MDedge Surgery

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been around for decades, but typically excluded patients having surgery for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, recent studies have shown strategies to optimize these patients, including presurgery carbohydrate loading and early postsurgery feeding, can improve outcomes, according to a review of evidence presented at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

“It’s really important that we implement strategies to help mitigate the impact that malnutrition is going to have on our perioperative patients, and one of the ways we do that is by using an ERAS or enhanced recovery after surgery protocol,” said Kelly Issokson, MS, RD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. She noted that patients with IBD are five times more likely to be malnourished than non-IBD patients, and those with fistulizing Crohn’s disease and bowel resections are at greatest risk (Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2008;14:1139-46).

“I constantly see patients who are kept NPO [nothing by mouth] 12 or 24 hours before surgery, maybe even longer sometimes, unfortunately,” she said. “We should really be minimizing that NPO to help mitigate the catabolic effect that surgery has on our patients and help them recover more quickly.”

To screen surgery patients for nutrition risk, Ms. Issokson said that gastroenterologists can ask two questions from the malnutrition screening tool: Did the patient have recent unintentional weight loss, and is the patient eating less because of poor appetite? A yes to either question merits referral to a registered dietician. Malnutrition, weight loss of 5%-10% of total body weight, and sarcopenia are predictors of surgical complications for IBD patients, the latter an independent predictor in patients aged 40 years and older.

The ERAS protocol involves optimizing preoperative and postoperative nutrition, she said. It has been linked with improved outcomes in elective colorectal surgery (World J Surg. 2014;38:1531-41), although the evidence in IBD isn’t as robust. She cited a retrospective study reported at the 2019 annual Digestive Disease Week of patients with Crohn’s disease that found no difference in readmissions, complications, or reoperations between ERAS and standard-care patients.

Preoperative nutrition optimization in ERAS involves anemia and fluid management, oral nutrition supplementation, and – based on European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) 2017 guidelines – delaying the operation where possible if the patient is malnourished. “Patients who receive preoperative nutrition support have been shown to have better outcomes postoperatively,” Ms. Issokson said, citing a meta-analysis of 1,111 Crohn’s disease patients that reported the complication rate was 20% in patients on nutrition support versus 60% for those on standard care; in those on enteral nutrition, the disparity was more pronounced: 21% versus 73% (Eur J Gastro Hep. 2018;30:997-1002).

Gastroenterologists should not be afraid of implementing total parenteral nutrition (TPN) perioperatively in these patients, Ms. Issokson said. “This can really help to improve outcomes and quality of life in our patients, and it’s something that we really should not shy away from,” she added in an interview. “If our patients are malnourished and meet the criteria for TPN, then we should really not be withholding it.” Patients with severe IBD who are not absorbing from their gut and can’t meet 60% of their needs by mouth are prime candidates for TPN, she said, referencing a 2019 study that reported that preoperative TPN in malnourished IBD patients resulted in a rate of overall noninfectious complications half that of no-TPN patients: 8.3% versus 16.8% (Gastroenterol Rep. 2019 Apr;7:107-14).

Carbohydrate loading before surgery is a big part of ERAS in these patients. “Surgery has a huge impact on the catabolic state of a patient,” Ms. Issokson said. “It’s similar to running a marathon; you wouldn’t go out and run a marathon without fueling up the night before with a whole bunch of carbohydrates. So we use this same strategy in our surgical patients.”

ERAS society guidelines call for 100 g of carbohydrates the night before and 50 g 2 hours before surgery in the form of a clear liquid beverage, along with permitting a light meal up to 6 hours before, with exceptions in gastroparesis, motility disorders, and emergency surgery.

Another key component of ERAS in IBD is early postoperative feeding. “Postoperatively we want to feed our patients as soon as possible,” Ms. Issokson said. ESPEN guidelines call for feeding patients with new nondiverted colorectal anastomosis within 4 hours. “Studies show that patients aren’t able to eat enough calories to help them recover postoperatively, so implementing an oral nutrition supplement might be helpful there,” she added.

Ms. Issokson is a Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation board member, and disclosed financial relationships with Orgain, RMEI, and Medscape.

SOURCE: Issokson K et al. Crohn’s & Colitis Congress 2020, Session Sp83.
 

AUSTIN, TEX. – Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been around for decades, but typically excluded patients having surgery for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, recent studies have shown strategies to optimize these patients, including presurgery carbohydrate loading and early postsurgery feeding, can improve outcomes, according to a review of evidence presented at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

“It’s really important that we implement strategies to help mitigate the impact that malnutrition is going to have on our perioperative patients, and one of the ways we do that is by using an ERAS or enhanced recovery after surgery protocol,” said Kelly Issokson, MS, RD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. She noted that patients with IBD are five times more likely to be malnourished than non-IBD patients, and those with fistulizing Crohn’s disease and bowel resections are at greatest risk (Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2008;14:1139-46).

“I constantly see patients who are kept NPO [nothing by mouth] 12 or 24 hours before surgery, maybe even longer sometimes, unfortunately,” she said. “We should really be minimizing that NPO to help mitigate the catabolic effect that surgery has on our patients and help them recover more quickly.”

To screen surgery patients for nutrition risk, Ms. Issokson said that gastroenterologists can ask two questions from the malnutrition screening tool: Did the patient have recent unintentional weight loss, and is the patient eating less because of poor appetite? A yes to either question merits referral to a registered dietician. Malnutrition, weight loss of 5%-10% of total body weight, and sarcopenia are predictors of surgical complications for IBD patients, the latter an independent predictor in patients aged 40 years and older.

The ERAS protocol involves optimizing preoperative and postoperative nutrition, she said. It has been linked with improved outcomes in elective colorectal surgery (World J Surg. 2014;38:1531-41), although the evidence in IBD isn’t as robust. She cited a retrospective study reported at the 2019 annual Digestive Disease Week of patients with Crohn’s disease that found no difference in readmissions, complications, or reoperations between ERAS and standard-care patients.

Preoperative nutrition optimization in ERAS involves anemia and fluid management, oral nutrition supplementation, and – based on European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) 2017 guidelines – delaying the operation where possible if the patient is malnourished. “Patients who receive preoperative nutrition support have been shown to have better outcomes postoperatively,” Ms. Issokson said, citing a meta-analysis of 1,111 Crohn’s disease patients that reported the complication rate was 20% in patients on nutrition support versus 60% for those on standard care; in those on enteral nutrition, the disparity was more pronounced: 21% versus 73% (Eur J Gastro Hep. 2018;30:997-1002).

Gastroenterologists should not be afraid of implementing total parenteral nutrition (TPN) perioperatively in these patients, Ms. Issokson said. “This can really help to improve outcomes and quality of life in our patients, and it’s something that we really should not shy away from,” she added in an interview. “If our patients are malnourished and meet the criteria for TPN, then we should really not be withholding it.” Patients with severe IBD who are not absorbing from their gut and can’t meet 60% of their needs by mouth are prime candidates for TPN, she said, referencing a 2019 study that reported that preoperative TPN in malnourished IBD patients resulted in a rate of overall noninfectious complications half that of no-TPN patients: 8.3% versus 16.8% (Gastroenterol Rep. 2019 Apr;7:107-14).

Carbohydrate loading before surgery is a big part of ERAS in these patients. “Surgery has a huge impact on the catabolic state of a patient,” Ms. Issokson said. “It’s similar to running a marathon; you wouldn’t go out and run a marathon without fueling up the night before with a whole bunch of carbohydrates. So we use this same strategy in our surgical patients.”

ERAS society guidelines call for 100 g of carbohydrates the night before and 50 g 2 hours before surgery in the form of a clear liquid beverage, along with permitting a light meal up to 6 hours before, with exceptions in gastroparesis, motility disorders, and emergency surgery.

Another key component of ERAS in IBD is early postoperative feeding. “Postoperatively we want to feed our patients as soon as possible,” Ms. Issokson said. ESPEN guidelines call for feeding patients with new nondiverted colorectal anastomosis within 4 hours. “Studies show that patients aren’t able to eat enough calories to help them recover postoperatively, so implementing an oral nutrition supplement might be helpful there,” she added.

Ms. Issokson is a Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation board member, and disclosed financial relationships with Orgain, RMEI, and Medscape.

SOURCE: Issokson K et al. Crohn’s & Colitis Congress 2020, Session Sp83.
 

AUSTIN, TEX. – Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been around for decades, but typically excluded patients having surgery for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, recent studies have shown strategies to optimize these patients, including presurgery carbohydrate loading and early postsurgery feeding, can improve outcomes, according to a review of evidence presented at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

“It’s really important that we implement strategies to help mitigate the impact that malnutrition is going to have on our perioperative patients, and one of the ways we do that is by using an ERAS or enhanced recovery after surgery protocol,” said Kelly Issokson, MS, RD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. She noted that patients with IBD are five times more likely to be malnourished than non-IBD patients, and those with fistulizing Crohn’s disease and bowel resections are at greatest risk (Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2008;14:1139-46).

“I constantly see patients who are kept NPO [nothing by mouth] 12 or 24 hours before surgery, maybe even longer sometimes, unfortunately,” she said. “We should really be minimizing that NPO to help mitigate the catabolic effect that surgery has on our patients and help them recover more quickly.”

To screen surgery patients for nutrition risk, Ms. Issokson said that gastroenterologists can ask two questions from the malnutrition screening tool: Did the patient have recent unintentional weight loss, and is the patient eating less because of poor appetite? A yes to either question merits referral to a registered dietician. Malnutrition, weight loss of 5%-10% of total body weight, and sarcopenia are predictors of surgical complications for IBD patients, the latter an independent predictor in patients aged 40 years and older.

The ERAS protocol involves optimizing preoperative and postoperative nutrition, she said. It has been linked with improved outcomes in elective colorectal surgery (World J Surg. 2014;38:1531-41), although the evidence in IBD isn’t as robust. She cited a retrospective study reported at the 2019 annual Digestive Disease Week of patients with Crohn’s disease that found no difference in readmissions, complications, or reoperations between ERAS and standard-care patients.

Preoperative nutrition optimization in ERAS involves anemia and fluid management, oral nutrition supplementation, and – based on European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) 2017 guidelines – delaying the operation where possible if the patient is malnourished. “Patients who receive preoperative nutrition support have been shown to have better outcomes postoperatively,” Ms. Issokson said, citing a meta-analysis of 1,111 Crohn’s disease patients that reported the complication rate was 20% in patients on nutrition support versus 60% for those on standard care; in those on enteral nutrition, the disparity was more pronounced: 21% versus 73% (Eur J Gastro Hep. 2018;30:997-1002).

Gastroenterologists should not be afraid of implementing total parenteral nutrition (TPN) perioperatively in these patients, Ms. Issokson said. “This can really help to improve outcomes and quality of life in our patients, and it’s something that we really should not shy away from,” she added in an interview. “If our patients are malnourished and meet the criteria for TPN, then we should really not be withholding it.” Patients with severe IBD who are not absorbing from their gut and can’t meet 60% of their needs by mouth are prime candidates for TPN, she said, referencing a 2019 study that reported that preoperative TPN in malnourished IBD patients resulted in a rate of overall noninfectious complications half that of no-TPN patients: 8.3% versus 16.8% (Gastroenterol Rep. 2019 Apr;7:107-14).

Carbohydrate loading before surgery is a big part of ERAS in these patients. “Surgery has a huge impact on the catabolic state of a patient,” Ms. Issokson said. “It’s similar to running a marathon; you wouldn’t go out and run a marathon without fueling up the night before with a whole bunch of carbohydrates. So we use this same strategy in our surgical patients.”

ERAS society guidelines call for 100 g of carbohydrates the night before and 50 g 2 hours before surgery in the form of a clear liquid beverage, along with permitting a light meal up to 6 hours before, with exceptions in gastroparesis, motility disorders, and emergency surgery.

Another key component of ERAS in IBD is early postoperative feeding. “Postoperatively we want to feed our patients as soon as possible,” Ms. Issokson said. ESPEN guidelines call for feeding patients with new nondiverted colorectal anastomosis within 4 hours. “Studies show that patients aren’t able to eat enough calories to help them recover postoperatively, so implementing an oral nutrition supplement might be helpful there,” she added.

Ms. Issokson is a Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation board member, and disclosed financial relationships with Orgain, RMEI, and Medscape.

SOURCE: Issokson K et al. Crohn’s & Colitis Congress 2020, Session Sp83.
 

AUSTIN, TEX. – Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who want to have children can benefit from better education about recent findings that disease control, laparoscopic surgery, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) have improved their chances of conceiving, according to a review of published reports presented here at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

“Decreased fertility in IBD is due to voluntary childlessness, which we can change with education; surgery for IBD, which we can improve with laparoscopic surgery; and increased disease activity, which we can also make a difference in,” Sonia Friedman, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Friedman and coauthors last year published an analysis of the Danish National Birth Cohort, which showed women with IBD had an 28% greater relative risk of taking a year or more to get pregnant than controls without IBD, and that the relative risk was even higher in women with Crohn’s disease — 54% (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.031). “We found that women with Crohn’s surgery had decreased fertility by 2.54 times greater relative risk,” she said.

“Fertility, pregnancy is the most important thing to patients,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview. “That’s what people ask me about the most. In the population of IBD patients, the onset is age 15-35, and these people are in the prime of their reproductive years.” Sexual function, known to be decreased in men and women with IBD, is also an overriding concern in these patients, she said. “There needs to be a lot more information out there about it.”

She said gastroenterologists should keep in mind that much of the evidence documenting reduced fertility after ileo-pouch anal anastomosis is dated and focused on open surgery, which caused profound scarring of the pelvis and fallopian tubes, thus hindering conception. Laparoscopic ileoanal J-pouch surgery (IPAA) has yielded much improved outcomes in women of child-bearing age, she said, citing a study late last year that reported women who had laparoscopic IPAA had a median time to pregnancy of 3.5 months versus 9 months for women who had open IPAA (Surgery. 2019;166:670-7).

“It’s really important to discuss the issues of fertility, especially for patients contemplating surgery,” Dr. Friedman said. “Emphasize that there are good outcomes with laparoscopic surgery, and they can have assisted reproductive technology [ART], or in vitro fertilization, if needed. Never withhold surgery based on fear of infertility.”

Her practice is to refer women with IBD in remission for IVF if they’ve tried to get pregnant every month for a year or more and to refer women with IBD surgery for IVF after trying to get pregnant for 6 months. Dr. Friedman coauthored two studies of the Danish National Birth Cohort of ART in women with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis (UC) along with controls (Gut. 2016;65:767-76; Gut. 2017;66:556-58). “We found that women with Crohn’s and UC had a decreased chance of having a clinical pregnancy, but they had no problem carrying the pregnancy to term,” she said.

Those findings raised questions about the etiology of decreased fertility in IBD patients, which could include factors such as IVF technique, reproductive hormone and microbiome changes, or IBD medications. “How can we carry that forward to all women with IBD?” she said. Women with IBD have less chance of conceiving with each IVF treatment cycle than do women without IBD, she said. “The most interesting thing is that the reduced chance of live birth after IVF treatment in Crohn’s and UC is related to the stages of implantation and not to the ability to maintain the fetus throughout pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Friedman has no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Friedman S. Crohn’s & Colitis Congress, Session Sp86.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who want to have children can benefit from better education about recent findings that disease control, laparoscopic surgery, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) have improved their chances of conceiving, according to a review of published reports presented here at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

“Decreased fertility in IBD is due to voluntary childlessness, which we can change with education; surgery for IBD, which we can improve with laparoscopic surgery; and increased disease activity, which we can also make a difference in,” Sonia Friedman, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Friedman and coauthors last year published an analysis of the Danish National Birth Cohort, which showed women with IBD had an 28% greater relative risk of taking a year or more to get pregnant than controls without IBD, and that the relative risk was even higher in women with Crohn’s disease — 54% (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.031). “We found that women with Crohn’s surgery had decreased fertility by 2.54 times greater relative risk,” she said.

