesh victims offering to pay up front for surgery to remove mesh, and then place a lien against the settlement for repayment at a much higher rate. They might pay the surgeon $2,500 for the surgery, but place a lien on the settlement amount for $60,000.^29,30 In addition, there are allegations that lawyers may recruit the doctors to overstate the injuries or do unnecessary removal surgery because that will likely up the award.³¹ A quick Google search indicates dozens of offers of cash now for your mesh lawsuit (transvaginal and hernia repair).

The patient in our hypothetical case at the beginning had a fairly typical experience. She was a member of a class filing and received a modest settlement. The attorneys representing the class were allowed by the court to charge substantial attorneys’ fees and costs. The patient had the good sense to avoid medical lenders, although other members of the class did use medical lenders and are now filing complaints about the way they were treated by these lenders.

Uterine fibroids (myomas or leiomyomas) are common and can cause considerable morbidity, including infertility, in reproductive-aged women. In this roundtable discussion, moderated by OBG Management Editorial Board member Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA, 2 experts discuss imaging technologies and classification systems for assessing fibroids, various medical and surgical treatment options, and patient reproductive goals to consider when counseling women with fibroids.

Perspectives on a pervasive problem

Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA: First let’s discuss the scope of the problem. How prevalent are uterine fibroids, and what are their effects on quality of life?

Linda D. Bradley, MD: Fibroids are extremely prevalent. Depending on age and race, between 60% and 80% of women have them.¹ About 50% of women with fibroids have no symptoms²; in symptomatic women, the symptoms may vary based on age. Fibroids are more common in women from the African diaspora, who have earlier onset of symptoms, very large or more numerous fibroids, and more symptomatic fibroids, according to some clinical studies.³ While it is a very common disease state, about half of women with fibroids may not have significant symptoms that warrant anything more than watchful waiting or some minimally invasive options.

Ted L. Anderson, MD, PhD: We probably underestimate the scope because we see people coming in with fibroids only when they have a specific problem. There probably are a lot of asymptomatic women out there that we do not know about.

Case 1: Abnormal uterine bleeding in a young woman desiring pregnancy in the near future

Dr. Sanfilippo: Abnormal uterine bleeding is a common dilemma in my practice. Consider the following case example.

A 24-year-old woman (G1P1) presents with heavy, irregular menses over 6 months’ duration. She is interested in pregnancy, not immediately but in several months. She passes clots, soaks a pad in an hour, and has dysmenorrhea and fatigue. She uses no birth control. She is very distraught, as this bleeding truly has changed her lifestyle.

What is your approach to counseling this patient?

Dr. Bradley: You described a woman whose quality of life is very poor—frequent pad changes, clotting, pain. And she wants to have a child. A patient coming to me with those symptoms does not need to wait 4 to 6 months. I would immediately do some early evaluation.

Dr. Anderson: Sometimes a patient comes to us and already has had an ultrasonography exam. That is helpful, but I am driven by the fact that this patient is interested in pregnancy. I want to look at the uterine cavity and will probably do an office hysteroscopy to see if she has fibroids that distort the uterine cavity. Are there fibroids inside the cavity? To what degree does that possibly play a role? The presence of fibroids does not necessarily mean there is distortion of the cavity, and some evidence suggests that you do not need to do anything about those fibroids.⁴ Fibroids actually may not be the source of bleeding. We need to keep an open mind when we do the evaluation.

Continue to: Imaging technologies and classification aids...

Imaging technologies and classification aids

Dr. Sanfilippo: Apropos to your comment, is there a role for a sonohysterography in this population?

Dr. Anderson: That is a great technique. Some clinicians prefer to use sonohysterography while others prefer hysteroscopy. I tend to use hysteroscopy, and I have the equipment in the office. Both are great techniques and they answer the same question with respect to cavity evaluation.

Dr. Bradley: We once studied about 150 patients who, on the same day, with 2 separate examiners (one being me), would first undergo saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) and then hysteroscopy, or vice versa. The sensitivity of identifying an intracavitary lesion is quite good with both. The additional benefit with SIS is that you can look at the adnexa.

In terms of the classification by the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), sometimes when we do a hysteroscopy, we are not sure how deep a fibroid is—whether it is a type 1 or type 2 or how close it is to the serosa (see illustration, page 26). Are we seeing just the tip of the iceberg? There is a role for imaging, and it is not always an “either/or” situation. There are times, for example, that hysteroscopy will show a type 0. Other times it may not show that, and you look for other things in terms of whether a fibroid abuts the endometrium. The take-home message is that physicians should abandon endometrial biopsy alone and, in this case, not offer a D&C.

In evaluating the endometrium, as gynecologists we should be facile in both technologies. In our workplaces we need to advocate to get trained, to be certified, and to be able to offer both technologies, because sometimes you need both to obtain the right answer.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Let’s talk about the FIGO classification, because it is important to have a communication method not only between physicians but with the patient. If we determine that a fibroid is a type 0, and therefore totally intracavitary, management is different than if the fibroid is a type 1 (less than 50% into the myometrium) or type 2 (more than 50%). What is the role for a classification system such as the FIGO?

Dr. Anderson: I like the FIGO classification system. We can show the patient fibroid classification diagrammatically and she will be able to understand exactly what we are talking about. It’s helpful for patient education and for surgical planning. The approach to a type 0 fibroid is a no-brainer, but with type 1 and more specifically with type 2, where the bulk of the fibroid is intramural and only a portion of that is intracavitary, fibroid size begins to matter a lot in terms of treatment approach.

Sometimes although a fibroid is intracavitary, a laparoscopic rather than hysteroscopic approach is preferred, as long as you can dissect the fibroid away from the endometrium. FIGO classification is very helpful, but I agree with Dr. Bradley that first you need to do a thorough evaluation to make your operative plan.

Continue to: Dr. Sanfilippo...

Dr. Sanfilippo: I encourage residents to go through an orderly sequence of assessment for evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding, including anatomic and endocrinologic factors. The PALM-COEIN classification system is a great mnemonic for use in evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding (TABLE).⁵ Is there a role for an aid such as PALM-COEIN in your practice?

The PALM-COEIN system helps us to look at 2 things. One is that in addition to structural causes, there can be hematologic causes. While it is rare in a 24-year-old, we all have had the anecdotal patient who came in 6 months ago, had a fibroid, but had a platelet count of 6,000. Second, we have to look at the patient as a whole. My residents, myself, and our fellows look at any bleeding. Does she have a bleeding diathesis, bruising, nose bleeds; has she been anemic, does she have pica? Has she had a blood transfusion, is she on certain medications? We do not want to create a “silo” and think that the patient can have only a fibroid, because then we may miss an opportunity to treat other disease states. She can have a fibroid coexisting with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), for instance. I like to look at everything so we can offer appropriate treatment modalities.