“Fertility, pregnancy is the most important thing to patients,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview. “That’s what people ask me about the most. In the population of IBD patients, the onset is age 15-35, and these people are in the prime of their reproductive years.” Sexual function, known to be decreased in men and women with IBD, is also an overriding concern in these patients, she said. “There needs to be a lot more information out there about it.”

She said gastroenterologists should keep in mind that much of the evidence documenting reduced fertility after ileo-pouch anal anastomosis is dated and focused on open surgery, which caused profound scarring of the pelvis and fallopian tubes, thus hindering conception. Laparoscopic ileoanal J-pouch surgery (IPAA) has yielded much improved outcomes in women of child-bearing age, she said, citing a study late last year that reported women who had laparoscopic IPAA had a median time to pregnancy of 3.5 months versus 9 months for women who had open IPAA (Surgery. 2019;166:670-7).

“It’s really important to discuss the issues of fertility, especially for patients contemplating surgery,” Dr. Friedman said. “Emphasize that there are good outcomes with laparoscopic surgery, and they can have assisted reproductive technology [ART], or in vitro fertilization, if needed. Never withhold surgery based on fear of infertility.”

Her practice is to refer women with IBD in remission for IVF if they’ve tried to get pregnant every month for a year or more and to refer women with IBD surgery for IVF after trying to get pregnant for 6 months. Dr. Friedman coauthored two studies of the Danish National Birth Cohort of ART in women with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis (UC) along with controls (Gut. 2016;65:767-76; Gut. 2017;66:556-58). “We found that women with Crohn’s and UC had a decreased chance of having a clinical pregnancy, but they had no problem carrying the pregnancy to term,” she said.

Those findings raised questions about the etiology of decreased fertility in IBD patients, which could include factors such as IVF technique, reproductive hormone and microbiome changes, or IBD medications. “How can we carry that forward to all women with IBD?” she said. Women with IBD have less chance of conceiving with each IVF treatment cycle than do women without IBD, she said. “The most interesting thing is that the reduced chance of live birth after IVF treatment in Crohn’s and UC is related to the stages of implantation and not to the ability to maintain the fetus throughout pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Friedman has no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Friedman S. Crohn’s & Colitis Congress, Session Sp86.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who want to have children can benefit from better education about recent findings that disease control, laparoscopic surgery, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) have improved their chances of conceiving, according to a review of published reports presented here at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

“Decreased fertility in IBD is due to voluntary childlessness, which we can change with education; surgery for IBD, which we can improve with laparoscopic surgery; and increased disease activity, which we can also make a difference in,” Sonia Friedman, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Friedman and coauthors last year published an analysis of the Danish National Birth Cohort, which showed women with IBD had an 28% greater relative risk of taking a year or more to get pregnant than controls without IBD, and that the relative risk was even higher in women with Crohn’s disease — 54% (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.031). “We found that women with Crohn’s surgery had decreased fertility by 2.54 times greater relative risk,” she said.

“Fertility, pregnancy is the most important thing to patients,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview. “That’s what people ask me about the most. In the population of IBD patients, the onset is age 15-35, and these people are in the prime of their reproductive years.” Sexual function, known to be decreased in men and women with IBD, is also an overriding concern in these patients, she said. “There needs to be a lot more information out there about it.”

She said gastroenterologists should keep in mind that much of the evidence documenting reduced fertility after ileo-pouch anal anastomosis is dated and focused on open surgery, which caused profound scarring of the pelvis and fallopian tubes, thus hindering conception. Laparoscopic ileoanal J-pouch surgery (IPAA) has yielded much improved outcomes in women of child-bearing age, she said, citing a study late last year that reported women who had laparoscopic IPAA had a median time to pregnancy of 3.5 months versus 9 months for women who had open IPAA (Surgery. 2019;166:670-7).

“It’s really important to discuss the issues of fertility, especially for patients contemplating surgery,” Dr. Friedman said. “Emphasize that there are good outcomes with laparoscopic surgery, and they can have assisted reproductive technology [ART], or in vitro fertilization, if needed. Never withhold surgery based on fear of infertility.”

Her practice is to refer women with IBD in remission for IVF if they’ve tried to get pregnant every month for a year or more and to refer women with IBD surgery for IVF after trying to get pregnant for 6 months. Dr. Friedman coauthored two studies of the Danish National Birth Cohort of ART in women with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis (UC) along with controls (Gut. 2016;65:767-76; Gut. 2017;66:556-58). “We found that women with Crohn’s and UC had a decreased chance of having a clinical pregnancy, but they had no problem carrying the pregnancy to term,” she said.

Those findings raised questions about the etiology of decreased fertility in IBD patients, which could include factors such as IVF technique, reproductive hormone and microbiome changes, or IBD medications. “How can we carry that forward to all women with IBD?” she said. Women with IBD have less chance of conceiving with each IVF treatment cycle than do women without IBD, she said. “The most interesting thing is that the reduced chance of live birth after IVF treatment in Crohn’s and UC is related to the stages of implantation and not to the ability to maintain the fetus throughout pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Friedman has no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Friedman S. Crohn’s & Colitis Congress, Session Sp86.

There were fewer complications with outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center than in the hospital, according to a review from the University of Tennessee Campbell Clinic, Memphis.

“In carefully selected patients, the ASC [ambulatory surgery center] seems to be a safe alternative to the inpatient hospital setting,” concluded investigators led by led by Marcus Ford, MD, a Campbell Clinic orthopedic surgeon.

He and his colleagues have been doing outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) since 2009, and “based on the subjective success,” recently increased the number of total knee, hip, and shoulder arthroplasties performed in their ASC.

They wanted to make sure, however, that their impression of good outpatient UKA results was supported by the data, so they compared outcomes in 48 UKA patients treated at their ASC with 48 treated in the hospital. The operations were done by two surgeons using the same technique and same medial UKA implant.

“Naturally, surgeons select those patients who are deemed physically and mentally capable of succeeding with an accelerated discharge plan” for outpatient service, the investigators wrote. To address that potential selection bias, the team matched their subjects by age and comorbidities.

There was only one minor complication in the outpatient group, a superficial stitch abscess. No patient needed a second operation, and all went home the same day.

It was different on the inpatient side. The average length of stay was 2.9 days, and there were four major complications: a deep venous thrombosis, a pulmonary embolus, an acute postoperative infection, and a periprosthetic fracture. All four required hospital readmission, and two patients needed a second operation.

The report didn’t directly address the reasons for the differences, but Dr. Ford and colleagues did note that they “believe that the ASC allows the surgeon greater direct control of perioperative variables that can impact patient outcome.”

Patients were in their late 50s, on average, and there were more women than men in both groups. The mean American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification score was 1.94 and mean body mass index was 34.3 kg/m² in the outpatient group, compared with a mean physical status classification score of 2.08 and mean body mass index of 32.9 kg/m² in the inpatient group. The differences were not statistically significant.

No funding source was reported. The investigators did not report any disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ford M et al. Orthop Clin North Am. 2020 Jan;51[1]:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2019.08.001

There were fewer complications with outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center than in the hospital, according to a review from the University of Tennessee Campbell Clinic, Memphis.

“In carefully selected patients, the ASC [ambulatory surgery center] seems to be a safe alternative to the inpatient hospital setting,” concluded investigators led by led by Marcus Ford, MD, a Campbell Clinic orthopedic surgeon.

He and his colleagues have been doing outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) since 2009, and “based on the subjective success,” recently increased the number of total knee, hip, and shoulder arthroplasties performed in their ASC.

They wanted to make sure, however, that their impression of good outpatient UKA results was supported by the data, so they compared outcomes in 48 UKA patients treated at their ASC with 48 treated in the hospital. The operations were done by two surgeons using the same technique and same medial UKA implant.

“Naturally, surgeons select those patients who are deemed physically and mentally capable of succeeding with an accelerated discharge plan” for outpatient service, the investigators wrote. To address that potential selection bias, the team matched their subjects by age and comorbidities.

There was only one minor complication in the outpatient group, a superficial stitch abscess. No patient needed a second operation, and all went home the same day.

It was different on the inpatient side. The average length of stay was 2.9 days, and there were four major complications: a deep venous thrombosis, a pulmonary embolus, an acute postoperative infection, and a periprosthetic fracture. All four required hospital readmission, and two patients needed a second operation.

The report didn’t directly address the reasons for the differences, but Dr. Ford and colleagues did note that they “believe that the ASC allows the surgeon greater direct control of perioperative variables that can impact patient outcome.”

Patients were in their late 50s, on average, and there were more women than men in both groups. The mean American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification score was 1.94 and mean body mass index was 34.3 kg/m² in the outpatient group, compared with a mean physical status classification score of 2.08 and mean body mass index of 32.9 kg/m² in the inpatient group. The differences were not statistically significant.

No funding source was reported. The investigators did not report any disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ford M et al. Orthop Clin North Am. 2020 Jan;51[1]:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2019.08.001

There were fewer complications with outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center than in the hospital, according to a review from the University of Tennessee Campbell Clinic, Memphis.

“In carefully selected patients, the ASC [ambulatory surgery center] seems to be a safe alternative to the inpatient hospital setting,” concluded investigators led by led by Marcus Ford, MD, a Campbell Clinic orthopedic surgeon.

He and his colleagues have been doing outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) since 2009, and “based on the subjective success,” recently increased the number of total knee, hip, and shoulder arthroplasties performed in their ASC.

They wanted to make sure, however, that their impression of good outpatient UKA results was supported by the data, so they compared outcomes in 48 UKA patients treated at their ASC with 48 treated in the hospital. The operations were done by two surgeons using the same technique and same medial UKA implant.

“Naturally, surgeons select those patients who are deemed physically and mentally capable of succeeding with an accelerated discharge plan” for outpatient service, the investigators wrote. To address that potential selection bias, the team matched their subjects by age and comorbidities.

There was only one minor complication in the outpatient group, a superficial stitch abscess. No patient needed a second operation, and all went home the same day.

It was different on the inpatient side. The average length of stay was 2.9 days, and there were four major complications: a deep venous thrombosis, a pulmonary embolus, an acute postoperative infection, and a periprosthetic fracture. All four required hospital readmission, and two patients needed a second operation.

The report didn’t directly address the reasons for the differences, but Dr. Ford and colleagues did note that they “believe that the ASC allows the surgeon greater direct control of perioperative variables that can impact patient outcome.”

Patients were in their late 50s, on average, and there were more women than men in both groups. The mean American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification score was 1.94 and mean body mass index was 34.3 kg/m² in the outpatient group, compared with a mean physical status classification score of 2.08 and mean body mass index of 32.9 kg/m² in the inpatient group. The differences were not statistically significant.

No funding source was reported. The investigators did not report any disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ford M et al. Orthop Clin North Am. 2020 Jan;51[1]:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2019.08.001

In October 2012, Pamela Wible, MD, attended a memorial service in her town for a physician who had died by suicide. Sitting in the third row, she began to count all the colleagues she had lost to suicide, and the result shocked her: 3 in her small town alone, 10 if she expanded her scope to all the doctors she’d ever known.

And so she set out on a mission to document as many physician suicides as she could, in an attempt to understand why her fellow doctors were taking their lives. “I viewed this as a personal quest,” she said in an interview. “I wanted to find out why my friends were dying.” Over the course of 7 years, she documented more than 1,300 physician suicides in the United States with the help of individuals who have lost colleagues and loved ones. She maintains a suicide prevention hotline for medical students and doctors.

On her website, Dr. Wible calls high physician suicide rates a “public health crisis.” She states many conclusions from the stories she’s collected, among them that anesthesiologists are at highest risk for suicide among physicians.

The claim that doctors have a high suicide rate is a common one beyond Dr. Wible’s documentation project. Frequently cited papers contend that 300 physicians commit suicide per year, and that physicians’ suicide rate is higher than the general population. Researchers presenting at the American Psychiatric Association meeting in 2018 said physicians have the highest suicide rate of any profession – double that of the general population, with one completed suicide every day – and Medscape’s coverage of the talk has been widely referenced as supporting evidence.

A closer look at the data behind these claims, however, reveals the difficulty of establishing reliable statistics. Dr. Wible acknowledges that her data are limited. “We do not have accurate numbers. These [statistics] have come to me organically,” she said. Incorrectly coded death certificates are one reason it’s hard to get solid information. “When we’re trying to figure out how many doctors do die by suicide, it’s very hard to know.”

Similar claims have been made at various times about dentists, construction workers, and farmers, perhaps in an effort to call attention to difficult working conditions and inadequate mental health care. Overall, the claims about physician suicide are “widely quoted as fact without any clear evidence,” said Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, an associate professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who researches physician wellness, mental health, and suicide. It’s critical to know the accurate numbers, she said, “so we can know if we’re making progress.”

Scrutinizing a statistic

The idea for the research presented at the APA meeting in 2018 came up a year earlier “when there were quite a number of physician deaths by suicide,” lead author Omotola T’Sarumi, MD, psychiatrist and chief resident at Columbia University’s Harlem Hospital in New York at the time of the presentation, said in an interview. The poster describes the methodology as a systematic review of research articles published in the last 10 years. Dr. T’Sarumi and colleagues concluded that the rate was 28-40 suicides per 100,000 doctors, compared with a rate of 12.3 per 100,000 for the general population. “That just stunned me,” she said. “We should be doing better.” A peer-reviewed article on the work has not been published.

The references on the poster show limited data to support the headline conclusion that physicians have the highest suicide rate of any profession: four papers and a book chapter. The poster itself does not describe the methodology used to arrive at the numbers stated, and Dr. T’Sarumi said that she was unable to gain access to her previous research since moving to a new institution. Dr. Gold, the first author on one of the papers the poster cites, said there are “huge issues” with the work. “In my paper that they’re citing, I was not looking at rates of suicide,” she said. “This is just picking a couple of studies and highlighting them.”

Dr. Gold’s paper uses data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) to identify differences in risk factors and suicide methods between physicians and others who died by suicide in 17 states. The researchers did not attempt to quantify a difference in overall rates, but found that physicians who end their own lives are more likely to have a known mental health disorder with lower rates of medication treatment than nonphysicians. “Inadequate treatment and increased problems related to job stress may be potentially modifiable risk factors to reduce suicidal death among physicians,” the authors conclude.

The second study referenced in the 2018 poster, “A History of Physician Suicide in America” by Rupinder Legha, MD, offers a narrative history of physician suicide, including a reference to an 1897 editorial in the Philadelphia Medical and Surgical Reporter that says: “Our profession is more prone to suicide than any other.” The study does not, however, attempt to quantify that risk.

The third study referenced does offer a quantitative analysis based on death and census data in 26 states, and concludes that the suicide rate for white female physicians was about two times higher than the general population. For white male physicians and dentists, however, the study found that the overall rate of suicide was lower than in the general population, but higher in male physicians and dentists older than 55 years.

In search of reliable data

With all of the popular but poorly substantiated claims about physician suicide, Dr. Gold argues that getting accurate numbers is critical. Without them, there is no way to know if rates are increasing or decreasing over time, or if attempts to help physicians in crisis are effective.

The CDC just released its own updated analysis of NVDRS data by major occupational groups across 32 states in 2016. It shows that males and females in the construction and extraction industries had the highest suicide rates: 49.4 per 100,000 and 25.5 per 100,000 respectively. Males in the “health care practitioners and technical” occupation group had a lower than average rate, while females in the same group had a higher than average rate.

The most reliable data that exist, according to Dr. Gold, are found in the CDC’s National Occupational Mortality Surveillance catalog, though it does not contain information from all states and is missing several years of records. Based on its data, the CDC provides a proportionate mortality ratio (PMR) that indicates whether the proportion of deaths tied to a given cause for a given occupation appears high or low, compared with all other occupations. But occupation data are often missing from the CDC’s records, which could make the PMRs unreliable. “You’re talking about relatively small numbers,” said Dr. Gold. “Even if we’re talking about 400 a year, the difference in one or two or five people being physicians could make a huge difference in the rate.”

The PMR for physicians who have died by intentional self-harm suggests that they are 2.5 times as likely as other populations to die by suicide. Filtering the data by race and gender, it appears black female physicians are at highest risk, more than five times as likely to die by suicide as other populations, while white males are twice as likely. Overall, the professionals with highest suicide risk in the database are hunters and trappers, followed by podiatrists, dentists, veterans, and nuclear engineers. Physicians follow with the fifth-highest rate.

The only way to get a true sense of physician suicide rates would be to collect all of the vital records data that states report to the federal government, according to Dr. Gold. “That would require 50 separate institutional review boards, so I doubt anyone is going to go to the effort to do that study,” she said.

Even without a reliable, exact number, it’s clear there are more physician suicides than there should be, Dr. Gold said. “This is a population that really should not be having a relatively high number of suicide deaths, whether it’s highest or not.”

As Dr. Legha wrote in his “History of Physician Suicide,” cited in the 2018 APA poster: “The problem of physician suicide is not solely a matter of whether or not it takes place at a rate higher than the general public. That a professional caregiver can fall ill and not receive adequate care and support, despite being surrounded by other caregivers, begs for a thoughtful assessment to determine why it happens at all.”

If you or someone you know is in need of support, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline’s toll-free number is 1-800-273-TALK (8255). A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In October 2012, Pamela Wible, MD, attended a memorial service in her town for a physician who had died by suicide. Sitting in the third row, she began to count all the colleagues she had lost to suicide, and the result shocked her: 3 in her small town alone, 10 if she expanded her scope to all the doctors she’d ever known.

And so she set out on a mission to document as many physician suicides as she could, in an attempt to understand why her fellow doctors were taking their lives. “I viewed this as a personal quest,” she said in an interview. “I wanted to find out why my friends were dying.” Over the course of 7 years, she documented more than 1,300 physician suicides in the United States with the help of individuals who have lost colleagues and loved ones. She maintains a suicide prevention hotline for medical students and doctors.

On her website, Dr. Wible calls high physician suicide rates a “public health crisis.” She states many conclusions from the stories she’s collected, among them that anesthesiologists are at highest risk for suicide among physicians.

The claim that doctors have a high suicide rate is a common one beyond Dr. Wible’s documentation project. Frequently cited papers contend that 300 physicians commit suicide per year, and that physicians’ suicide rate is higher than the general population. Researchers presenting at the American Psychiatric Association meeting in 2018 said physicians have the highest suicide rate of any profession – double that of the general population, with one completed suicide every day – and Medscape’s coverage of the talk has been widely referenced as supporting evidence.

A closer look at the data behind these claims, however, reveals the difficulty of establishing reliable statistics. Dr. Wible acknowledges that her data are limited. “We do not have accurate numbers. These [statistics] have come to me organically,” she said. Incorrectly coded death certificates are one reason it’s hard to get solid information. “When we’re trying to figure out how many doctors do die by suicide, it’s very hard to know.”

Similar claims have been made at various times about dentists, construction workers, and farmers, perhaps in an effort to call attention to difficult working conditions and inadequate mental health care. Overall, the claims about physician suicide are “widely quoted as fact without any clear evidence,” said Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, an associate professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who researches physician wellness, mental health, and suicide. It’s critical to know the accurate numbers, she said, “so we can know if we’re making progress.”

Scrutinizing a statistic

The idea for the research presented at the APA meeting in 2018 came up a year earlier “when there were quite a number of physician deaths by suicide,” lead author Omotola T’Sarumi, MD, psychiatrist and chief resident at Columbia University’s Harlem Hospital in New York at the time of the presentation, said in an interview. The poster describes the methodology as a systematic review of research articles published in the last 10 years. Dr. T’Sarumi and colleagues concluded that the rate was 28-40 suicides per 100,000 doctors, compared with a rate of 12.3 per 100,000 for the general population. “That just stunned me,” she said. “We should be doing better.” A peer-reviewed article on the work has not been published.

The references on the poster show limited data to support the headline conclusion that physicians have the highest suicide rate of any profession: four papers and a book chapter. The poster itself does not describe the methodology used to arrive at the numbers stated, and Dr. T’Sarumi said that she was unable to gain access to her previous research since moving to a new institution. Dr. Gold, the first author on one of the papers the poster cites, said there are “huge issues” with the work. “In my paper that they’re citing, I was not looking at rates of suicide,” she said. “This is just picking a couple of studies and highlighting them.”

Dr. Gold’s paper uses data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) to identify differences in risk factors and suicide methods between physicians and others who died by suicide in 17 states. The researchers did not attempt to quantify a difference in overall rates, but found that physicians who end their own lives are more likely to have a known mental health disorder with lower rates of medication treatment than nonphysicians. “Inadequate treatment and increased problems related to job stress may be potentially modifiable risk factors to reduce suicidal death among physicians,” the authors conclude.

The second study referenced in the 2018 poster, “A History of Physician Suicide in America” by Rupinder Legha, MD, offers a narrative history of physician suicide, including a reference to an 1897 editorial in the Philadelphia Medical and Surgical Reporter that says: “Our profession is more prone to suicide than any other.” The study does not, however, attempt to quantify that risk.

The third study referenced does offer a quantitative analysis based on death and census data in 26 states, and concludes that the suicide rate for white female physicians was about two times higher than the general population. For white male physicians and dentists, however, the study found that the overall rate of suicide was lower than in the general population, but higher in male physicians and dentists older than 55 years.

In search of reliable data

With all of the popular but poorly substantiated claims about physician suicide, Dr. Gold argues that getting accurate numbers is critical. Without them, there is no way to know if rates are increasing or decreasing over time, or if attempts to help physicians in crisis are effective.

The CDC just released its own updated analysis of NVDRS data by major occupational groups across 32 states in 2016. It shows that males and females in the construction and extraction industries had the highest suicide rates: 49.4 per 100,000 and 25.5 per 100,000 respectively. Males in the “health care practitioners and technical” occupation group had a lower than average rate, while females in the same group had a higher than average rate.

The most reliable data that exist, according to Dr. Gold, are found in the CDC’s National Occupational Mortality Surveillance catalog, though it does not contain information from all states and is missing several years of records. Based on its data, the CDC provides a proportionate mortality ratio (PMR) that indicates whether the proportion of deaths tied to a given cause for a given occupation appears high or low, compared with all other occupations. But occupation data are often missing from the CDC’s records, which could make the PMRs unreliable. “You’re talking about relatively small numbers,” said Dr. Gold. “Even if we’re talking about 400 a year, the difference in one or two or five people being physicians could make a huge difference in the rate.”

The PMR for physicians who have died by intentional self-harm suggests that they are 2.5 times as likely as other populations to die by suicide. Filtering the data by race and gender, it appears black female physicians are at highest risk, more than five times as likely to die by suicide as other populations, while white males are twice as likely. Overall, the professionals with highest suicide risk in the database are hunters and trappers, followed by podiatrists, dentists, veterans, and nuclear engineers. Physicians follow with the fifth-highest rate.

The only way to get a true sense of physician suicide rates would be to collect all of the vital records data that states report to the federal government, according to Dr. Gold. “That would require 50 separate institutional review boards, so I doubt anyone is going to go to the effort to do that study,” she said.

Even without a reliable, exact number, it’s clear there are more physician suicides than there should be, Dr. Gold said. “This is a population that really should not be having a relatively high number of suicide deaths, whether it’s highest or not.”

As Dr. Legha wrote in his “History of Physician Suicide,” cited in the 2018 APA poster: “The problem of physician suicide is not solely a matter of whether or not it takes place at a rate higher than the general public. That a professional caregiver can fall ill and not receive adequate care and support, despite being surrounded by other caregivers, begs for a thoughtful assessment to determine why it happens at all.”

If you or someone you know is in need of support, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline’s toll-free number is 1-800-273-TALK (8255). A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In October 2012, Pamela Wible, MD, attended a memorial service in her town for a physician who had died by suicide. Sitting in the third row, she began to count all the colleagues she had lost to suicide, and the result shocked her: 3 in her small town alone, 10 if she expanded her scope to all the doctors she’d ever known.

And so she set out on a mission to document as many physician suicides as she could, in an attempt to understand why her fellow doctors were taking their lives. “I viewed this as a personal quest,” she said in an interview. “I wanted to find out why my friends were dying.” Over the course of 7 years, she documented more than 1,300 physician suicides in the United States with the help of individuals who have lost colleagues and loved ones. She maintains a suicide prevention hotline for medical students and doctors.

On her website, Dr. Wible calls high physician suicide rates a “public health crisis.” She states many conclusions from the stories she’s collected, among them that anesthesiologists are at highest risk for suicide among physicians.

The claim that doctors have a high suicide rate is a common one beyond Dr. Wible’s documentation project. Frequently cited papers contend that 300 physicians commit suicide per year, and that physicians’ suicide rate is higher than the general population. Researchers presenting at the American Psychiatric Association meeting in 2018 said physicians have the highest suicide rate of any profession – double that of the general population, with one completed suicide every day – and Medscape’s coverage of the talk has been widely referenced as supporting evidence.

A closer look at the data behind these claims, however, reveals the difficulty of establishing reliable statistics. Dr. Wible acknowledges that her data are limited. “We do not have accurate numbers. These [statistics] have come to me organically,” she said. Incorrectly coded death certificates are one reason it’s hard to get solid information. “When we’re trying to figure out how many doctors do die by suicide, it’s very hard to know.”

Similar claims have been made at various times about dentists, construction workers, and farmers, perhaps in an effort to call attention to difficult working conditions and inadequate mental health care. Overall, the claims about physician suicide are “widely quoted as fact without any clear evidence,” said Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, an associate professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who researches physician wellness, mental health, and suicide. It’s critical to know the accurate numbers, she said, “so we can know if we’re making progress.”

Scrutinizing a statistic

The idea for the research presented at the APA meeting in 2018 came up a year earlier “when there were quite a number of physician deaths by suicide,” lead author Omotola T’Sarumi, MD, psychiatrist and chief resident at Columbia University’s Harlem Hospital in New York at the time of the presentation, said in an interview. The poster describes the methodology as a systematic review of research articles published in the last 10 years. Dr. T’Sarumi and colleagues concluded that the rate was 28-40 suicides per 100,000 doctors, compared with a rate of 12.3 per 100,000 for the general population. “That just stunned me,” she said. “We should be doing better.” A peer-reviewed article on the work has not been published.

The references on the poster show limited data to support the headline conclusion that physicians have the highest suicide rate of any profession: four papers and a book chapter. The poster itself does not describe the methodology used to arrive at the numbers stated, and Dr. T’Sarumi said that she was unable to gain access to her previous research since moving to a new institution. Dr. Gold, the first author on one of the papers the poster cites, said there are “huge issues” with the work. “In my paper that they’re citing, I was not looking at rates of suicide,” she said. “This is just picking a couple of studies and highlighting them.”

Dr. Gold’s paper uses data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) to identify differences in risk factors and suicide methods between physicians and others who died by suicide in 17 states. The researchers did not attempt to quantify a difference in overall rates, but found that physicians who end their own lives are more likely to have a known mental health disorder with lower rates of medication treatment than nonphysicians. “Inadequate treatment and increased problems related to job stress may be potentially modifiable risk factors to reduce suicidal death among physicians,” the authors conclude.

The second study referenced in the 2018 poster, “A History of Physician Suicide in America” by Rupinder Legha, MD, offers a narrative history of physician suicide, including a reference to an 1897 editorial in the Philadelphia Medical and Surgical Reporter that says: “Our profession is more prone to suicide than any other.” The study does not, however, attempt to quantify that risk.

The third study referenced does offer a quantitative analysis based on death and census data in 26 states, and concludes that the suicide rate for white female physicians was about two times higher than the general population. For white male physicians and dentists, however, the study found that the overall rate of suicide was lower than in the general population, but higher in male physicians and dentists older than 55 years.

In search of reliable data

With all of the popular but poorly substantiated claims about physician suicide, Dr. Gold argues that getting accurate numbers is critical. Without them, there is no way to know if rates are increasing or decreasing over time, or if attempts to help physicians in crisis are effective.

The CDC just released its own updated analysis of NVDRS data by major occupational groups across 32 states in 2016. It shows that males and females in the construction and extraction industries had the highest suicide rates: 49.4 per 100,000 and 25.5 per 100,000 respectively. Males in the “health care practitioners and technical” occupation group had a lower than average rate, while females in the same group had a higher than average rate.

The most reliable data that exist, according to Dr. Gold, are found in the CDC’s National Occupational Mortality Surveillance catalog, though it does not contain information from all states and is missing several years of records. Based on its data, the CDC provides a proportionate mortality ratio (PMR) that indicates whether the proportion of deaths tied to a given cause for a given occupation appears high or low, compared with all other occupations. But occupation data are often missing from the CDC’s records, which could make the PMRs unreliable. “You’re talking about relatively small numbers,” said Dr. Gold. “Even if we’re talking about 400 a year, the difference in one or two or five people being physicians could make a huge difference in the rate.”

The PMR for physicians who have died by intentional self-harm suggests that they are 2.5 times as likely as other populations to die by suicide. Filtering the data by race and gender, it appears black female physicians are at highest risk, more than five times as likely to die by suicide as other populations, while white males are twice as likely. Overall, the professionals with highest suicide risk in the database are hunters and trappers, followed by podiatrists, dentists, veterans, and nuclear engineers. Physicians follow with the fifth-highest rate.

The only way to get a true sense of physician suicide rates would be to collect all of the vital records data that states report to the federal government, according to Dr. Gold. “That would require 50 separate institutional review boards, so I doubt anyone is going to go to the effort to do that study,” she said.

Even without a reliable, exact number, it’s clear there are more physician suicides than there should be, Dr. Gold said. “This is a population that really should not be having a relatively high number of suicide deaths, whether it’s highest or not.”

As Dr. Legha wrote in his “History of Physician Suicide,” cited in the 2018 APA poster: “The problem of physician suicide is not solely a matter of whether or not it takes place at a rate higher than the general public. That a professional caregiver can fall ill and not receive adequate care and support, despite being surrounded by other caregivers, begs for a thoughtful assessment to determine why it happens at all.”

If you or someone you know is in need of support, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline’s toll-free number is 1-800-273-TALK (8255). A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Academic cancer centers around the United States continue to get caught up in an ever-evolving investigation into researchers – American and Chinese – who did not disclose payments from or the work they did for Chinese institutions while simultaneously accepting taxpayer money through U.S. government grants.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has been ferreting out researchers it says have acted illegally.

On Jan. 28, the agency arrested Charles Lieber, a chemist from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and also unveiled charges against Zheng Zaosong, a cancer researcher who is in the United States on a Harvard-sponsored visa.

The FBI said Mr. Zheng, who worked at the Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, tried to smuggle 21 vials of biological material and research to China. Mr. Zheng was arrested in December at Boston’s Logan Airport. He admitted he planned to conduct and publish research in China using the stolen samples, said the FBI.