Dr. Sanfilippo: You bring up a very important point. Coagulopathies are more common statistically at the earlier part of a woman’s reproductive age group, soon after menarche, but they also occur toward menopause. We have to be cognizant that a woman can develop a coagulopathy throughout the reproductive years.

Dr. Anderson: You have to look at other medical causes. That is where the PALM-COEIN system can help. It helps you take the blinders off. If you focus on the fibroid and treat the fibroid and the patient still has bleeding, you missed something. You have to consider the whole patient and think of all the nonclassical or nonanatomical things, for example, thyroid disease. The PALM-COEIN helps us to evaluate the patient in a methodical way—every patient every time—so you do not miss something.

The value of MRI

Dr. Sanfilippo: What is the role for MRI, and when do you use it? Is it for only when you do a procedure—laparoscopically, robotically, open—so you have a detailed map of the fibroids?

Dr. Anderson: I love MRI, especially for hysteroscopy. I will print out the MRI image and trace the fibroid because there are things I want to know: exactly how much of the fibroid is inside or outside, where this fibroid is in the uterus, and how much of a normal buffer there is between the edge of that fibroid and the serosa. How aggressive can I be, or how cautious do I need to be, during the resection? Maybe this will be a planned 2-stage resection. MRIs are wonderful for fibroid disease, not only for diagnosis but also for surgical planning and patient counseling.

Dr. Bradley: SIS is also very useful. If the patient has an intracavitary fibroid that is larger than 4.5 to 5 cm and we insert the catheter, however, sometimes you cannot distend the cavity very well. Sometimes large intramural fibroids can compress the cavity, making the procedure difficult in an office setting. You cannot see the limits to help you as a surgical option. Although SIS generally is associated with little pain, some patients may have pain, and some patients cannot tolerate the test.

Continue to: I would order an MRI for surgical planning when...

I would order an MRI for surgical planning when a hysteroscopy is equivocal and if I cannot do an SIS. Also, if a patient who had a hysteroscopic resection with incomplete removal comes to me and is still symptomatic, I want to know the depth of penetration.

Obtaining an MRI may sometimes be difficult at a particular institution, and some clinicians have to go through the hurdles of getting an ultrasound to get certified and approved. We have to be our patient’s advocate and do the peer phone calls; any other specialty would require presurgical planning, and we are no different from other surgeons in that regard.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Yes, that can be a stumbling block. In the operating room, I like to have the images right in front of me, ideally an MRI or an ultrasound scan, as I know how to proceed. Having that visual helps me understand how close the fibroid is to the lining of the uterus.

Tapping into radiologists’ expertise

Dr. Bradley: Every quarter we meet with our radiologists, who are very interested in our MRI and SIS reports. They will describe the count and say how many fibroids—that is very helpful instead of just saying she has a bunch of fibroids—but they also will tell us when there is a type 0, a type 2, a type 7 fibroid. The team looks for adenomyosis and for endometriosis that can coexist.

Dr. Anderson: One caution about reading radiology reports is that often someone will come in with a report from an outside hospital or from a small community hospital that may say, “There is a 2-cm submucosal fibroid.” Some people might be tempted to take this person right to the OR, but you need to look at the images yourself, because in a radiologist’s mind “submucosal” truly means under the mucosa, which in our liturgy would be “intramural.” So we need to make sure that we are talking the same language. You should look at the images yourself.

Dr. Sanfilippo: I totally agree. It is also not unreasonable to speak with the radiologists and educate them about the FIGO classification.

Dr. Bradley: I prefer the word “intracavitary” for fibroids. When I see a typed report without the picture, “submucosal” can mean in the cavity or abutting the endometrium.

Case 2: Woman with heavy bleeding and fibroids seeks nonsurgical treatment

Dr. Sanfilippo: A 39-year-old (G3P3) woman is referred for evaluation for heavy vaginal bleeding, soaking a pad in an hour, which has been going on for months. Her primary ObGyn obtained a pelvic sonogram and noted multiple intramural and subserosal fibroids. A sonohysterogram reveals a submucosal myoma.

The patient is not interested in a hysterectomy. She was treated with birth control pills, with no improvement. She is interested in nonsurgical options. Dr. Bradley, what medical treatments might you offer this patient?

Medical treatment options

Dr. Bradley: If oral contraceptives have not worked, a good option would be tranexamic acid. Years ago our hospital was involved with enrolling patients in the multicenter clinical trial of this drug. The classic patient enrolled had regular, predictable, heavy menstrual cycles with alkaline hematin assay of greater than 80. If the case patient described has regular and predictable heavy bleeding every month at the same time, for the same duration, I would consider the use of tranexamic acid. There are several contraindications for the drug, so those exclusion issues would need to be reviewed. Contraindications include subarachnoid hemorrhage. Cerebral edema and cerebral infarction may be caused by tranexamic acid in such patients. Other contraindications include active intravascular clotting and hypersensitivity.

Continue to: Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system...

Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system (IUS) like the levonorgestrel (LNG) IUS would fit into this patient’s uterine cavity. Like Ted, I want to look into that cavity. I am not sure what “submucosal fibroid” means. If it has not distorted the cavity, or is totally within the uterine cavity, or abuts the endometrial cavity. The LNG-IUS cannot be placed into a uterine cavity that has intracavitary fibroids or sounds to greater than 12 cm. We are not going to put an LNG-IUS in somebody, at least in general, with a globally enlarged uterine cavity. I could ask, do you do that? You do a bimanual exam, and it is 18-weeks in size. I am not sure that I would put it in, but does it meet those criteria? The package insert for the LNG-IUS specifies upper and lower limits of uterine size for placement. I would start with those 2 options (tranexamic acid and LNG-IUS), and also get some more imaging.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda. The submucosal fibroid could be contributing to this patient’s bleeding, but it is not the total contribution. The other fibroids may be completely irrelevant as far as her bleeding is concerned. We may need to deal with that one surgically, which we can do without a hysterectomy, most of the time.

I am a big fan of the LNG-IUS, it has been great in my experience. There are some other treatments available as well, such as gonadotropin–releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. I tell patients that, while GnRH does work, it is not designed to be long-term therapy. If I have, for example, a 49-year-old patient, I just need to get her to menopause. Longer-term GnRH agonists might be a good option in this case. Otherwise, we could use short-term a GnRH agonist to stop the bleeding for a while so that we can reset the clock and get her started on something like levonorgestrel, tranexamic acid, or one of the other medical therapies. That may be a 2-step combination therapy.

Dr. Sanfilippo: There is a whole category of agents available—selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs), pure progesterone receptor antagonists, ulipristal comes to mind. Clinicians need to know that options are available beyond birth control pills.

Dr. Anderson: As I tell patients, there are also “bridge” options. These are interventional procedures that are not hysterectomy, such as uterine fibroid embolization or endometrial ablation if bleeding is really the problem. We might consider a variety of different approaches. Obviously, we do not typically use fibroid embolization for submucosal fibroids, but it depends on how much of the fibroid is intracavitary and how big it is. Other options are a little more aggressive than medical therapy but they do not involve a hysterectomy.

Pros and cons of uterine artery embolization

Dr. Sanfilippo: If a woman desires future childbearing, is there a role for uterine artery embolization? How would you counsel her about the pros and cons?

Dr. Bradley: At the Cleveland Clinic, we generally do not offer uterine artery embolization if the patient wants a child. While it is an excellent method for treating heavy bleeding and bulk symptoms, the endometrium can be impacted. Patients can develop fistula, adhesions, or concentric narrowing, and changes in anti-Müllerian hormone levels, and there is potential for an Asherman-like syndrome and poor perfusion. I have many hysteroscopic images where the anterior wall of the uterus is nice and pink and the posterior wall is totally pale. The embolic microsphere particles can reach the endometrium—I have seen particles in the endometrium when doing a fibroid resection.

Continue to: A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year...

A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year.⁶ If women became pregnant, they had a higher rate of postpartum hemorrhage; placenta accreta, increta, and percreta; and emergent hysterectomy. It was recommended that these women deliver at a tertiary care center due to higher rates of preterm labor and malposition.

If a patient wants a baby, she should find a gynecologic surgeon who does minimally invasive laparoscopic, robotic, or open surgery, because she is more likely to have a take-home baby with a surgical approach than with embolization. In my experience, there is always going to be a patient who wants to keep her uterus at age 49 and who has every comorbidity. I might offer her the embolization just knowing what the odds of pregnancy are.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda but I take a more liberal approach. Sometimes we do a myomectomy because we are trying to enhance fertility, while other times we do a myomectomy to address fibroid-related symptoms. These patients are having specific symptoms, and we want to leave the embolization option open.

If I have a patient who is 39 and becoming pregnant is not necessarily her goal, but she does not want to have a hysterectomy and if she got pregnant it would be okay, I am going to treat her a little different with respect to fibroid embolization than I would treat someone who is actively trying to have a baby. This goes back to what you were saying, let’s treat the patient, not just the fibroid.

Dr. Bradley: That is so important and sentinel. If she really does not want a hysterectomy but does not want a baby, I will ask, “Would you go through in vitro fertilization? Would you take clomiphene?” If she answers no, then I feel more comfortable, like you, with referring the patient for uterine fibroid embolization. The point is to get the patient with the right team to get the best outcomes.

Surgical approaches, intraoperative agents, and suture technique

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, tell us about your surgical approaches to fibroids.

Dr. Anderson: At my institution we do have a fellowship in minimally invasive surgery, but I still do a lot of open myomectomies. I have a few guidelines to determine whether I am going to proceed laparoscopically, do a little minilaparotomy incision, or if a gigantic uterus is going to require a big incision. My mantra to my fellows has always been, “minimally invasive is the impact on the patient, not the size of the incision.”

Sometimes, prolonged anesthesia and Trendelenburg create more morbidity than a minilaparotomy. If a patient has 4 or 5 fibroids and most of them are intramural and I cannot see them but I want to be able to feel them, and to get a really good closure of the myometrium, I might choose to do a minilaparotomy. But if it is a case of a solitary fibroid, I would be more inclined to operate laparoscopically.

Continue to: Dr. Bradley...

Dr. Bradley: Our protocol is similar. We use MRI liberally. If patients have 4 or more fibroids and they are larger than 8 cm, most will have open surgery. I do not do robotic or laparoscopic procedures, so my referral source is for the larger myomas. We do not put retractors in; we can make incisions. Even if we do a huge Maylard incision, it is cosmetically wonderful. We use a loading dose of IV tranexamic acid with tranexamic acid throughout the surgery, and misoprostol intravaginally prior to surgery, to control uterine bleeding.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, is there a role for agents such as vasopressin, and what about routes of administration?

Dr. Anderson: When I do a laparoscopic or open procedure, I inject vasopressin (dilute 20 U in 100 mL of saline) into the pseudocapsule around the fibroid. I also administer rectal misoprostol (400 µg) just before the patient prep is done, which is amazing in reducing blood loss. There is also a role for a GnRH agonist, not necessarily to reduce the size of the uterus but to reduce blood flow in the pelvis and blood loss. Many different techniques are available. I do not use tourniquets, however. If bleeding does occur, I want to see it so I can fix it—not after I have sewn up the uterus and taken off a tourniquet.

Dr. Bradley: Do you use Floseal hemostatic matrix or any other agent to control bleeding?

Dr. Anderson: I do, for local hemostasis.

Dr. Bradley: Some surgeons will use barbed suture.

Dr. Anderson: I do like barbed sutures. In teaching residents to do myomectomy, it is very beneficial. But I am still a big fan of the good old figure-of-8 stitch because it is compressive and you get a good apposition of the tissue, good hemostasis, and strong closure.

Dr. Sanfilippo: We hope that this conversation will change your management of uterine fibroids. I thank Dr. Bradley and Dr. Anderson for a lively and very informative discussion.

Watch the video: Video roundtable–Fibroids: Patient considerations in medical and surgical management

Uterine fibroids (myomas or leiomyomas) are common and can cause considerable morbidity, including infertility, in reproductive-aged women. In this roundtable discussion, moderated by OBG Management Editorial Board member Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA, 2 experts discuss imaging technologies and classification systems for assessing fibroids, various medical and surgical treatment options, and patient reproductive goals to consider when counseling women with fibroids.

Perspectives on a pervasive problem

Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA: First let’s discuss the scope of the problem. How prevalent are uterine fibroids, and what are their effects on quality of life?

Linda D. Bradley, MD: Fibroids are extremely prevalent. Depending on age and race, between 60% and 80% of women have them.¹ About 50% of women with fibroids have no symptoms²; in symptomatic women, the symptoms may vary based on age. Fibroids are more common in women from the African diaspora, who have earlier onset of symptoms, very large or more numerous fibroids, and more symptomatic fibroids, according to some clinical studies.³ While it is a very common disease state, about half of women with fibroids may not have significant symptoms that warrant anything more than watchful waiting or some minimally invasive options.

Ted L. Anderson, MD, PhD: We probably underestimate the scope because we see people coming in with fibroids only when they have a specific problem. There probably are a lot of asymptomatic women out there that we do not know about.

Case 1: Abnormal uterine bleeding in a young woman desiring pregnancy in the near future

Dr. Sanfilippo: Abnormal uterine bleeding is a common dilemma in my practice. Consider the following case example.

A 24-year-old woman (G1P1) presents with heavy, irregular menses over 6 months’ duration. She is interested in pregnancy, not immediately but in several months. She passes clots, soaks a pad in an hour, and has dysmenorrhea and fatigue. She uses no birth control. She is very distraught, as this bleeding truly has changed her lifestyle.

What is your approach to counseling this patient?