“All of the individuals charged today were either directly or indirectly working for the Chinese government, at our country’s expense,” said the agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston office, Joseph R. Bonavolonta.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who has been pushing for more government action against foreign theft of U.S. research, said in a statement, “I’m glad the FBI appears to be taking foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research seriously, but I fear that this case is only the tip of the iceberg.”

The FBI said it is investigating China-related cases in all 50 states.

Ross McKinney, MD, the chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), said he is aware of some 200 investigations, not all of which are cancer related, at 70-75 institutions.

“It’s a very ubiquitous problem,” Dr. McKinney said in an interview.

He also pointed out that some 6,000 National Institutes of Health–funded principal investigators are of Asian background. “So that 200 is a pretty small proportion,” said Dr. McKinney.

The NIH warned some 10,000 institutions in August 2018 that it had uncovered Chinese manipulation of peer review and a lack of disclosure of work for Chinese institutions. It urged the institutions to report irregularities.

For universities, “the trouble is sorting out who is the violator from who is not,” said Dr. McKinney. He noted that they are not set up to investigate whether someone has a laboratory in China.

“The fact that the Chinese government exploited the fact that universities are typically fairly trusting is extremely disappointing,” he said.
 

Moffitt story still unfolding

The most serious allegations have been leveled against six former employees of the Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida.

In December 2019, Moffitt announced that the six – including President and CEO Alan List, MD, and the center director, Thomas Sellers, PhD – had left Moffitt as a result of “violations of conflict of interest rules through their work in China.”

New details have emerged, thanks to a new investigative report from a committee of the Florida House of Representatives.

The report said that Sheng Wei, a naturalized U.S. citizen who had worked at Moffitt since 2008 – when Moffitt began its affiliation with the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital – was instrumental in recruiting top executives into the Thousand Talents program, which Wei had joined in 2010, according to the report. These executives included Dr. List, Dr. Sellers, and also Daniel Sullivan, head of Moffitt’s clinical science program, and cancer biologist Pearlie Epling-Burnette, it noted.

Begun in 2008, China’s Thousand Talents Plan gave salaries, funding, laboratory space, and other incentives to researchers who promised to bring U.S.-gained knowledge and research to China.

All information about this program has been removed from the Internet, but the program may still be active, Dr. McKinney commented.

According to the report, Dr. List pledged to work for the Tianjin cancer center 9 months a year for $71,000 annually. He was appointed head of the hematology department ($85,300 a year) in 2016. He opened a bank account in China to receive that salary and other Thousand Talents payments, the report found. The report notes that the exact amount Dr. List was paid is still not known.

Initially, Dr. Sellers, who was the principal investigator for Moffitt’s National Cancer Institute core grant, said he had not been involved in the Thousand Talents program. He later admitted that he had pledged to work in China 2 months a year for the program and that he’d opened a Chinese bank account and had deposited at least $35,000 into the account, the report notes.

The others pledged to work for the Thousand Talents program and also opened bank accounts in China and received money in those accounts.

Another Moffitt employee, Howard McLeod, MD, had worked for Thousand Talents before he joined Moffitt but did not disclose his China work. Dr. McLeod also supervised and had a close relationship with another researcher, Yijing (Bob) He, MD, who was employed by Moffitt but who lived in China, unbeknownst to Moffitt. “Dr. He appears to have functioned as an agent of Dr. McLeod in China,” said the report.

The report concluded that “none of the Moffitt faculty who were Talents program participants properly or timely disclosed their Talents program involvement to Moffitt, and none disclosed the full extent of their Talents program activities prior to Moffitt’s internal investigation.”

No charges have been filed against any of the former Moffitt employees.

However, the Cancer Letter has reported that Dr. Sellers is claiming he was not involved in the program and that he is preparing to sue Moffitt.

AAMC’s Dr. McKinney notes that it is illegal for researchers to take U.S. government grant money and pledge a certain amount of time but not deliver on that commitment because they are working for someone else – in this case, China. They also lied about not having any other research support, which is also illegal, he said.

The researchers received Chinese money and deposited it in Chinese accounts, which was never reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

“One of the hallmarks of the Chinese recruitment program was that people were instructed to not tell their normal U.S. host institution and not tell any U.S. government agency about their relationship with China,” Dr. McKinney said. “It was creating a culture where dishonesty in this situation was norm,” he added.

The lack of honesty brings up bigger questions for the field, he said. “Once you start lying about one thing, do you lie about your science, too?”
 

Lack of oversight?

Dr. McKinney said the NIH, as well as universities and hospitals, had a long and trusting relationship with China and should not be blamed for falling prey to the Chinese government’s concerted effort to steal intellectual property.

But some government watchdog groups have chided the NIH for lax oversight. In February 2019, the federal Health & Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that “NIH has not assessed the risks to national security when permitting data access to foreign [principal investigators].”

Federal investigators have said that Thousand Talents has been one of the biggest threats.

The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported in November 2019 that “the federal government’s grant-making agencies did little to prevent this from happening, nor did the FBI and other federal agencies develop a coordinated response to mitigate the threat.”

The NIH invests $31 billion a year in medical research through 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers, according to that report. Even after uncovering grant fraud and peer-review manipulation that benefited China, “significant gaps in NIH’s grant integrity process remain,” the report states. Site visits by the NIH’s Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight dropped from 28 in 2012 to just 3 in 2018, the report noted.
 

Widening dragnet

In April 2019, Science reported that the NIH identified five researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston who had failed to disclose their ties to Chinese enterprises and who had failed to keep peer review confidential.

Two resigned before they could be fired, one was fired, another eventually left the institution, and the fifth was found to have not willfully engaged in subterfuge.

Just a month later, Emory University in Atlanta announced that it had fired a husband and wife research team. The neuroscientists were known for their studies of Huntington disease. Both were U.S. citizens and had worked at Emory for more than 2 decades, according to the Science report.

The Moffitt situation led to the Florida legislature’s investigation, and also prompted some soul searching. The Tampa Bay Times reported that U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) asked state universities to provide information on what they are doing to stop foreign influence. The University of Florida then acknowledged that four faculty members resigned or were terminated because of ties to a foreign recruitment program.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Academic cancer centers around the United States continue to get caught up in an ever-evolving investigation into researchers – American and Chinese – who did not disclose payments from or the work they did for Chinese institutions while simultaneously accepting taxpayer money through U.S. government grants.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has been ferreting out researchers it says have acted illegally.

On Jan. 28, the agency arrested Charles Lieber, a chemist from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and also unveiled charges against Zheng Zaosong, a cancer researcher who is in the United States on a Harvard-sponsored visa.

The FBI said Mr. Zheng, who worked at the Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, tried to smuggle 21 vials of biological material and research to China. Mr. Zheng was arrested in December at Boston’s Logan Airport. He admitted he planned to conduct and publish research in China using the stolen samples, said the FBI.

“All of the individuals charged today were either directly or indirectly working for the Chinese government, at our country’s expense,” said the agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston office, Joseph R. Bonavolonta.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who has been pushing for more government action against foreign theft of U.S. research, said in a statement, “I’m glad the FBI appears to be taking foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research seriously, but I fear that this case is only the tip of the iceberg.”

The FBI said it is investigating China-related cases in all 50 states.

Ross McKinney, MD, the chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), said he is aware of some 200 investigations, not all of which are cancer related, at 70-75 institutions.

“It’s a very ubiquitous problem,” Dr. McKinney said in an interview.

He also pointed out that some 6,000 National Institutes of Health–funded principal investigators are of Asian background. “So that 200 is a pretty small proportion,” said Dr. McKinney.

The NIH warned some 10,000 institutions in August 2018 that it had uncovered Chinese manipulation of peer review and a lack of disclosure of work for Chinese institutions. It urged the institutions to report irregularities.

For universities, “the trouble is sorting out who is the violator from who is not,” said Dr. McKinney. He noted that they are not set up to investigate whether someone has a laboratory in China.

“The fact that the Chinese government exploited the fact that universities are typically fairly trusting is extremely disappointing,” he said.
 

Moffitt story still unfolding

The most serious allegations have been leveled against six former employees of the Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida.

In December 2019, Moffitt announced that the six – including President and CEO Alan List, MD, and the center director, Thomas Sellers, PhD – had left Moffitt as a result of “violations of conflict of interest rules through their work in China.”

New details have emerged, thanks to a new investigative report from a committee of the Florida House of Representatives.

The report said that Sheng Wei, a naturalized U.S. citizen who had worked at Moffitt since 2008 – when Moffitt began its affiliation with the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital – was instrumental in recruiting top executives into the Thousand Talents program, which Wei had joined in 2010, according to the report. These executives included Dr. List, Dr. Sellers, and also Daniel Sullivan, head of Moffitt’s clinical science program, and cancer biologist Pearlie Epling-Burnette, it noted.

Begun in 2008, China’s Thousand Talents Plan gave salaries, funding, laboratory space, and other incentives to researchers who promised to bring U.S.-gained knowledge and research to China.

All information about this program has been removed from the Internet, but the program may still be active, Dr. McKinney commented.

According to the report, Dr. List pledged to work for the Tianjin cancer center 9 months a year for $71,000 annually. He was appointed head of the hematology department ($85,300 a year) in 2016. He opened a bank account in China to receive that salary and other Thousand Talents payments, the report found. The report notes that the exact amount Dr. List was paid is still not known.

Initially, Dr. Sellers, who was the principal investigator for Moffitt’s National Cancer Institute core grant, said he had not been involved in the Thousand Talents program. He later admitted that he had pledged to work in China 2 months a year for the program and that he’d opened a Chinese bank account and had deposited at least $35,000 into the account, the report notes.

The others pledged to work for the Thousand Talents program and also opened bank accounts in China and received money in those accounts.

Another Moffitt employee, Howard McLeod, MD, had worked for Thousand Talents before he joined Moffitt but did not disclose his China work. Dr. McLeod also supervised and had a close relationship with another researcher, Yijing (Bob) He, MD, who was employed by Moffitt but who lived in China, unbeknownst to Moffitt. “Dr. He appears to have functioned as an agent of Dr. McLeod in China,” said the report.

The report concluded that “none of the Moffitt faculty who were Talents program participants properly or timely disclosed their Talents program involvement to Moffitt, and none disclosed the full extent of their Talents program activities prior to Moffitt’s internal investigation.”

No charges have been filed against any of the former Moffitt employees.

However, the Cancer Letter has reported that Dr. Sellers is claiming he was not involved in the program and that he is preparing to sue Moffitt.

AAMC’s Dr. McKinney notes that it is illegal for researchers to take U.S. government grant money and pledge a certain amount of time but not deliver on that commitment because they are working for someone else – in this case, China. They also lied about not having any other research support, which is also illegal, he said.

The researchers received Chinese money and deposited it in Chinese accounts, which was never reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

“One of the hallmarks of the Chinese recruitment program was that people were instructed to not tell their normal U.S. host institution and not tell any U.S. government agency about their relationship with China,” Dr. McKinney said. “It was creating a culture where dishonesty in this situation was norm,” he added.

The lack of honesty brings up bigger questions for the field, he said. “Once you start lying about one thing, do you lie about your science, too?”
 

Lack of oversight?

Dr. McKinney said the NIH, as well as universities and hospitals, had a long and trusting relationship with China and should not be blamed for falling prey to the Chinese government’s concerted effort to steal intellectual property.

But some government watchdog groups have chided the NIH for lax oversight. In February 2019, the federal Health & Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that “NIH has not assessed the risks to national security when permitting data access to foreign [principal investigators].”

Federal investigators have said that Thousand Talents has been one of the biggest threats.

The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported in November 2019 that “the federal government’s grant-making agencies did little to prevent this from happening, nor did the FBI and other federal agencies develop a coordinated response to mitigate the threat.”

The NIH invests $31 billion a year in medical research through 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers, according to that report. Even after uncovering grant fraud and peer-review manipulation that benefited China, “significant gaps in NIH’s grant integrity process remain,” the report states. Site visits by the NIH’s Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight dropped from 28 in 2012 to just 3 in 2018, the report noted.
 

Widening dragnet

In April 2019, Science reported that the NIH identified five researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston who had failed to disclose their ties to Chinese enterprises and who had failed to keep peer review confidential.

Two resigned before they could be fired, one was fired, another eventually left the institution, and the fifth was found to have not willfully engaged in subterfuge.

Just a month later, Emory University in Atlanta announced that it had fired a husband and wife research team. The neuroscientists were known for their studies of Huntington disease. Both were U.S. citizens and had worked at Emory for more than 2 decades, according to the Science report.

The Moffitt situation led to the Florida legislature’s investigation, and also prompted some soul searching. The Tampa Bay Times reported that U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) asked state universities to provide information on what they are doing to stop foreign influence. The University of Florida then acknowledged that four faculty members resigned or were terminated because of ties to a foreign recruitment program.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Academic cancer centers around the United States continue to get caught up in an ever-evolving investigation into researchers – American and Chinese – who did not disclose payments from or the work they did for Chinese institutions while simultaneously accepting taxpayer money through U.S. government grants.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has been ferreting out researchers it says have acted illegally.

On Jan. 28, the agency arrested Charles Lieber, a chemist from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and also unveiled charges against Zheng Zaosong, a cancer researcher who is in the United States on a Harvard-sponsored visa.

The FBI said Mr. Zheng, who worked at the Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, tried to smuggle 21 vials of biological material and research to China. Mr. Zheng was arrested in December at Boston’s Logan Airport. He admitted he planned to conduct and publish research in China using the stolen samples, said the FBI.

“All of the individuals charged today were either directly or indirectly working for the Chinese government, at our country’s expense,” said the agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston office, Joseph R. Bonavolonta.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who has been pushing for more government action against foreign theft of U.S. research, said in a statement, “I’m glad the FBI appears to be taking foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research seriously, but I fear that this case is only the tip of the iceberg.”

The FBI said it is investigating China-related cases in all 50 states.

Ross McKinney, MD, the chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), said he is aware of some 200 investigations, not all of which are cancer related, at 70-75 institutions.

“It’s a very ubiquitous problem,” Dr. McKinney said in an interview.

He also pointed out that some 6,000 National Institutes of Health–funded principal investigators are of Asian background. “So that 200 is a pretty small proportion,” said Dr. McKinney.

The NIH warned some 10,000 institutions in August 2018 that it had uncovered Chinese manipulation of peer review and a lack of disclosure of work for Chinese institutions. It urged the institutions to report irregularities.

For universities, “the trouble is sorting out who is the violator from who is not,” said Dr. McKinney. He noted that they are not set up to investigate whether someone has a laboratory in China.

“The fact that the Chinese government exploited the fact that universities are typically fairly trusting is extremely disappointing,” he said.
 

Moffitt story still unfolding

The most serious allegations have been leveled against six former employees of the Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida.

In December 2019, Moffitt announced that the six – including President and CEO Alan List, MD, and the center director, Thomas Sellers, PhD – had left Moffitt as a result of “violations of conflict of interest rules through their work in China.”

New details have emerged, thanks to a new investigative report from a committee of the Florida House of Representatives.

The report said that Sheng Wei, a naturalized U.S. citizen who had worked at Moffitt since 2008 – when Moffitt began its affiliation with the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital – was instrumental in recruiting top executives into the Thousand Talents program, which Wei had joined in 2010, according to the report. These executives included Dr. List, Dr. Sellers, and also Daniel Sullivan, head of Moffitt’s clinical science program, and cancer biologist Pearlie Epling-Burnette, it noted.

Begun in 2008, China’s Thousand Talents Plan gave salaries, funding, laboratory space, and other incentives to researchers who promised to bring U.S.-gained knowledge and research to China.

All information about this program has been removed from the Internet, but the program may still be active, Dr. McKinney commented.