Dr. Bradley: You described a woman whose quality of life is very poor—frequent pad changes, clotting, pain. And she wants to have a child. A patient coming to me with those symptoms does not need to wait 4 to 6 months. I would immediately do some early evaluation.

Dr. Anderson: Sometimes a patient comes to us and already has had an ultrasonography exam. That is helpful, but I am driven by the fact that this patient is interested in pregnancy. I want to look at the uterine cavity and will probably do an office hysteroscopy to see if she has fibroids that distort the uterine cavity. Are there fibroids inside the cavity? To what degree does that possibly play a role? The presence of fibroids does not necessarily mean there is distortion of the cavity, and some evidence suggests that you do not need to do anything about those fibroids.⁴ Fibroids actually may not be the source of bleeding. We need to keep an open mind when we do the evaluation.

Continue to: Imaging technologies and classification aids...

Imaging technologies and classification aids

Dr. Sanfilippo: Apropos to your comment, is there a role for a sonohysterography in this population?

Dr. Anderson: That is a great technique. Some clinicians prefer to use sonohysterography while others prefer hysteroscopy. I tend to use hysteroscopy, and I have the equipment in the office. Both are great techniques and they answer the same question with respect to cavity evaluation.

Dr. Bradley: We once studied about 150 patients who, on the same day, with 2 separate examiners (one being me), would first undergo saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) and then hysteroscopy, or vice versa. The sensitivity of identifying an intracavitary lesion is quite good with both. The additional benefit with SIS is that you can look at the adnexa.

In terms of the classification by the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), sometimes when we do a hysteroscopy, we are not sure how deep a fibroid is—whether it is a type 1 or type 2 or how close it is to the serosa (see illustration, page 26). Are we seeing just the tip of the iceberg? There is a role for imaging, and it is not always an “either/or” situation. There are times, for example, that hysteroscopy will show a type 0. Other times it may not show that, and you look for other things in terms of whether a fibroid abuts the endometrium. The take-home message is that physicians should abandon endometrial biopsy alone and, in this case, not offer a D&C.

In evaluating the endometrium, as gynecologists we should be facile in both technologies. In our workplaces we need to advocate to get trained, to be certified, and to be able to offer both technologies, because sometimes you need both to obtain the right answer.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Let’s talk about the FIGO classification, because it is important to have a communication method not only between physicians but with the patient. If we determine that a fibroid is a type 0, and therefore totally intracavitary, management is different than if the fibroid is a type 1 (less than 50% into the myometrium) or type 2 (more than 50%). What is the role for a classification system such as the FIGO?

Dr. Anderson: I like the FIGO classification system. We can show the patient fibroid classification diagrammatically and she will be able to understand exactly what we are talking about. It’s helpful for patient education and for surgical planning. The approach to a type 0 fibroid is a no-brainer, but with type 1 and more specifically with type 2, where the bulk of the fibroid is intramural and only a portion of that is intracavitary, fibroid size begins to matter a lot in terms of treatment approach.

Sometimes although a fibroid is intracavitary, a laparoscopic rather than hysteroscopic approach is preferred, as long as you can dissect the fibroid away from the endometrium. FIGO classification is very helpful, but I agree with Dr. Bradley that first you need to do a thorough evaluation to make your operative plan.

Continue to: Dr. Sanfilippo...

Dr. Sanfilippo: I encourage residents to go through an orderly sequence of assessment for evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding, including anatomic and endocrinologic factors. The PALM-COEIN classification system is a great mnemonic for use in evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding (TABLE).⁵ Is there a role for an aid such as PALM-COEIN in your practice?

The PALM-COEIN system helps us to look at 2 things. One is that in addition to structural causes, there can be hematologic causes. While it is rare in a 24-year-old, we all have had the anecdotal patient who came in 6 months ago, had a fibroid, but had a platelet count of 6,000. Second, we have to look at the patient as a whole. My residents, myself, and our fellows look at any bleeding. Does she have a bleeding diathesis, bruising, nose bleeds; has she been anemic, does she have pica? Has she had a blood transfusion, is she on certain medications? We do not want to create a “silo” and think that the patient can have only a fibroid, because then we may miss an opportunity to treat other disease states. She can have a fibroid coexisting with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), for instance. I like to look at everything so we can offer appropriate treatment modalities.

Dr. Sanfilippo: You bring up a very important point. Coagulopathies are more common statistically at the earlier part of a woman’s reproductive age group, soon after menarche, but they also occur toward menopause. We have to be cognizant that a woman can develop a coagulopathy throughout the reproductive years.

Dr. Anderson: You have to look at other medical causes. That is where the PALM-COEIN system can help. It helps you take the blinders off. If you focus on the fibroid and treat the fibroid and the patient still has bleeding, you missed something. You have to consider the whole patient and think of all the nonclassical or nonanatomical things, for example, thyroid disease. The PALM-COEIN helps us to evaluate the patient in a methodical way—every patient every time—so you do not miss something.

The value of MRI

Dr. Sanfilippo: What is the role for MRI, and when do you use it? Is it for only when you do a procedure—laparoscopically, robotically, open—so you have a detailed map of the fibroids?

Dr. Anderson: I love MRI, especially for hysteroscopy. I will print out the MRI image and trace the fibroid because there are things I want to know: exactly how much of the fibroid is inside or outside, where this fibroid is in the uterus, and how much of a normal buffer there is between the edge of that fibroid and the serosa. How aggressive can I be, or how cautious do I need to be, during the resection? Maybe this will be a planned 2-stage resection. MRIs are wonderful for fibroid disease, not only for diagnosis but also for surgical planning and patient counseling.

Dr. Bradley: SIS is also very useful. If the patient has an intracavitary fibroid that is larger than 4.5 to 5 cm and we insert the catheter, however, sometimes you cannot distend the cavity very well. Sometimes large intramural fibroids can compress the cavity, making the procedure difficult in an office setting. You cannot see the limits to help you as a surgical option. Although SIS generally is associated with little pain, some patients may have pain, and some patients cannot tolerate the test.

Continue to: I would order an MRI for surgical planning when...

I would order an MRI for surgical planning when a hysteroscopy is equivocal and if I cannot do an SIS. Also, if a patient who had a hysteroscopic resection with incomplete removal comes to me and is still symptomatic, I want to know the depth of penetration.

Obtaining an MRI may sometimes be difficult at a particular institution, and some clinicians have to go through the hurdles of getting an ultrasound to get certified and approved. We have to be our patient’s advocate and do the peer phone calls; any other specialty would require presurgical planning, and we are no different from other surgeons in that regard.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Yes, that can be a stumbling block. In the operating room, I like to have the images right in front of me, ideally an MRI or an ultrasound scan, as I know how to proceed. Having that visual helps me understand how close the fibroid is to the lining of the uterus.

Tapping into radiologists’ expertise

Dr. Bradley: Every quarter we meet with our radiologists, who are very interested in our MRI and SIS reports. They will describe the count and say how many fibroids—that is very helpful instead of just saying she has a bunch of fibroids—but they also will tell us when there is a type 0, a type 2, a type 7 fibroid. The team looks for adenomyosis and for endometriosis that can coexist.

Dr. Anderson: One caution about reading radiology reports is that often someone will come in with a report from an outside hospital or from a small community hospital that may say, “There is a 2-cm submucosal fibroid.” Some people might be tempted to take this person right to the OR, but you need to look at the images yourself, because in a radiologist’s mind “submucosal” truly means under the mucosa, which in our liturgy would be “intramural.” So we need to make sure that we are talking the same language. You should look at the images yourself.

Dr. Sanfilippo: I totally agree. It is also not unreasonable to speak with the radiologists and educate them about the FIGO classification.

Dr. Bradley: I prefer the word “intracavitary” for fibroids. When I see a typed report without the picture, “submucosal” can mean in the cavity or abutting the endometrium.

Case 2: Woman with heavy bleeding and fibroids seeks nonsurgical treatment

Dr. Sanfilippo: A 39-year-old (G3P3) woman is referred for evaluation for heavy vaginal bleeding, soaking a pad in an hour, which has been going on for months. Her primary ObGyn obtained a pelvic sonogram and noted multiple intramural and subserosal fibroids. A sonohysterogram reveals a submucosal myoma.

The patient is not interested in a hysterectomy. She was treated with birth control pills, with no improvement. She is interested in nonsurgical options. Dr. Bradley, what medical treatments might you offer this patient?

Medical treatment options

Dr. Bradley: If oral contraceptives have not worked, a good option would be tranexamic acid. Years ago our hospital was involved with enrolling patients in the multicenter clinical trial of this drug. The classic patient enrolled had regular, predictable, heavy menstrual cycles with alkaline hematin assay of greater than 80. If the case patient described has regular and predictable heavy bleeding every month at the same time, for the same duration, I would consider the use of tranexamic acid. There are several contraindications for the drug, so those exclusion issues would need to be reviewed. Contraindications include subarachnoid hemorrhage. Cerebral edema and cerebral infarction may be caused by tranexamic acid in such patients. Other contraindications include active intravascular clotting and hypersensitivity.

Continue to: Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system...

Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system (IUS) like the levonorgestrel (LNG) IUS would fit into this patient’s uterine cavity. Like Ted, I want to look into that cavity. I am not sure what “submucosal fibroid” means. If it has not distorted the cavity, or is totally within the uterine cavity, or abuts the endometrial cavity. The LNG-IUS cannot be placed into a uterine cavity that has intracavitary fibroids or sounds to greater than 12 cm. We are not going to put an LNG-IUS in somebody, at least in general, with a globally enlarged uterine cavity. I could ask, do you do that? You do a bimanual exam, and it is 18-weeks in size. I am not sure that I would put it in, but does it meet those criteria? The package insert for the LNG-IUS specifies upper and lower limits of uterine size for placement. I would start with those 2 options (tranexamic acid and LNG-IUS), and also get some more imaging.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda. The submucosal fibroid could be contributing to this patient’s bleeding, but it is not the total contribution. The other fibroids may be completely irrelevant as far as her bleeding is concerned. We may need to deal with that one surgically, which we can do without a hysterectomy, most of the time.

I am a big fan of the LNG-IUS, it has been great in my experience. There are some other treatments available as well, such as gonadotropin–releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. I tell patients that, while GnRH does work, it is not designed to be long-term therapy. If I have, for example, a 49-year-old patient, I just need to get her to menopause. Longer-term GnRH agonists might be a good option in this case. Otherwise, we could use short-term a GnRH agonist to stop the bleeding for a while so that we can reset the clock and get her started on something like levonorgestrel, tranexamic acid, or one of the other medical therapies. That may be a 2-step combination therapy.

Dr. Sanfilippo: There is a whole category of agents available—selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs), pure progesterone receptor antagonists, ulipristal comes to mind. Clinicians need to know that options are available beyond birth control pills.

Dr. Anderson: As I tell patients, there are also “bridge” options. These are interventional procedures that are not hysterectomy, such as uterine fibroid embolization or endometrial ablation if bleeding is really the problem. We might consider a variety of different approaches. Obviously, we do not typically use fibroid embolization for submucosal fibroids, but it depends on how much of the fibroid is intracavitary and how big it is. Other options are a little more aggressive than medical therapy but they do not involve a hysterectomy.

Pros and cons of uterine artery embolization

Dr. Sanfilippo: If a woman desires future childbearing, is there a role for uterine artery embolization? How would you counsel her about the pros and cons?

Dr. Bradley: At the Cleveland Clinic, we generally do not offer uterine artery embolization if the patient wants a child. While it is an excellent method for treating heavy bleeding and bulk symptoms, the endometrium can be impacted. Patients can develop fistula, adhesions, or concentric narrowing, and changes in anti-Müllerian hormone levels, and there is potential for an Asherman-like syndrome and poor perfusion. I have many hysteroscopic images where the anterior wall of the uterus is nice and pink and the posterior wall is totally pale. The embolic microsphere particles can reach the endometrium—I have seen particles in the endometrium when doing a fibroid resection.

Continue to: A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year...

A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year.⁶ If women became pregnant, they had a higher rate of postpartum hemorrhage; placenta accreta, increta, and percreta; and emergent hysterectomy. It was recommended that these women deliver at a tertiary care center due to higher rates of preterm labor and malposition.

If a patient wants a baby, she should find a gynecologic surgeon who does minimally invasive laparoscopic, robotic, or open surgery, because she is more likely to have a take-home baby with a surgical approach than with embolization. In my experience, there is always going to be a patient who wants to keep her uterus at age 49 and who has every comorbidity. I might offer her the embolization just knowing what the odds of pregnancy are.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda but I take a more liberal approach. Sometimes we do a myomectomy because we are trying to enhance fertility, while other times we do a myomectomy to address fibroid-related symptoms. These patients are having specific symptoms, and we want to leave the embolization option open.

If I have a patient who is 39 and becoming pregnant is not necessarily her goal, but she does not want to have a hysterectomy and if she got pregnant it would be okay, I am going to treat her a little different with respect to fibroid embolization than I would treat someone who is actively trying to have a baby. This goes back to what you were saying, let’s treat the patient, not just the fibroid.

Dr. Bradley: That is so important and sentinel. If she really does not want a hysterectomy but does not want a baby, I will ask, “Would you go through in vitro fertilization? Would you take clomiphene?” If she answers no, then I feel more comfortable, like you, with referring the patient for uterine fibroid embolization. The point is to get the patient with the right team to get the best outcomes.

Surgical approaches, intraoperative agents, and suture technique

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, tell us about your surgical approaches to fibroids.