According to the report, Dr. List pledged to work for the Tianjin cancer center 9 months a year for $71,000 annually. He was appointed head of the hematology department ($85,300 a year) in 2016. He opened a bank account in China to receive that salary and other Thousand Talents payments, the report found. The report notes that the exact amount Dr. List was paid is still not known.

Initially, Dr. Sellers, who was the principal investigator for Moffitt’s National Cancer Institute core grant, said he had not been involved in the Thousand Talents program. He later admitted that he had pledged to work in China 2 months a year for the program and that he’d opened a Chinese bank account and had deposited at least $35,000 into the account, the report notes.

The others pledged to work for the Thousand Talents program and also opened bank accounts in China and received money in those accounts.

Another Moffitt employee, Howard McLeod, MD, had worked for Thousand Talents before he joined Moffitt but did not disclose his China work. Dr. McLeod also supervised and had a close relationship with another researcher, Yijing (Bob) He, MD, who was employed by Moffitt but who lived in China, unbeknownst to Moffitt. “Dr. He appears to have functioned as an agent of Dr. McLeod in China,” said the report.

The report concluded that “none of the Moffitt faculty who were Talents program participants properly or timely disclosed their Talents program involvement to Moffitt, and none disclosed the full extent of their Talents program activities prior to Moffitt’s internal investigation.”

No charges have been filed against any of the former Moffitt employees.

However, the Cancer Letter has reported that Dr. Sellers is claiming he was not involved in the program and that he is preparing to sue Moffitt.

AAMC’s Dr. McKinney notes that it is illegal for researchers to take U.S. government grant money and pledge a certain amount of time but not deliver on that commitment because they are working for someone else – in this case, China. They also lied about not having any other research support, which is also illegal, he said.

The researchers received Chinese money and deposited it in Chinese accounts, which was never reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

“One of the hallmarks of the Chinese recruitment program was that people were instructed to not tell their normal U.S. host institution and not tell any U.S. government agency about their relationship with China,” Dr. McKinney said. “It was creating a culture where dishonesty in this situation was norm,” he added.

The lack of honesty brings up bigger questions for the field, he said. “Once you start lying about one thing, do you lie about your science, too?”
 

Lack of oversight?

Dr. McKinney said the NIH, as well as universities and hospitals, had a long and trusting relationship with China and should not be blamed for falling prey to the Chinese government’s concerted effort to steal intellectual property.

But some government watchdog groups have chided the NIH for lax oversight. In February 2019, the federal Health & Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that “NIH has not assessed the risks to national security when permitting data access to foreign [principal investigators].”

Federal investigators have said that Thousand Talents has been one of the biggest threats.

The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported in November 2019 that “the federal government’s grant-making agencies did little to prevent this from happening, nor did the FBI and other federal agencies develop a coordinated response to mitigate the threat.”

The NIH invests $31 billion a year in medical research through 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers, according to that report. Even after uncovering grant fraud and peer-review manipulation that benefited China, “significant gaps in NIH’s grant integrity process remain,” the report states. Site visits by the NIH’s Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight dropped from 28 in 2012 to just 3 in 2018, the report noted.
 

Widening dragnet

In April 2019, Science reported that the NIH identified five researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston who had failed to disclose their ties to Chinese enterprises and who had failed to keep peer review confidential.

Two resigned before they could be fired, one was fired, another eventually left the institution, and the fifth was found to have not willfully engaged in subterfuge.

Just a month later, Emory University in Atlanta announced that it had fired a husband and wife research team. The neuroscientists were known for their studies of Huntington disease. Both were U.S. citizens and had worked at Emory for more than 2 decades, according to the Science report.

The Moffitt situation led to the Florida legislature’s investigation, and also prompted some soul searching. The Tampa Bay Times reported that U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) asked state universities to provide information on what they are doing to stop foreign influence. The University of Florida then acknowledged that four faculty members resigned or were terminated because of ties to a foreign recruitment program.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It has now been 30 years since the first total laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed. The benefits of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) – and of minimally invasive hysterectomy specifically – are now well documented. Since this milestone procedure, both instrumentation and technique have improved significantly.

Physician experience is the most important determinant for which minimally invasive approach is used to perform hysterectomy. This includes traditional laparoscopy, as well as the robotically assisted laparoscopic approach. However, certain patient characteristics also may influence the choice. A uterus that is undescended, combined with a narrow introitus, for instance, can be a contributory factor in choosing to perform laparoscopic hysterectomy. Additionally, so can an extremely large uterus and an extremely high body mass index (BMI).

These latter two factors – a very large uterus (which we define as more than 15-16 weeks’ gestational size) and a BMI over 60 kg/m² – historically were considered to be contraindications to laparoscopic hysterectomy. But as the proficiency, comfort, and skill of a new generation of laparoscopic surgeons increases, the tide is shifting with respect to both morbid obesity and the very large uterus.

With growing experience and improved instrumentation, the majority of gynecologists who are fellowship-trained in MIGS are able to routinely and safely perform laparoscopic hysterectomy for uteri weighing 1-2 kg and in patients who have extreme morbid obesity. The literature, moreover, increasingly features case reports of laparoscopic removal of very large uteri and reviews/discussions of total laparoscopic hysterectomy being feasible.

In our own experience, total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) of the very large uterus can be safely and advantageously performed using key instruments and refinements in technique, as well as thorough patient counseling regarding the risk of unexpected sarcomas. Recently, we safely performed total laparoscopic hysterectomy for a patient with a uterus that – somewhat unexpectedly – weighed 7.4 kg.
 

Surgical pearls

Performing safe and effective total laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uteri – and for morbidly obese patients – hinges largely on modifications in entry and port placement, patient positioning, and choice of instrumentation. With these modifications, we can achieve adequate visualization of critical anatomy and can minimize bleeding. Otherwise, the surgery itself is largely the same. Here are the principles we find most helpful.

Entry and port placement

Traditionally, for TLHs, a camera port is placed at the umbilicus to provide a full view of the pelvis. For the larger uterus – and in women who are extremely obese – we aim to introduce the laparoscope higher. A reliable landmark is the Palmer’s point in the left upper quadrant. From here, we can identify areas for the placement of additional trocars.

In general, we place ancillary 5-mm ports more cephalad and lateral to the uterus than we otherwise would. Such placement facilitates effective visualization while accommodating manipulation of the uterus and allows us to avoid bleeding around the vascular upper pedicles. Overall, we have much better control through all parts of the surgery when we operate lateral to the uterus.
 

Patient positioning

In addition to the Trendelenburg position, we have adopted an “airplaning” technique for patients with a very large uterus in which the bed is tilted from side to side so that the left and right sides of the body are rotated upward as needed. This allows for gravitational-assisted retraction when it otherwise is not possible.

Instrumentation

For morbidly obese patients, we use Kii Fios advanced fixation trocars. These come in 5- and 10-mm sizes and are equipped with an intraperitoneal balloon that can be inflated to prevent sliding of the trocar out of the abdominal wall.

By far the most valuable instrument for the morbidly obese and the very large uterus is a 30-degree laparoscope. With our higher port placement as described, the 30-degree scope provides visualization of critical structures that wouldn’t be possible with a 0-degree scope.

The Rumi uterine manipulator comes with cups that come in different sizes and can fit around the cervix and help delineate the cervicouterine junction. We use this manipulator for all laparoscopic hysterectomies, but it is a must for the very large uterus.

Extensive desiccation of the utero-ovarian pedicles and uterine arteries is critical, and for this we advise using the rotating bipolar RoBi instrument. Use of the conventional bipolar instrument allows us to use targeted and anatomically guided application of energy. This ensures certainty that vessels whose limits exceed the diameter for advanced bipolar devices (typically 7 mm) are completely sealed. In-depth knowledge of pelvic anatomy and advanced laparoscopic dissection is paramount during these steps to ensure that vital structures are not damaged by the wider thermal spread of the traditional bipolar device. For cutting, the use of ultrasonic energy is important to prevent energy from spreading laterally.

Lastly, we recommend a good suction irrigator because, if bleeding occurs, it tends to be heavy because of the enlarged nature of feeding vasculature. When placed through an umbilical or suprapubic port, the suction irrigator also may be used to help with the rotational vectors and traction for further uterine manipulation.
 

Technique

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

We usually operate from top to bottom, transecting the upper pedicles such as the infundibulopelvic (IP) ligaments or utero-ovarian ligaments first, rather than the round ligaments. This helps us achieve additional mobility of the uterus. Some surgeons believe that retroperitoneal dissection and ligation of the uterine arteries at their origin is essential, but we find that, with good uterine manipulation and the use of a 30-degree scope, we achieve adequate visualization for identifying the ureter and uterine artery on the sidewall and consequently do not need to dissect retroperitoneally.

When using the uterine manipulator with the colpotomy cup, the uterus is pushed upward, increasing the distance between the vaginal fornix and the ureters. Uterine arteries can easily be identified and desiccated using conventional bipolar energy. When the colpotomy cup is pushed cephalad, the application of the bipolar energy within the limits of the cup is safe. The thermal spread does not pose a threat to the ureters, which are displaced 1.5-2 cm laterally. Large fibroids often contribute to distorted anatomical planes, and a colpotomy cup provides a firm palpable surface between the cervix and vagina during dissection.

When dealing with large uteri, one must sometimes think outside the box and deviate from standard technique. For instance, in patients with distorted anatomy because of large fibroids, it helps to first control the pedicles that are most easily accessible. Sometimes it is acceptable to perform oophorectomy if the IP ligament is more accessible and the utero-ovarian pedicle is distorted by dilated veins and adherent to the uterus. After transection of each pedicle, we gain more mobility of the uterus and better visualization for the next step.

Inserting the camera through ancillary ports – a technique known as “port hopping” – helps to visualize and take down adhesions much better and more safely than using the camera from the umbilical port only. Port hopping with a 30-degree laparoscope helps to obtain a 360-degree view of adhesions and anatomy, which is exceedingly helpful in cases in which crucial anatomical structures are within close proximity of one another.

In general it is more challenging to perform TLH on a patient with a broad uterus or a patient with low posterior fibroids that are occupying the pelvis than on a patient with fibroids in the upper abdomen. The main challenge for the surgeon is to safely secure the uterine arteries and control the blood supply to the uterus.

Access to the pelvic sidewall is obtained with the combination of 30-degree scope, uterine manipulator, and the suction irrigator introduced through the midline port; the cervix and uterus are deviated upward. Instead of the suction irrigator or blunt dissector used for internal uterine manipulation, some surgeons use myoma screws or a 5-mm single-tooth tenaculum to manipulate a large uterus. Both of those instruments are valuable and work well, but often a large uterus requires extensive manipulation. Repositioning of any sharp instruments that pierce the serosa can often lead to additional blood loss. It is preferable to avoid this blood loss on a large uterus at all costs because it can be brisk and stains the surgical pedicles, making the remainder of the procedure unnecessarily difficult.

Once the uterine arteries are desiccated, if fibroids are obscuring the view, the corpus of the uterus can be detached from the cervix as in supracervical hysterectomy fashion. From there, the uterus can be placed in the upper abdomen while colpotomy can be performed.

In patients with multiple fibroids, we do not recommend performing myomectomy first, unless the fibroid is pedunculated and on a very small stalk. Improved uterine manipulation and retroperitoneal dissection are preferred over myomectomy to safely complete hysterectomy for the broad uterus. In our opinion, any attempt at myomectomy would lead to unnecessary blood loss and additional operative time with minimal benefit.

In patients with fibroids that grow into the broad ligament and pelvic sidewall, the natural course of the ureter becomes displaced laterally. This is contrary to the popular misconception that the ureter is more medially located in the setting of broad-ligament fibroids. To ensure safe access to the uterine arteries, the vesicouterine peritoneum can be incised and extended cephalad along the broad ligament and, then, using the above-mentioned technique, by pushing the uterus and the fibroid to the contralateral side via the suction irrigator, the uterine arteries can be easily accessed.

Another useful technique is to use diluted vasopressin injected into the lower pole of the uterus to cause vasoconstriction and minimize the bleeding. The concentration is 1 cc of 20 units of vasopressin in 100-400 cc of saline. This technique is very useful for myomectomies, and some surgeons find it also helpful for hysterectomy. The plasma half-life of vasopressin is 10-20 minutes, and a large quantity is needed to help with vasoconstriction in a big uterus. The safe upper limits of vasopressin dosing are not firmly established. A fibroid uterus with aberrant vasculature may require a greater-than-acceptable dose to control bleeding.

It is important to ensure that patients have an optimized hemoglobin level preoperatively. We use a hemoglobin level of 8 g/dL as a lowest cutoff value for performing TLH without preoperative transfusion. Regarding bowel preparation, neither the literature nor our own experience support its value, so we typically do not use it.
 

Morcellation and patient counseling

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

Uteri up to 12 weeks’ gestational size usually can be extracted transvaginally, and most uteri regardless of size can be morcellated and extracted through the vagina, providing that the vaginal fornix is accessible from below. In some cases, such as when the apex is too high, a minilaparotomic incision is needed to extract the uterus, or when available, power morcellation can be performed.

A major challenge, given our growing ability to laparoscopically remove very larger uteri, is that uteri heavier than about 2.5 kg in weight cannot be morcellated inside a morcellation bag. The risk of upstaging a known or suspected uterine malignancy, or of spreading an unknown malignant sarcoma (presumed benign myoma), should be incorporated in each patient’s decision making.

Thorough counseling about surgical options and on the risks of morcellating a very large uterus without containment in a bag is essential. Each patient must understand the risks and decide whether the benefits of minimally invasive surgery outweigh these risks. While MRI can sometimes provide increased suspicion of a leiomyosarcoma, malignancy can never be completed excluded preoperatively.
 

Removal of a 7.4-kg uterus

Our patient was a 44-year-old with a markedly enlarged fibroid uterus. Having been told by other providers that she was not a candidate for minimally invasive hysterectomy, she had delayed surgical management for a number of years, allowing for such a generous uterine size to develop.

The patient was knowledgeable about her condition and, given her comorbid obesity, she requested a minimally invasive approach. Preoperative imaging included an ultrasound, which had to be completed abdominally because of the size of her uterus, and an additional MRI was needed to further characterize the extent and nature of her uterus. A very detailed discussion regarding risk of leiomyosarcoma, operative complications, and conversion to laparotomy ensued.

Intraoperatively, we placed the first 5 mm port in the left upper quadrant initially to survey the anatomy for feasibility of laparoscopic hysterectomy. The left utero-ovarian pedicle was easily viewed by airplaning the bed alone. While the right utero-ovarian pedicle was much more skewed and enlarged, the right IP was easily accessible and the ureter well visualized.

The decision was made to place additional ports and proceed with laparoscopic hysterectomy. The 5-mm assistant ports were placed lateral and directly above the upper vascular pedicles. Operative time was 4 hours and 12 minutes, and blood loss was only 700 cc. Her preoperative hemoglobin was optimized at 13.3 g/dL and dropped to 11.3 g/dL postoperatively. The patient was discharged home the next morning and had a normal recovery with no complications.
 

Dr. Pasic is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director of the section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy; and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery as well as an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Louisville. Dr. Pasic disclosed he is a consultant for Ethicon Endo, Medtronic, and Olympus and is a speaker for Cooper Surgical, which manufactures some of the instruments mentioned in this article. Dr. Cesta had no relevant financial disclosures.

It has now been 30 years since the first total laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed. The benefits of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) – and of minimally invasive hysterectomy specifically – are now well documented. Since this milestone procedure, both instrumentation and technique have improved significantly.