Dr. Anderson: At my institution we do have a fellowship in minimally invasive surgery, but I still do a lot of open myomectomies. I have a few guidelines to determine whether I am going to proceed laparoscopically, do a little minilaparotomy incision, or if a gigantic uterus is going to require a big incision. My mantra to my fellows has always been, “minimally invasive is the impact on the patient, not the size of the incision.”

Sometimes, prolonged anesthesia and Trendelenburg create more morbidity than a minilaparotomy. If a patient has 4 or 5 fibroids and most of them are intramural and I cannot see them but I want to be able to feel them, and to get a really good closure of the myometrium, I might choose to do a minilaparotomy. But if it is a case of a solitary fibroid, I would be more inclined to operate laparoscopically.

Continue to: Dr. Bradley...

Dr. Bradley: Our protocol is similar. We use MRI liberally. If patients have 4 or more fibroids and they are larger than 8 cm, most will have open surgery. I do not do robotic or laparoscopic procedures, so my referral source is for the larger myomas. We do not put retractors in; we can make incisions. Even if we do a huge Maylard incision, it is cosmetically wonderful. We use a loading dose of IV tranexamic acid with tranexamic acid throughout the surgery, and misoprostol intravaginally prior to surgery, to control uterine bleeding.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, is there a role for agents such as vasopressin, and what about routes of administration?

Dr. Anderson: When I do a laparoscopic or open procedure, I inject vasopressin (dilute 20 U in 100 mL of saline) into the pseudocapsule around the fibroid. I also administer rectal misoprostol (400 µg) just before the patient prep is done, which is amazing in reducing blood loss. There is also a role for a GnRH agonist, not necessarily to reduce the size of the uterus but to reduce blood flow in the pelvis and blood loss. Many different techniques are available. I do not use tourniquets, however. If bleeding does occur, I want to see it so I can fix it—not after I have sewn up the uterus and taken off a tourniquet.

Dr. Bradley: Do you use Floseal hemostatic matrix or any other agent to control bleeding?

Dr. Anderson: I do, for local hemostasis.

Dr. Bradley: Some surgeons will use barbed suture.

Dr. Anderson: I do like barbed sutures. In teaching residents to do myomectomy, it is very beneficial. But I am still a big fan of the good old figure-of-8 stitch because it is compressive and you get a good apposition of the tissue, good hemostasis, and strong closure.

Dr. Sanfilippo: We hope that this conversation will change your management of uterine fibroids. I thank Dr. Bradley and Dr. Anderson for a lively and very informative discussion.

Watch the video: Video roundtable–Fibroids: Patient considerations in medical and surgical management

Uterine fibroids (myomas or leiomyomas) are common and can cause considerable morbidity, including infertility, in reproductive-aged women. In this roundtable discussion, moderated by OBG Management Editorial Board member Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA, 2 experts discuss imaging technologies and classification systems for assessing fibroids, various medical and surgical treatment options, and patient reproductive goals to consider when counseling women with fibroids.

Perspectives on a pervasive problem

Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA: First let’s discuss the scope of the problem. How prevalent are uterine fibroids, and what are their effects on quality of life?

Linda D. Bradley, MD: Fibroids are extremely prevalent. Depending on age and race, between 60% and 80% of women have them.¹ About 50% of women with fibroids have no symptoms²; in symptomatic women, the symptoms may vary based on age. Fibroids are more common in women from the African diaspora, who have earlier onset of symptoms, very large or more numerous fibroids, and more symptomatic fibroids, according to some clinical studies.³ While it is a very common disease state, about half of women with fibroids may not have significant symptoms that warrant anything more than watchful waiting or some minimally invasive options.

Ted L. Anderson, MD, PhD: We probably underestimate the scope because we see people coming in with fibroids only when they have a specific problem. There probably are a lot of asymptomatic women out there that we do not know about.

Case 1: Abnormal uterine bleeding in a young woman desiring pregnancy in the near future

Dr. Sanfilippo: Abnormal uterine bleeding is a common dilemma in my practice. Consider the following case example.

A 24-year-old woman (G1P1) presents with heavy, irregular menses over 6 months’ duration. She is interested in pregnancy, not immediately but in several months. She passes clots, soaks a pad in an hour, and has dysmenorrhea and fatigue. She uses no birth control. She is very distraught, as this bleeding truly has changed her lifestyle.

What is your approach to counseling this patient?

Dr. Bradley: You described a woman whose quality of life is very poor—frequent pad changes, clotting, pain. And she wants to have a child. A patient coming to me with those symptoms does not need to wait 4 to 6 months. I would immediately do some early evaluation.

Dr. Anderson: Sometimes a patient comes to us and already has had an ultrasonography exam. That is helpful, but I am driven by the fact that this patient is interested in pregnancy. I want to look at the uterine cavity and will probably do an office hysteroscopy to see if she has fibroids that distort the uterine cavity. Are there fibroids inside the cavity? To what degree does that possibly play a role? The presence of fibroids does not necessarily mean there is distortion of the cavity, and some evidence suggests that you do not need to do anything about those fibroids.⁴ Fibroids actually may not be the source of bleeding. We need to keep an open mind when we do the evaluation.

Continue to: Imaging technologies and classification aids...

Imaging technologies and classification aids

Dr. Sanfilippo: Apropos to your comment, is there a role for a sonohysterography in this population?

Dr. Anderson: That is a great technique. Some clinicians prefer to use sonohysterography while others prefer hysteroscopy. I tend to use hysteroscopy, and I have the equipment in the office. Both are great techniques and they answer the same question with respect to cavity evaluation.

Dr. Bradley: We once studied about 150 patients who, on the same day, with 2 separate examiners (one being me), would first undergo saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) and then hysteroscopy, or vice versa. The sensitivity of identifying an intracavitary lesion is quite good with both. The additional benefit with SIS is that you can look at the adnexa.

In terms of the classification by the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), sometimes when we do a hysteroscopy, we are not sure how deep a fibroid is—whether it is a type 1 or type 2 or how close it is to the serosa (see illustration, page 26). Are we seeing just the tip of the iceberg? There is a role for imaging, and it is not always an “either/or” situation. There are times, for example, that hysteroscopy will show a type 0. Other times it may not show that, and you look for other things in terms of whether a fibroid abuts the endometrium. The take-home message is that physicians should abandon endometrial biopsy alone and, in this case, not offer a D&C.

In evaluating the endometrium, as gynecologists we should be facile in both technologies. In our workplaces we need to advocate to get trained, to be certified, and to be able to offer both technologies, because sometimes you need both to obtain the right answer.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Let’s talk about the FIGO classification, because it is important to have a communication method not only between physicians but with the patient. If we determine that a fibroid is a type 0, and therefore totally intracavitary, management is different than if the fibroid is a type 1 (less than 50% into the myometrium) or type 2 (more than 50%). What is the role for a classification system such as the FIGO?