Physician experience is the most important determinant for which minimally invasive approach is used to perform hysterectomy. This includes traditional laparoscopy, as well as the robotically assisted laparoscopic approach. However, certain patient characteristics also may influence the choice. A uterus that is undescended, combined with a narrow introitus, for instance, can be a contributory factor in choosing to perform laparoscopic hysterectomy. Additionally, so can an extremely large uterus and an extremely high body mass index (BMI).

These latter two factors – a very large uterus (which we define as more than 15-16 weeks’ gestational size) and a BMI over 60 kg/m² – historically were considered to be contraindications to laparoscopic hysterectomy. But as the proficiency, comfort, and skill of a new generation of laparoscopic surgeons increases, the tide is shifting with respect to both morbid obesity and the very large uterus.

With growing experience and improved instrumentation, the majority of gynecologists who are fellowship-trained in MIGS are able to routinely and safely perform laparoscopic hysterectomy for uteri weighing 1-2 kg and in patients who have extreme morbid obesity. The literature, moreover, increasingly features case reports of laparoscopic removal of very large uteri and reviews/discussions of total laparoscopic hysterectomy being feasible.

In our own experience, total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) of the very large uterus can be safely and advantageously performed using key instruments and refinements in technique, as well as thorough patient counseling regarding the risk of unexpected sarcomas. Recently, we safely performed total laparoscopic hysterectomy for a patient with a uterus that – somewhat unexpectedly – weighed 7.4 kg.
 

Surgical pearls

Performing safe and effective total laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uteri – and for morbidly obese patients – hinges largely on modifications in entry and port placement, patient positioning, and choice of instrumentation. With these modifications, we can achieve adequate visualization of critical anatomy and can minimize bleeding. Otherwise, the surgery itself is largely the same. Here are the principles we find most helpful.

Entry and port placement

Traditionally, for TLHs, a camera port is placed at the umbilicus to provide a full view of the pelvis. For the larger uterus – and in women who are extremely obese – we aim to introduce the laparoscope higher. A reliable landmark is the Palmer’s point in the left upper quadrant. From here, we can identify areas for the placement of additional trocars.

In general, we place ancillary 5-mm ports more cephalad and lateral to the uterus than we otherwise would. Such placement facilitates effective visualization while accommodating manipulation of the uterus and allows us to avoid bleeding around the vascular upper pedicles. Overall, we have much better control through all parts of the surgery when we operate lateral to the uterus.
 

Patient positioning

In addition to the Trendelenburg position, we have adopted an “airplaning” technique for patients with a very large uterus in which the bed is tilted from side to side so that the left and right sides of the body are rotated upward as needed. This allows for gravitational-assisted retraction when it otherwise is not possible.

Instrumentation

For morbidly obese patients, we use Kii Fios advanced fixation trocars. These come in 5- and 10-mm sizes and are equipped with an intraperitoneal balloon that can be inflated to prevent sliding of the trocar out of the abdominal wall.

By far the most valuable instrument for the morbidly obese and the very large uterus is a 30-degree laparoscope. With our higher port placement as described, the 30-degree scope provides visualization of critical structures that wouldn’t be possible with a 0-degree scope.

The Rumi uterine manipulator comes with cups that come in different sizes and can fit around the cervix and help delineate the cervicouterine junction. We use this manipulator for all laparoscopic hysterectomies, but it is a must for the very large uterus.

Extensive desiccation of the utero-ovarian pedicles and uterine arteries is critical, and for this we advise using the rotating bipolar RoBi instrument. Use of the conventional bipolar instrument allows us to use targeted and anatomically guided application of energy. This ensures certainty that vessels whose limits exceed the diameter for advanced bipolar devices (typically 7 mm) are completely sealed. In-depth knowledge of pelvic anatomy and advanced laparoscopic dissection is paramount during these steps to ensure that vital structures are not damaged by the wider thermal spread of the traditional bipolar device. For cutting, the use of ultrasonic energy is important to prevent energy from spreading laterally.

Lastly, we recommend a good suction irrigator because, if bleeding occurs, it tends to be heavy because of the enlarged nature of feeding vasculature. When placed through an umbilical or suprapubic port, the suction irrigator also may be used to help with the rotational vectors and traction for further uterine manipulation.
 

Technique

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

We usually operate from top to bottom, transecting the upper pedicles such as the infundibulopelvic (IP) ligaments or utero-ovarian ligaments first, rather than the round ligaments. This helps us achieve additional mobility of the uterus. Some surgeons believe that retroperitoneal dissection and ligation of the uterine arteries at their origin is essential, but we find that, with good uterine manipulation and the use of a 30-degree scope, we achieve adequate visualization for identifying the ureter and uterine artery on the sidewall and consequently do not need to dissect retroperitoneally.

When using the uterine manipulator with the colpotomy cup, the uterus is pushed upward, increasing the distance between the vaginal fornix and the ureters. Uterine arteries can easily be identified and desiccated using conventional bipolar energy. When the colpotomy cup is pushed cephalad, the application of the bipolar energy within the limits of the cup is safe. The thermal spread does not pose a threat to the ureters, which are displaced 1.5-2 cm laterally. Large fibroids often contribute to distorted anatomical planes, and a colpotomy cup provides a firm palpable surface between the cervix and vagina during dissection.

When dealing with large uteri, one must sometimes think outside the box and deviate from standard technique. For instance, in patients with distorted anatomy because of large fibroids, it helps to first control the pedicles that are most easily accessible. Sometimes it is acceptable to perform oophorectomy if the IP ligament is more accessible and the utero-ovarian pedicle is distorted by dilated veins and adherent to the uterus. After transection of each pedicle, we gain more mobility of the uterus and better visualization for the next step.

Inserting the camera through ancillary ports – a technique known as “port hopping” – helps to visualize and take down adhesions much better and more safely than using the camera from the umbilical port only. Port hopping with a 30-degree laparoscope helps to obtain a 360-degree view of adhesions and anatomy, which is exceedingly helpful in cases in which crucial anatomical structures are within close proximity of one another.

In general it is more challenging to perform TLH on a patient with a broad uterus or a patient with low posterior fibroids that are occupying the pelvis than on a patient with fibroids in the upper abdomen. The main challenge for the surgeon is to safely secure the uterine arteries and control the blood supply to the uterus.

Access to the pelvic sidewall is obtained with the combination of 30-degree scope, uterine manipulator, and the suction irrigator introduced through the midline port; the cervix and uterus are deviated upward. Instead of the suction irrigator or blunt dissector used for internal uterine manipulation, some surgeons use myoma screws or a 5-mm single-tooth tenaculum to manipulate a large uterus. Both of those instruments are valuable and work well, but often a large uterus requires extensive manipulation. Repositioning of any sharp instruments that pierce the serosa can often lead to additional blood loss. It is preferable to avoid this blood loss on a large uterus at all costs because it can be brisk and stains the surgical pedicles, making the remainder of the procedure unnecessarily difficult.

Once the uterine arteries are desiccated, if fibroids are obscuring the view, the corpus of the uterus can be detached from the cervix as in supracervical hysterectomy fashion. From there, the uterus can be placed in the upper abdomen while colpotomy can be performed.

In patients with multiple fibroids, we do not recommend performing myomectomy first, unless the fibroid is pedunculated and on a very small stalk. Improved uterine manipulation and retroperitoneal dissection are preferred over myomectomy to safely complete hysterectomy for the broad uterus. In our opinion, any attempt at myomectomy would lead to unnecessary blood loss and additional operative time with minimal benefit.

In patients with fibroids that grow into the broad ligament and pelvic sidewall, the natural course of the ureter becomes displaced laterally. This is contrary to the popular misconception that the ureter is more medially located in the setting of broad-ligament fibroids. To ensure safe access to the uterine arteries, the vesicouterine peritoneum can be incised and extended cephalad along the broad ligament and, then, using the above-mentioned technique, by pushing the uterus and the fibroid to the contralateral side via the suction irrigator, the uterine arteries can be easily accessed.

Another useful technique is to use diluted vasopressin injected into the lower pole of the uterus to cause vasoconstriction and minimize the bleeding. The concentration is 1 cc of 20 units of vasopressin in 100-400 cc of saline. This technique is very useful for myomectomies, and some surgeons find it also helpful for hysterectomy. The plasma half-life of vasopressin is 10-20 minutes, and a large quantity is needed to help with vasoconstriction in a big uterus. The safe upper limits of vasopressin dosing are not firmly established. A fibroid uterus with aberrant vasculature may require a greater-than-acceptable dose to control bleeding.

It is important to ensure that patients have an optimized hemoglobin level preoperatively. We use a hemoglobin level of 8 g/dL as a lowest cutoff value for performing TLH without preoperative transfusion. Regarding bowel preparation, neither the literature nor our own experience support its value, so we typically do not use it.
 

Morcellation and patient counseling

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

Uteri up to 12 weeks’ gestational size usually can be extracted transvaginally, and most uteri regardless of size can be morcellated and extracted through the vagina, providing that the vaginal fornix is accessible from below. In some cases, such as when the apex is too high, a minilaparotomic incision is needed to extract the uterus, or when available, power morcellation can be performed.

A major challenge, given our growing ability to laparoscopically remove very larger uteri, is that uteri heavier than about 2.5 kg in weight cannot be morcellated inside a morcellation bag. The risk of upstaging a known or suspected uterine malignancy, or of spreading an unknown malignant sarcoma (presumed benign myoma), should be incorporated in each patient’s decision making.

Thorough counseling about surgical options and on the risks of morcellating a very large uterus without containment in a bag is essential. Each patient must understand the risks and decide whether the benefits of minimally invasive surgery outweigh these risks. While MRI can sometimes provide increased suspicion of a leiomyosarcoma, malignancy can never be completed excluded preoperatively.
 

Removal of a 7.4-kg uterus

Our patient was a 44-year-old with a markedly enlarged fibroid uterus. Having been told by other providers that she was not a candidate for minimally invasive hysterectomy, she had delayed surgical management for a number of years, allowing for such a generous uterine size to develop.

The patient was knowledgeable about her condition and, given her comorbid obesity, she requested a minimally invasive approach. Preoperative imaging included an ultrasound, which had to be completed abdominally because of the size of her uterus, and an additional MRI was needed to further characterize the extent and nature of her uterus. A very detailed discussion regarding risk of leiomyosarcoma, operative complications, and conversion to laparotomy ensued.

Intraoperatively, we placed the first 5 mm port in the left upper quadrant initially to survey the anatomy for feasibility of laparoscopic hysterectomy. The left utero-ovarian pedicle was easily viewed by airplaning the bed alone. While the right utero-ovarian pedicle was much more skewed and enlarged, the right IP was easily accessible and the ureter well visualized.

The decision was made to place additional ports and proceed with laparoscopic hysterectomy. The 5-mm assistant ports were placed lateral and directly above the upper vascular pedicles. Operative time was 4 hours and 12 minutes, and blood loss was only 700 cc. Her preoperative hemoglobin was optimized at 13.3 g/dL and dropped to 11.3 g/dL postoperatively. The patient was discharged home the next morning and had a normal recovery with no complications.
 

Dr. Pasic is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director of the section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy; and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery as well as an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Louisville. Dr. Pasic disclosed he is a consultant for Ethicon Endo, Medtronic, and Olympus and is a speaker for Cooper Surgical, which manufactures some of the instruments mentioned in this article. Dr. Cesta had no relevant financial disclosures.

It has now been 30 years since the first total laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed. The benefits of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) – and of minimally invasive hysterectomy specifically – are now well documented. Since this milestone procedure, both instrumentation and technique have improved significantly.

Physician experience is the most important determinant for which minimally invasive approach is used to perform hysterectomy. This includes traditional laparoscopy, as well as the robotically assisted laparoscopic approach. However, certain patient characteristics also may influence the choice. A uterus that is undescended, combined with a narrow introitus, for instance, can be a contributory factor in choosing to perform laparoscopic hysterectomy. Additionally, so can an extremely large uterus and an extremely high body mass index (BMI).

These latter two factors – a very large uterus (which we define as more than 15-16 weeks’ gestational size) and a BMI over 60 kg/m² – historically were considered to be contraindications to laparoscopic hysterectomy. But as the proficiency, comfort, and skill of a new generation of laparoscopic surgeons increases, the tide is shifting with respect to both morbid obesity and the very large uterus.

With growing experience and improved instrumentation, the majority of gynecologists who are fellowship-trained in MIGS are able to routinely and safely perform laparoscopic hysterectomy for uteri weighing 1-2 kg and in patients who have extreme morbid obesity. The literature, moreover, increasingly features case reports of laparoscopic removal of very large uteri and reviews/discussions of total laparoscopic hysterectomy being feasible.

In our own experience, total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) of the very large uterus can be safely and advantageously performed using key instruments and refinements in technique, as well as thorough patient counseling regarding the risk of unexpected sarcomas. Recently, we safely performed total laparoscopic hysterectomy for a patient with a uterus that – somewhat unexpectedly – weighed 7.4 kg.
 

Surgical pearls

Performing safe and effective total laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uteri – and for morbidly obese patients – hinges largely on modifications in entry and port placement, patient positioning, and choice of instrumentation. With these modifications, we can achieve adequate visualization of critical anatomy and can minimize bleeding. Otherwise, the surgery itself is largely the same. Here are the principles we find most helpful.

Entry and port placement

Traditionally, for TLHs, a camera port is placed at the umbilicus to provide a full view of the pelvis. For the larger uterus – and in women who are extremely obese – we aim to introduce the laparoscope higher. A reliable landmark is the Palmer’s point in the left upper quadrant. From here, we can identify areas for the placement of additional trocars.

In general, we place ancillary 5-mm ports more cephalad and lateral to the uterus than we otherwise would. Such placement facilitates effective visualization while accommodating manipulation of the uterus and allows us to avoid bleeding around the vascular upper pedicles. Overall, we have much better control through all parts of the surgery when we operate lateral to the uterus.
 

Patient positioning

In addition to the Trendelenburg position, we have adopted an “airplaning” technique for patients with a very large uterus in which the bed is tilted from side to side so that the left and right sides of the body are rotated upward as needed. This allows for gravitational-assisted retraction when it otherwise is not possible.

Instrumentation

For morbidly obese patients, we use Kii Fios advanced fixation trocars. These come in 5- and 10-mm sizes and are equipped with an intraperitoneal balloon that can be inflated to prevent sliding of the trocar out of the abdominal wall.

By far the most valuable instrument for the morbidly obese and the very large uterus is a 30-degree laparoscope. With our higher port placement as described, the 30-degree scope provides visualization of critical structures that wouldn’t be possible with a 0-degree scope.

The Rumi uterine manipulator comes with cups that come in different sizes and can fit around the cervix and help delineate the cervicouterine junction. We use this manipulator for all laparoscopic hysterectomies, but it is a must for the very large uterus.

Extensive desiccation of the utero-ovarian pedicles and uterine arteries is critical, and for this we advise using the rotating bipolar RoBi instrument. Use of the conventional bipolar instrument allows us to use targeted and anatomically guided application of energy. This ensures certainty that vessels whose limits exceed the diameter for advanced bipolar devices (typically 7 mm) are completely sealed. In-depth knowledge of pelvic anatomy and advanced laparoscopic dissection is paramount during these steps to ensure that vital structures are not damaged by the wider thermal spread of the traditional bipolar device. For cutting, the use of ultrasonic energy is important to prevent energy from spreading laterally.

Lastly, we recommend a good suction irrigator because, if bleeding occurs, it tends to be heavy because of the enlarged nature of feeding vasculature. When placed through an umbilical or suprapubic port, the suction irrigator also may be used to help with the rotational vectors and traction for further uterine manipulation.
 

Technique

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

We usually operate from top to bottom, transecting the upper pedicles such as the infundibulopelvic (IP) ligaments or utero-ovarian ligaments first, rather than the round ligaments. This helps us achieve additional mobility of the uterus. Some surgeons believe that retroperitoneal dissection and ligation of the uterine arteries at their origin is essential, but we find that, with good uterine manipulation and the use of a 30-degree scope, we achieve adequate visualization for identifying the ureter and uterine artery on the sidewall and consequently do not need to dissect retroperitoneally.

When using the uterine manipulator with the colpotomy cup, the uterus is pushed upward, increasing the distance between the vaginal fornix and the ureters. Uterine arteries can easily be identified and desiccated using conventional bipolar energy. When the colpotomy cup is pushed cephalad, the application of the bipolar energy within the limits of the cup is safe. The thermal spread does not pose a threat to the ureters, which are displaced 1.5-2 cm laterally. Large fibroids often contribute to distorted anatomical planes, and a colpotomy cup provides a firm palpable surface between the cervix and vagina during dissection.

When dealing with large uteri, one must sometimes think outside the box and deviate from standard technique. For instance, in patients with distorted anatomy because of large fibroids, it helps to first control the pedicles that are most easily accessible. Sometimes it is acceptable to perform oophorectomy if the IP ligament is more accessible and the utero-ovarian pedicle is distorted by dilated veins and adherent to the uterus. After transection of each pedicle, we gain more mobility of the uterus and better visualization for the next step.

Inserting the camera through ancillary ports – a technique known as “port hopping” – helps to visualize and take down adhesions much better and more safely than using the camera from the umbilical port only. Port hopping with a 30-degree laparoscope helps to obtain a 360-degree view of adhesions and anatomy, which is exceedingly helpful in cases in which crucial anatomical structures are within close proximity of one another.

In general it is more challenging to perform TLH on a patient with a broad uterus or a patient with low posterior fibroids that are occupying the pelvis than on a patient with fibroids in the upper abdomen. The main challenge for the surgeon is to safely secure the uterine arteries and control the blood supply to the uterus.

Access to the pelvic sidewall is obtained with the combination of 30-degree scope, uterine manipulator, and the suction irrigator introduced through the midline port; the cervix and uterus are deviated upward. Instead of the suction irrigator or blunt dissector used for internal uterine manipulation, some surgeons use myoma screws or a 5-mm single-tooth tenaculum to manipulate a large uterus. Both of those instruments are valuable and work well, but often a large uterus requires extensive manipulation. Repositioning of any sharp instruments that pierce the serosa can often lead to additional blood loss. It is preferable to avoid this blood loss on a large uterus at all costs because it can be brisk and stains the surgical pedicles, making the remainder of the procedure unnecessarily difficult.

Once the uterine arteries are desiccated, if fibroids are obscuring the view, the corpus of the uterus can be detached from the cervix as in supracervical hysterectomy fashion. From there, the uterus can be placed in the upper abdomen while colpotomy can be performed.

In patients with multiple fibroids, we do not recommend performing myomectomy first, unless the fibroid is pedunculated and on a very small stalk. Improved uterine manipulation and retroperitoneal dissection are preferred over myomectomy to safely complete hysterectomy for the broad uterus. In our opinion, any attempt at myomectomy would lead to unnecessary blood loss and additional operative time with minimal benefit.

In patients with fibroids that grow into the broad ligament and pelvic sidewall, the natural course of the ureter becomes displaced laterally. This is contrary to the popular misconception that the ureter is more medially located in the setting of broad-ligament fibroids. To ensure safe access to the uterine arteries, the vesicouterine peritoneum can be incised and extended cephalad along the broad ligament and, then, using the above-mentioned technique, by pushing the uterus and the fibroid to the contralateral side via the suction irrigator, the uterine arteries can be easily accessed.

Another useful technique is to use diluted vasopressin injected into the lower pole of the uterus to cause vasoconstriction and minimize the bleeding. The concentration is 1 cc of 20 units of vasopressin in 100-400 cc of saline. This technique is very useful for myomectomies, and some surgeons find it also helpful for hysterectomy. The plasma half-life of vasopressin is 10-20 minutes, and a large quantity is needed to help with vasoconstriction in a big uterus. The safe upper limits of vasopressin dosing are not firmly established. A fibroid uterus with aberrant vasculature may require a greater-than-acceptable dose to control bleeding.

It is important to ensure that patients have an optimized hemoglobin level preoperatively. We use a hemoglobin level of 8 g/dL as a lowest cutoff value for performing TLH without preoperative transfusion. Regarding bowel preparation, neither the literature nor our own experience support its value, so we typically do not use it.
 

Morcellation and patient counseling

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

Uteri up to 12 weeks’ gestational size usually can be extracted transvaginally, and most uteri regardless of size can be morcellated and extracted through the vagina, providing that the vaginal fornix is accessible from below. In some cases, such as when the apex is too high, a minilaparotomic incision is needed to extract the uterus, or when available, power morcellation can be performed.

A major challenge, given our growing ability to laparoscopically remove very larger uteri, is that uteri heavier than about 2.5 kg in weight cannot be morcellated inside a morcellation bag. The risk of upstaging a known or suspected uterine malignancy, or of spreading an unknown malignant sarcoma (presumed benign myoma), should be incorporated in each patient’s decision making.

Thorough counseling about surgical options and on the risks of morcellating a very large uterus without containment in a bag is essential. Each patient must understand the risks and decide whether the benefits of minimally invasive surgery outweigh these risks. While MRI can sometimes provide increased suspicion of a leiomyosarcoma, malignancy can never be completed excluded preoperatively.
 

Removal of a 7.4-kg uterus

Our patient was a 44-year-old with a markedly enlarged fibroid uterus. Having been told by other providers that she was not a candidate for minimally invasive hysterectomy, she had delayed surgical management for a number of years, allowing for such a generous uterine size to develop.

The patient was knowledgeable about her condition and, given her comorbid obesity, she requested a minimally invasive approach. Preoperative imaging included an ultrasound, which had to be completed abdominally because of the size of her uterus, and an additional MRI was needed to further characterize the extent and nature of her uterus. A very detailed discussion regarding risk of leiomyosarcoma, operative complications, and conversion to laparotomy ensued.

Intraoperatively, we placed the first 5 mm port in the left upper quadrant initially to survey the anatomy for feasibility of laparoscopic hysterectomy. The left utero-ovarian pedicle was easily viewed by airplaning the bed alone. While the right utero-ovarian pedicle was much more skewed and enlarged, the right IP was easily accessible and the ureter well visualized.

The decision was made to place additional ports and proceed with laparoscopic hysterectomy. The 5-mm assistant ports were placed lateral and directly above the upper vascular pedicles. Operative time was 4 hours and 12 minutes, and blood loss was only 700 cc. Her preoperative hemoglobin was optimized at 13.3 g/dL and dropped to 11.3 g/dL postoperatively. The patient was discharged home the next morning and had a normal recovery with no complications.
 

Dr. Pasic is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director of the section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy; and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery as well as an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Louisville. Dr. Pasic disclosed he is a consultant for Ethicon Endo, Medtronic, and Olympus and is a speaker for Cooper Surgical, which manufactures some of the instruments mentioned in this article. Dr. Cesta had no relevant financial disclosures.

In his excellent treatise on the history of hysterectomy, Chris Sutton, MBBch, noted that, while Themison of Athens in 50 bc and Soranus of Ephesus in 120 ad were reported to have performed vaginal hysterectomy, these cases essentially were emergency amputation of severely prolapsed uteri, which usually involved cutting both ureters and the bladder (J Minim Invas Gynecol. 2010 Jul;17[4]:421–35). It was not until 1801 that the first planned elective vaginal hysterectomy was performed, and it was not until the mid 19th century, in 1853, that Walter Burnham, MD, in Lowell, Mass., performed the first abdominal hysterectomy resulting in patient survival.

Seemingly incredible, it was only 125 years later, in autumn of 1988 at William Nesbitt Memorial Hospital in Kingston, Pa., that Harry Reich, MD, performed the first total laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy.

Since Dr. Reich’s groundbreaking procedure, the performance of laparoscopic hysterectomy has advanced at a feverish pace. In my own practice, I have not performed an abdominal hysterectomy since 1998. My two partners, who are both fellowship-trained in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh, MD, who joined my practice in 2007, and Kristen Sasaki, MD, who joined my practice in 2014, have never performed an open hysterectomy since starting practice. Despite these advances, a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is not without challenge. One of the most difficult situations is the truly large uterus – greater than 2,500 grams.

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Paya Pasic, MD, and Megan Cesta, MD, to discuss the next frontier: the removal of the multiple kilogram uterus.

Dr. Pasic is an internationally recognized leader in laparoscopic MIGS. He is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director, section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy, and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in MIGS at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Pasic is published in the field of MIGS, having authored many publications, book chapters, monographs, and textbooks.

Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in MIGS and an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the university.

It is truly a pleasure to welcome Dr. Pasic and Dr. Cesta 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, Park Ridge, Ill. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

In his excellent treatise on the history of hysterectomy, Chris Sutton, MBBch, noted that, while Themison of Athens in 50 bc and Soranus of Ephesus in 120 ad were reported to have performed vaginal hysterectomy, these cases essentially were emergency amputation of severely prolapsed uteri, which usually involved cutting both ureters and the bladder (J Minim Invas Gynecol. 2010 Jul;17[4]:421–35). It was not until 1801 that the first planned elective vaginal hysterectomy was performed, and it was not until the mid 19th century, in 1853, that Walter Burnham, MD, in Lowell, Mass., performed the first abdominal hysterectomy resulting in patient survival.

Seemingly incredible, it was only 125 years later, in autumn of 1988 at William Nesbitt Memorial Hospital in Kingston, Pa., that Harry Reich, MD, performed the first total laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy.

Since Dr. Reich’s groundbreaking procedure, the performance of laparoscopic hysterectomy has advanced at a feverish pace. In my own practice, I have not performed an abdominal hysterectomy since 1998. My two partners, who are both fellowship-trained in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh, MD, who joined my practice in 2007, and Kristen Sasaki, MD, who joined my practice in 2014, have never performed an open hysterectomy since starting practice. Despite these advances, a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is not without challenge. One of the most difficult situations is the truly large uterus – greater than 2,500 grams.

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Paya Pasic, MD, and Megan Cesta, MD, to discuss the next frontier: the removal of the multiple kilogram uterus.

Dr. Pasic is an internationally recognized leader in laparoscopic MIGS. He is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director, section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy, and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in MIGS at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Pasic is published in the field of MIGS, having authored many publications, book chapters, monographs, and textbooks.

Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in MIGS and an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the university.

It is truly a pleasure to welcome Dr. Pasic and Dr. Cesta 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, Park Ridge, Ill. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

In his excellent treatise on the history of hysterectomy, Chris Sutton, MBBch, noted that, while Themison of Athens in 50 bc and Soranus of Ephesus in 120 ad were reported to have performed vaginal hysterectomy, these cases essentially were emergency amputation of severely prolapsed uteri, which usually involved cutting both ureters and the bladder (J Minim Invas Gynecol. 2010 Jul;17[4]:421–35). It was not until 1801 that the first planned elective vaginal hysterectomy was performed, and it was not until the mid 19th century, in 1853, that Walter Burnham, MD, in Lowell, Mass., performed the first abdominal hysterectomy resulting in patient survival.

Seemingly incredible, it was only 125 years later, in autumn of 1988 at William Nesbitt Memorial Hospital in Kingston, Pa., that Harry Reich, MD, performed the first total laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy.

Since Dr. Reich’s groundbreaking procedure, the performance of laparoscopic hysterectomy has advanced at a feverish pace. In my own practice, I have not performed an abdominal hysterectomy since 1998. My two partners, who are both fellowship-trained in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh, MD, who joined my practice in 2007, and Kristen Sasaki, MD, who joined my practice in 2014, have never performed an open hysterectomy since starting practice. Despite these advances, a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is not without challenge. One of the most difficult situations is the truly large uterus – greater than 2,500 grams.

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Paya Pasic, MD, and Megan Cesta, MD, to discuss the next frontier: the removal of the multiple kilogram uterus.

Dr. Pasic is an internationally recognized leader in laparoscopic MIGS. He is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director, section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy, and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in MIGS at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Pasic is published in the field of MIGS, having authored many publications, book chapters, monographs, and textbooks.

Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in MIGS and an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the university.

It is truly a pleasure to welcome Dr. Pasic and Dr. Cesta 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, Park Ridge, Ill. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Assessing appendicitis in children with initial ultrasound followed by computed tomography in the absence of appendix visualization and presence of secondary signs was the most cost-effective approach, according to data from a modeling study of 10 strategies.

Ultrasound is safer and less expensive than computed tomography and avoids radiation exposure; however, cost-effectiveness models of various approaches to imaging have not been well studied, wrote Rebecca Jennings, MD, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, Washington, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers simulated a hypothetical patient population using a Markov cohort model and compared 10 different strategies including CT only, MRI only, and ultrasound followed by CT or MRI after ultrasounds that are negative or fail to visualize the appendix.

Overall, the most cost-effective strategy for moderate-risk patients was the use of ultrasound followed by CT or MRI if the ultrasound failed to visualize the appendix and secondary signs of inflammation were present in the right lower quadrant. The cost of this strategy was $4,815, with effectiveness of 0.99694 quality-adjusted life-years. “The most cost-effective strategy is highly dependent on a patient’s risk stratification,” the researchers noted. Based on their model, imaging was not cost effective for patients with a prevalence less than 16% or greater than 95%. However, those with appendicitis risk between 16% and 95% and no secondary signs of inflammation can forgo further imaging, even without visualization of the appendix for maximum cost-effectiveness, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, including the inability to account for all potential costs related to imaging and outcomes, lack of accounting for the use of sedation when assessing costs, and inability to separate imaging costs from total hospital costs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that tailored imaging approaches based on patient risk are the most cost-effective strategies to assess appendicitis, they said.

“The diagnosis and exclusion of appendicitis continues to be one of the primary concerns of providers who care for children with abdominal pain,” wrote Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, and Charles L. Snyder, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital Kansas City, Mo., in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Feb;145:e20193349).

“The best diagnostic and imaging approach to appendicitis has been a topic of interest for some time, and improvements such as appendicitis scoring systems, decreased use of ionized radiation, and adoption of clinical algorithms have been incremental but steady,” they said. Despite the potential of missed appendicitis, the use of an algorithm based on an initial ultrasound and previous possibility of appendicitis described in the study was the most cost effective, they said. In addition, “the ability to visualize the appendix did not alter the most cost-effective approach in those with a moderate risk of appendicitis (most patients),” they concluded.

The study was supported by the University of Washington and Seattle Children’s Hospital Quality Improvement Scholars Program. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Rentea and Dr. Snyder had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Jennings R et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1352.

Assessing appendicitis in children with initial ultrasound followed by computed tomography in the absence of appendix visualization and presence of secondary signs was the most cost-effective approach, according to data from a modeling study of 10 strategies.

Ultrasound is safer and less expensive than computed tomography and avoids radiation exposure; however, cost-effectiveness models of various approaches to imaging have not been well studied, wrote Rebecca Jennings, MD, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, Washington, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers simulated a hypothetical patient population using a Markov cohort model and compared 10 different strategies including CT only, MRI only, and ultrasound followed by CT or MRI after ultrasounds that are negative or fail to visualize the appendix.