Dr. Anderson: I like the FIGO classification system. We can show the patient fibroid classification diagrammatically and she will be able to understand exactly what we are talking about. It’s helpful for patient education and for surgical planning. The approach to a type 0 fibroid is a no-brainer, but with type 1 and more specifically with type 2, where the bulk of the fibroid is intramural and only a portion of that is intracavitary, fibroid size begins to matter a lot in terms of treatment approach.

Sometimes although a fibroid is intracavitary, a laparoscopic rather than hysteroscopic approach is preferred, as long as you can dissect the fibroid away from the endometrium. FIGO classification is very helpful, but I agree with Dr. Bradley that first you need to do a thorough evaluation to make your operative plan.

Continue to: Dr. Sanfilippo...

Dr. Sanfilippo: I encourage residents to go through an orderly sequence of assessment for evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding, including anatomic and endocrinologic factors. The PALM-COEIN classification system is a great mnemonic for use in evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding (TABLE).⁵ Is there a role for an aid such as PALM-COEIN in your practice?

The PALM-COEIN system helps us to look at 2 things. One is that in addition to structural causes, there can be hematologic causes. While it is rare in a 24-year-old, we all have had the anecdotal patient who came in 6 months ago, had a fibroid, but had a platelet count of 6,000. Second, we have to look at the patient as a whole. My residents, myself, and our fellows look at any bleeding. Does she have a bleeding diathesis, bruising, nose bleeds; has she been anemic, does she have pica? Has she had a blood transfusion, is she on certain medications? We do not want to create a “silo” and think that the patient can have only a fibroid, because then we may miss an opportunity to treat other disease states. She can have a fibroid coexisting with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), for instance. I like to look at everything so we can offer appropriate treatment modalities.

Dr. Sanfilippo: You bring up a very important point. Coagulopathies are more common statistically at the earlier part of a woman’s reproductive age group, soon after menarche, but they also occur toward menopause. We have to be cognizant that a woman can develop a coagulopathy throughout the reproductive years.

Dr. Anderson: You have to look at other medical causes. That is where the PALM-COEIN system can help. It helps you take the blinders off. If you focus on the fibroid and treat the fibroid and the patient still has bleeding, you missed something. You have to consider the whole patient and think of all the nonclassical or nonanatomical things, for example, thyroid disease. The PALM-COEIN helps us to evaluate the patient in a methodical way—every patient every time—so you do not miss something.

The value of MRI

Dr. Sanfilippo: What is the role for MRI, and when do you use it? Is it for only when you do a procedure—laparoscopically, robotically, open—so you have a detailed map of the fibroids?

Dr. Anderson: I love MRI, especially for hysteroscopy. I will print out the MRI image and trace the fibroid because there are things I want to know: exactly how much of the fibroid is inside or outside, where this fibroid is in the uterus, and how much of a normal buffer there is between the edge of that fibroid and the serosa. How aggressive can I be, or how cautious do I need to be, during the resection? Maybe this will be a planned 2-stage resection. MRIs are wonderful for fibroid disease, not only for diagnosis but also for surgical planning and patient counseling.

Dr. Bradley: SIS is also very useful. If the patient has an intracavitary fibroid that is larger than 4.5 to 5 cm and we insert the catheter, however, sometimes you cannot distend the cavity very well. Sometimes large intramural fibroids can compress the cavity, making the procedure difficult in an office setting. You cannot see the limits to help you as a surgical option. Although SIS generally is associated with little pain, some patients may have pain, and some patients cannot tolerate the test.

Continue to: I would order an MRI for surgical planning when...

I would order an MRI for surgical planning when a hysteroscopy is equivocal and if I cannot do an SIS. Also, if a patient who had a hysteroscopic resection with incomplete removal comes to me and is still symptomatic, I want to know the depth of penetration.

Obtaining an MRI may sometimes be difficult at a particular institution, and some clinicians have to go through the hurdles of getting an ultrasound to get certified and approved. We have to be our patient’s advocate and do the peer phone calls; any other specialty would require presurgical planning, and we are no different from other surgeons in that regard.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Yes, that can be a stumbling block. In the operating room, I like to have the images right in front of me, ideally an MRI or an ultrasound scan, as I know how to proceed. Having that visual helps me understand how close the fibroid is to the lining of the uterus.

Tapping into radiologists’ expertise

Dr. Bradley: Every quarter we meet with our radiologists, who are very interested in our MRI and SIS reports. They will describe the count and say how many fibroids—that is very helpful instead of just saying she has a bunch of fibroids—but they also will tell us when there is a type 0, a type 2, a type 7 fibroid. The team looks for adenomyosis and for endometriosis that can coexist.

Dr. Anderson: One caution about reading radiology reports is that often someone will come in with a report from an outside hospital or from a small community hospital that may say, “There is a 2-cm submucosal fibroid.” Some people might be tempted to take this person right to the OR, but you need to look at the images yourself, because in a radiologist’s mind “submucosal” truly means under the mucosa, which in our liturgy would be “intramural.” So we need to make sure that we are talking the same language. You should look at the images yourself.

Dr. Sanfilippo: I totally agree. It is also not unreasonable to speak with the radiologists and educate them about the FIGO classification.

Dr. Bradley: I prefer the word “intracavitary” for fibroids. When I see a typed report without the picture, “submucosal” can mean in the cavity or abutting the endometrium.

Case 2: Woman with heavy bleeding and fibroids seeks nonsurgical treatment

Dr. Sanfilippo: A 39-year-old (G3P3) woman is referred for evaluation for heavy vaginal bleeding, soaking a pad in an hour, which has been going on for months. Her primary ObGyn obtained a pelvic sonogram and noted multiple intramural and subserosal fibroids. A sonohysterogram reveals a submucosal myoma.

The patient is not interested in a hysterectomy. She was treated with birth control pills, with no improvement. She is interested in nonsurgical options. Dr. Bradley, what medical treatments might you offer this patient?

Medical treatment options

Dr. Bradley: If oral contraceptives have not worked, a good option would be tranexamic acid. Years ago our hospital was involved with enrolling patients in the multicenter clinical trial of this drug. The classic patient enrolled had regular, predictable, heavy menstrual cycles with alkaline hematin assay of greater than 80. If the case patient described has regular and predictable heavy bleeding every month at the same time, for the same duration, I would consider the use of tranexamic acid. There are several contraindications for the drug, so those exclusion issues would need to be reviewed. Contraindications include subarachnoid hemorrhage. Cerebral edema and cerebral infarction may be caused by tranexamic acid in such patients. Other contraindications include active intravascular clotting and hypersensitivity.

Continue to: Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system...

Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system (IUS) like the levonorgestrel (LNG) IUS would fit into this patient’s uterine cavity. Like Ted, I want to look into that cavity. I am not sure what “submucosal fibroid” means. If it has not distorted the cavity, or is totally within the uterine cavity, or abuts the endometrial cavity. The LNG-IUS cannot be placed into a uterine cavity that has intracavitary fibroids or sounds to greater than 12 cm. We are not going to put an LNG-IUS in somebody, at least in general, with a globally enlarged uterine cavity. I could ask, do you do that? You do a bimanual exam, and it is 18-weeks in size. I am not sure that I would put it in, but does it meet those criteria? The package insert for the LNG-IUS specifies upper and lower limits of uterine size for placement. I would start with those 2 options (tranexamic acid and LNG-IUS), and also get some more imaging.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda. The submucosal fibroid could be contributing to this patient’s bleeding, but it is not the total contribution. The other fibroids may be completely irrelevant as far as her bleeding is concerned. We may need to deal with that one surgically, which we can do without a hysterectomy, most of the time.

I am a big fan of the LNG-IUS, it has been great in my experience. There are some other treatments available as well, such as gonadotropin–releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. I tell patients that, while GnRH does work, it is not designed to be long-term therapy. If I have, for example, a 49-year-old patient, I just need to get her to menopause. Longer-term GnRH agonists might be a good option in this case. Otherwise, we could use short-term a GnRH agonist to stop the bleeding for a while so that we can reset the clock and get her started on something like levonorgestrel, tranexamic acid, or one of the other medical therapies. That may be a 2-step combination therapy.

Dr. Sanfilippo: There is a whole category of agents available—selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs), pure progesterone receptor antagonists, ulipristal comes to mind. Clinicians need to know that options are available beyond birth control pills.

Dr. Anderson: As I tell patients, there are also “bridge” options. These are interventional procedures that are not hysterectomy, such as uterine fibroid embolization or endometrial ablation if bleeding is really the problem. We might consider a variety of different approaches. Obviously, we do not typically use fibroid embolization for submucosal fibroids, but it depends on how much of the fibroid is intracavitary and how big it is. Other options are a little more aggressive than medical therapy but they do not involve a hysterectomy.

Pros and cons of uterine artery embolization

Dr. Sanfilippo: If a woman desires future childbearing, is there a role for uterine artery embolization? How would you counsel her about the pros and cons?

Dr. Bradley: At the Cleveland Clinic, we generally do not offer uterine artery embolization if the patient wants a child. While it is an excellent method for treating heavy bleeding and bulk symptoms, the endometrium can be impacted. Patients can develop fistula, adhesions, or concentric narrowing, and changes in anti-Müllerian hormone levels, and there is potential for an Asherman-like syndrome and poor perfusion. I have many hysteroscopic images where the anterior wall of the uterus is nice and pink and the posterior wall is totally pale. The embolic microsphere particles can reach the endometrium—I have seen particles in the endometrium when doing a fibroid resection.

Continue to: A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year...

A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year.⁶ If women became pregnant, they had a higher rate of postpartum hemorrhage; placenta accreta, increta, and percreta; and emergent hysterectomy. It was recommended that these women deliver at a tertiary care center due to higher rates of preterm labor and malposition.

If a patient wants a baby, she should find a gynecologic surgeon who does minimally invasive laparoscopic, robotic, or open surgery, because she is more likely to have a take-home baby with a surgical approach than with embolization. In my experience, there is always going to be a patient who wants to keep her uterus at age 49 and who has every comorbidity. I might offer her the embolization just knowing what the odds of pregnancy are.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda but I take a more liberal approach. Sometimes we do a myomectomy because we are trying to enhance fertility, while other times we do a myomectomy to address fibroid-related symptoms. These patients are having specific symptoms, and we want to leave the embolization option open.

If I have a patient who is 39 and becoming pregnant is not necessarily her goal, but she does not want to have a hysterectomy and if she got pregnant it would be okay, I am going to treat her a little different with respect to fibroid embolization than I would treat someone who is actively trying to have a baby. This goes back to what you were saying, let’s treat the patient, not just the fibroid.

Dr. Bradley: That is so important and sentinel. If she really does not want a hysterectomy but does not want a baby, I will ask, “Would you go through in vitro fertilization? Would you take clomiphene?” If she answers no, then I feel more comfortable, like you, with referring the patient for uterine fibroid embolization. The point is to get the patient with the right team to get the best outcomes.

Surgical approaches, intraoperative agents, and suture technique

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, tell us about your surgical approaches to fibroids.

Dr. Anderson: At my institution we do have a fellowship in minimally invasive surgery, but I still do a lot of open myomectomies. I have a few guidelines to determine whether I am going to proceed laparoscopically, do a little minilaparotomy incision, or if a gigantic uterus is going to require a big incision. My mantra to my fellows has always been, “minimally invasive is the impact on the patient, not the size of the incision.”

Sometimes, prolonged anesthesia and Trendelenburg create more morbidity than a minilaparotomy. If a patient has 4 or 5 fibroids and most of them are intramural and I cannot see them but I want to be able to feel them, and to get a really good closure of the myometrium, I might choose to do a minilaparotomy. But if it is a case of a solitary fibroid, I would be more inclined to operate laparoscopically.

Continue to: Dr. Bradley...

Dr. Bradley: Our protocol is similar. We use MRI liberally. If patients have 4 or more fibroids and they are larger than 8 cm, most will have open surgery. I do not do robotic or laparoscopic procedures, so my referral source is for the larger myomas. We do not put retractors in; we can make incisions. Even if we do a huge Maylard incision, it is cosmetically wonderful. We use a loading dose of IV tranexamic acid with tranexamic acid throughout the surgery, and misoprostol intravaginally prior to surgery, to control uterine bleeding.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, is there a role for agents such as vasopressin, and what about routes of administration?

Dr. Anderson: When I do a laparoscopic or open procedure, I inject vasopressin (dilute 20 U in 100 mL of saline) into the pseudocapsule around the fibroid. I also administer rectal misoprostol (400 µg) just before the patient prep is done, which is amazing in reducing blood loss. There is also a role for a GnRH agonist, not necessarily to reduce the size of the uterus but to reduce blood flow in the pelvis and blood loss. Many different techniques are available. I do not use tourniquets, however. If bleeding does occur, I want to see it so I can fix it—not after I have sewn up the uterus and taken off a tourniquet.

Dr. Bradley: Do you use Floseal hemostatic matrix or any other agent to control bleeding?

Dr. Anderson: I do, for local hemostasis.

Dr. Bradley: Some surgeons will use barbed suture.

Dr. Anderson: I do like barbed sutures. In teaching residents to do myomectomy, it is very beneficial. But I am still a big fan of the good old figure-of-8 stitch because it is compressive and you get a good apposition of the tissue, good hemostasis, and strong closure.

Dr. Sanfilippo: We hope that this conversation will change your management of uterine fibroids. I thank Dr. Bradley and Dr. Anderson for a lively and very informative discussion.

Watch the video: Video roundtable–Fibroids: Patient considerations in medical and surgical management