Overall, the most cost-effective strategy for moderate-risk patients was the use of ultrasound followed by CT or MRI if the ultrasound failed to visualize the appendix and secondary signs of inflammation were present in the right lower quadrant. The cost of this strategy was $4,815, with effectiveness of 0.99694 quality-adjusted life-years. “The most cost-effective strategy is highly dependent on a patient’s risk stratification,” the researchers noted. Based on their model, imaging was not cost effective for patients with a prevalence less than 16% or greater than 95%. However, those with appendicitis risk between 16% and 95% and no secondary signs of inflammation can forgo further imaging, even without visualization of the appendix for maximum cost-effectiveness, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, including the inability to account for all potential costs related to imaging and outcomes, lack of accounting for the use of sedation when assessing costs, and inability to separate imaging costs from total hospital costs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that tailored imaging approaches based on patient risk are the most cost-effective strategies to assess appendicitis, they said.

“The diagnosis and exclusion of appendicitis continues to be one of the primary concerns of providers who care for children with abdominal pain,” wrote Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, and Charles L. Snyder, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital Kansas City, Mo., in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Feb;145:e20193349).

“The best diagnostic and imaging approach to appendicitis has been a topic of interest for some time, and improvements such as appendicitis scoring systems, decreased use of ionized radiation, and adoption of clinical algorithms have been incremental but steady,” they said. Despite the potential of missed appendicitis, the use of an algorithm based on an initial ultrasound and previous possibility of appendicitis described in the study was the most cost effective, they said. In addition, “the ability to visualize the appendix did not alter the most cost-effective approach in those with a moderate risk of appendicitis (most patients),” they concluded.

The study was supported by the University of Washington and Seattle Children’s Hospital Quality Improvement Scholars Program. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Rentea and Dr. Snyder had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Jennings R et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1352.

Assessing appendicitis in children with initial ultrasound followed by computed tomography in the absence of appendix visualization and presence of secondary signs was the most cost-effective approach, according to data from a modeling study of 10 strategies.

Ultrasound is safer and less expensive than computed tomography and avoids radiation exposure; however, cost-effectiveness models of various approaches to imaging have not been well studied, wrote Rebecca Jennings, MD, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, Washington, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers simulated a hypothetical patient population using a Markov cohort model and compared 10 different strategies including CT only, MRI only, and ultrasound followed by CT or MRI after ultrasounds that are negative or fail to visualize the appendix.

Overall, the most cost-effective strategy for moderate-risk patients was the use of ultrasound followed by CT or MRI if the ultrasound failed to visualize the appendix and secondary signs of inflammation were present in the right lower quadrant. The cost of this strategy was $4,815, with effectiveness of 0.99694 quality-adjusted life-years. “The most cost-effective strategy is highly dependent on a patient’s risk stratification,” the researchers noted. Based on their model, imaging was not cost effective for patients with a prevalence less than 16% or greater than 95%. However, those with appendicitis risk between 16% and 95% and no secondary signs of inflammation can forgo further imaging, even without visualization of the appendix for maximum cost-effectiveness, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, including the inability to account for all potential costs related to imaging and outcomes, lack of accounting for the use of sedation when assessing costs, and inability to separate imaging costs from total hospital costs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that tailored imaging approaches based on patient risk are the most cost-effective strategies to assess appendicitis, they said.

“The diagnosis and exclusion of appendicitis continues to be one of the primary concerns of providers who care for children with abdominal pain,” wrote Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, and Charles L. Snyder, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital Kansas City, Mo., in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Feb;145:e20193349).

“The best diagnostic and imaging approach to appendicitis has been a topic of interest for some time, and improvements such as appendicitis scoring systems, decreased use of ionized radiation, and adoption of clinical algorithms have been incremental but steady,” they said. Despite the potential of missed appendicitis, the use of an algorithm based on an initial ultrasound and previous possibility of appendicitis described in the study was the most cost effective, they said. In addition, “the ability to visualize the appendix did not alter the most cost-effective approach in those with a moderate risk of appendicitis (most patients),” they concluded.

The study was supported by the University of Washington and Seattle Children’s Hospital Quality Improvement Scholars Program. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Rentea and Dr. Snyder had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Jennings R et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1352.

BALTIMORE – About one in 4,000 children are born with hemimegalencephaly, meaning one brain hemisphere is abnormally formed and larger than the other.

The abnormal hemisphere causes seizures, and when they become intractable, the standard of care is to remove it as soon as possible; the longer the abnormal hemisphere is left in, the worse children do developmentally, and the less likely hemispherectomy will stop the seizures.

A problem comes up, however, when children become intractable before they’re 3 months old: “Neurosurgeons won’t touch them,” said Taeun Chang, MD, a neonatal neurointensivist at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington.

Newborns’ coagulation systems aren’t fully developed, and the risk of fatal hemorrhage is too high, she explained.

Out of what she said was a sense of “desperation” to address the situation, Dr. Chang has spearheaded a new approach for newborns at Children’s National, serial glue embolization to induce targeted strokes in the affected hemisphere. She reported on the first five cases at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.

At this point, “I feel like we’ve pretty much figured out the technique in terms of minimizing the complications. There’s no reason to wait anymore” for surgery as newborns get worse and worse, she said.

The technique

In two or three stages over several days, the major branches of the affected hemisphere’s anterior, middle, and posterior cerebral arteries are embolized. “You have to glue a long area and put in a lot of glue and glue up the secondary branches because [newborns] are so good at forming collaterals,” Dr. Chang said.

Fresh frozen plasma is given before and after each embolization session to boost coagulation proteins. Nicardipine is given during the procedure to prevent vasospasms. The one death in the series, case four, was in an 11-day old girl who vasospasmed, ruptured an artery over the tip of the guidewire, and hemorrhaged.

After the procedure, body temperature is kept at 36° C to prevent fever; sodium is kept high, and ins and outs are matched, to reduce brain edema; and blood pressure is tightly controlled. Children are kept on EEG during embolization and for days afterwards, and seizures, if any, are treated. The next embolization comes after peak swelling has passed in about 48-72 hours.

“The reason we can get away with this without herniation is that newborns’ skulls are soft, and their sutures are open,” so cerebral edema is manageable, Dr. Chang said.

Learning curve and outcomes

“What we learned in the first two cases” – a 23-day-old boy and 49-day-old girl – “was to create effective strokes. That’s not something any of us are taught to do,” she said.

“We were not trying to destroy the whole hemisphere, just the area that was seizing on EEG.” That was a mistake, she said: Adjacent areas began seizing and both children went on to anatomical hemispherectomies and needed shunts.

They are 5 years old now, and both on four seizure medications. The boy is in a wheelchair, fed by a G-tube, and has fewer than 20 words. The girl has a gait trainer, is fed mostly by G-tube, and has more than 50 words.

The third patient had her middle and posterior cerebral arteries embolized beginning when she was 43 days old. She was seizure free when she left the NICU, but eventually had a functional hemispherectomy. She’s 2 years old now, eating by mouth, in a gait trainer, and speaks in one- or two-word sentences. She’s on three seizure medications.

Outcomes have been best for patient five. Her posterior, middle, and anterior cerebral arteries were embolized starting at 14 days. She’s 1 year old now, seizure free on three medications, eating by G-tube and mouth, and has three-five words.

Dr. Chang said that newborns with hemimegalencephaly at Children’s National aren’t lingering as long on failing drug regimens these days. “We go to intervention now that we have this option” after they fail just two or three medications.

Given that the fifth patient, treated at 2 weeks old, is the only one who has been seizure free, she suspects it’s probably best to do embolization sooner rather than later, just as with anatomical hemispherectomy in older children. “We’ve got the sense that even a couple of weeks makes a difference. People need to come to us sooner,” Dr. Chang said.

It’s possible embolization could be a sound alternative to surgery even after 3 months of age. Focal embolization might also be a viable alternative to surgery to knock out epileptogenic lesions in children with tuberous sclerosis. Dr. Chang and her colleagues are interested in those and other possibilities, and plan to continue to develop the approach, she said.

There was no funding, and the investigators didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Chang T et al. AES 2019, Abstract 1.225.

BALTIMORE – About one in 4,000 children are born with hemimegalencephaly, meaning one brain hemisphere is abnormally formed and larger than the other.

The abnormal hemisphere causes seizures, and when they become intractable, the standard of care is to remove it as soon as possible; the longer the abnormal hemisphere is left in, the worse children do developmentally, and the less likely hemispherectomy will stop the seizures.

A problem comes up, however, when children become intractable before they’re 3 months old: “Neurosurgeons won’t touch them,” said Taeun Chang, MD, a neonatal neurointensivist at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington.

Newborns’ coagulation systems aren’t fully developed, and the risk of fatal hemorrhage is too high, she explained.

Out of what she said was a sense of “desperation” to address the situation, Dr. Chang has spearheaded a new approach for newborns at Children’s National, serial glue embolization to induce targeted strokes in the affected hemisphere. She reported on the first five cases at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.

At this point, “I feel like we’ve pretty much figured out the technique in terms of minimizing the complications. There’s no reason to wait anymore” for surgery as newborns get worse and worse, she said.

The technique

In two or three stages over several days, the major branches of the affected hemisphere’s anterior, middle, and posterior cerebral arteries are embolized. “You have to glue a long area and put in a lot of glue and glue up the secondary branches because [newborns] are so good at forming collaterals,” Dr. Chang said.

Fresh frozen plasma is given before and after each embolization session to boost coagulation proteins. Nicardipine is given during the procedure to prevent vasospasms. The one death in the series, case four, was in an 11-day old girl who vasospasmed, ruptured an artery over the tip of the guidewire, and hemorrhaged.

After the procedure, body temperature is kept at 36° C to prevent fever; sodium is kept high, and ins and outs are matched, to reduce brain edema; and blood pressure is tightly controlled. Children are kept on EEG during embolization and for days afterwards, and seizures, if any, are treated. The next embolization comes after peak swelling has passed in about 48-72 hours.

“The reason we can get away with this without herniation is that newborns’ skulls are soft, and their sutures are open,” so cerebral edema is manageable, Dr. Chang said.

Learning curve and outcomes

“What we learned in the first two cases” – a 23-day-old boy and 49-day-old girl – “was to create effective strokes. That’s not something any of us are taught to do,” she said.

“We were not trying to destroy the whole hemisphere, just the area that was seizing on EEG.” That was a mistake, she said: Adjacent areas began seizing and both children went on to anatomical hemispherectomies and needed shunts.

They are 5 years old now, and both on four seizure medications. The boy is in a wheelchair, fed by a G-tube, and has fewer than 20 words. The girl has a gait trainer, is fed mostly by G-tube, and has more than 50 words.

The third patient had her middle and posterior cerebral arteries embolized beginning when she was 43 days old. She was seizure free when she left the NICU, but eventually had a functional hemispherectomy. She’s 2 years old now, eating by mouth, in a gait trainer, and speaks in one- or two-word sentences. She’s on three seizure medications.

Outcomes have been best for patient five. Her posterior, middle, and anterior cerebral arteries were embolized starting at 14 days. She’s 1 year old now, seizure free on three medications, eating by G-tube and mouth, and has three-five words.

Dr. Chang said that newborns with hemimegalencephaly at Children’s National aren’t lingering as long on failing drug regimens these days. “We go to intervention now that we have this option” after they fail just two or three medications.

Given that the fifth patient, treated at 2 weeks old, is the only one who has been seizure free, she suspects it’s probably best to do embolization sooner rather than later, just as with anatomical hemispherectomy in older children. “We’ve got the sense that even a couple of weeks makes a difference. People need to come to us sooner,” Dr. Chang said.

It’s possible embolization could be a sound alternative to surgery even after 3 months of age. Focal embolization might also be a viable alternative to surgery to knock out epileptogenic lesions in children with tuberous sclerosis. Dr. Chang and her colleagues are interested in those and other possibilities, and plan to continue to develop the approach, she said.

There was no funding, and the investigators didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Chang T et al. AES 2019, Abstract 1.225.

BALTIMORE – About one in 4,000 children are born with hemimegalencephaly, meaning one brain hemisphere is abnormally formed and larger than the other.

The abnormal hemisphere causes seizures, and when they become intractable, the standard of care is to remove it as soon as possible; the longer the abnormal hemisphere is left in, the worse children do developmentally, and the less likely hemispherectomy will stop the seizures.

A problem comes up, however, when children become intractable before they’re 3 months old: “Neurosurgeons won’t touch them,” said Taeun Chang, MD, a neonatal neurointensivist at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington.

Newborns’ coagulation systems aren’t fully developed, and the risk of fatal hemorrhage is too high, she explained.

Out of what she said was a sense of “desperation” to address the situation, Dr. Chang has spearheaded a new approach for newborns at Children’s National, serial glue embolization to induce targeted strokes in the affected hemisphere. She reported on the first five cases at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.

At this point, “I feel like we’ve pretty much figured out the technique in terms of minimizing the complications. There’s no reason to wait anymore” for surgery as newborns get worse and worse, she said.

The technique

In two or three stages over several days, the major branches of the affected hemisphere’s anterior, middle, and posterior cerebral arteries are embolized. “You have to glue a long area and put in a lot of glue and glue up the secondary branches because [newborns] are so good at forming collaterals,” Dr. Chang said.

Fresh frozen plasma is given before and after each embolization session to boost coagulation proteins. Nicardipine is given during the procedure to prevent vasospasms. The one death in the series, case four, was in an 11-day old girl who vasospasmed, ruptured an artery over the tip of the guidewire, and hemorrhaged.

After the procedure, body temperature is kept at 36° C to prevent fever; sodium is kept high, and ins and outs are matched, to reduce brain edema; and blood pressure is tightly controlled. Children are kept on EEG during embolization and for days afterwards, and seizures, if any, are treated. The next embolization comes after peak swelling has passed in about 48-72 hours.

“The reason we can get away with this without herniation is that newborns’ skulls are soft, and their sutures are open,” so cerebral edema is manageable, Dr. Chang said.

Learning curve and outcomes

“What we learned in the first two cases” – a 23-day-old boy and 49-day-old girl – “was to create effective strokes. That’s not something any of us are taught to do,” she said.

“We were not trying to destroy the whole hemisphere, just the area that was seizing on EEG.” That was a mistake, she said: Adjacent areas began seizing and both children went on to anatomical hemispherectomies and needed shunts.

They are 5 years old now, and both on four seizure medications. The boy is in a wheelchair, fed by a G-tube, and has fewer than 20 words. The girl has a gait trainer, is fed mostly by G-tube, and has more than 50 words.

The third patient had her middle and posterior cerebral arteries embolized beginning when she was 43 days old. She was seizure free when she left the NICU, but eventually had a functional hemispherectomy. She’s 2 years old now, eating by mouth, in a gait trainer, and speaks in one- or two-word sentences. She’s on three seizure medications.

Outcomes have been best for patient five. Her posterior, middle, and anterior cerebral arteries were embolized starting at 14 days. She’s 1 year old now, seizure free on three medications, eating by G-tube and mouth, and has three-five words.

Dr. Chang said that newborns with hemimegalencephaly at Children’s National aren’t lingering as long on failing drug regimens these days. “We go to intervention now that we have this option” after they fail just two or three medications.

Given that the fifth patient, treated at 2 weeks old, is the only one who has been seizure free, she suspects it’s probably best to do embolization sooner rather than later, just as with anatomical hemispherectomy in older children. “We’ve got the sense that even a couple of weeks makes a difference. People need to come to us sooner,” Dr. Chang said.

It’s possible embolization could be a sound alternative to surgery even after 3 months of age. Focal embolization might also be a viable alternative to surgery to knock out epileptogenic lesions in children with tuberous sclerosis. Dr. Chang and her colleagues are interested in those and other possibilities, and plan to continue to develop the approach, she said.

There was no funding, and the investigators didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Chang T et al. AES 2019, Abstract 1.225.