Ob.Gyn. News

With COVID, the fun never ends

Welcome to America’s favorite pandemic-themed game show! Let’s play Covidiot Proof! And now, here’s your host, the lovely and talented Anthony Grouchy!

sabelskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Tony: Hello everyone! Our first category today is America or [blank], and the first clue is for you, Don. This country requires “individuals to use a health pass to patronize indoor establishments such as restaurants, bars, nightclubs and cinemas.”

Don: Freedom-loving Americans would never stand for that, Tony, so I’m going to say Greece.

Tony: That’s correct, Don. One hundred points for you. Okay Joe, here’s your clue: In this country, some people wear disguises to get a COVID vaccination so their friends and families won’t find out.

Joe: Sounds like communism to me, Tony. I’ll say Cuba.

Tony: Sorry Joe, that’s incorrect. Don?

Don: The friends and families sound like freedom-loving Americans, so it must be America.

Tony: It is America. Missouri, to be exact. And now, one last question for both of you to win the game. True or false? Did the pastor of a church in Tennessee say that mask-wearers would be kicked out of the building because “I am not playing these Democrat games up in this church”?

Joe: That’s fake news, Tony. It’s gotta be false.

Tony: Incorrect! It’s absolutely true. That means today’s winner is … Joe? Yes, I’m being told that Tennessee goes to Joe.

Don: That’s bulls#&@! I won this thing! I’ll see you in court!
 

More money, more life

Does it seem to you that the wealthy live forever, while the less financially comfortable live shorter lives? If you answered, yes, it turns out that you’re right.

utah778/Thinkstock

Researchers analyzed the effect of net worth at midlife with mortality. To take out genetic differences among the sample of 5,400 adults aged 46 years, the investigators also studied a subset of 2,490 twin and sibling pairs.

“The within-family association provides strong evidence that an association between wealth accumulation and life expectancy exists, because comparing siblings within the same family to each other controls for all of the life experience and biology that they share,” said coauthor Eric Finegood of Northwestern University, Chicago.

But what if one sibling has a history of cancer, heart disease, or other health conditions? The cost of treatment and employment limitations could affect someone’s ability to stack their wealth, right? Absolutely. The researchers took that into account and looked at only healthy individuals and found the same results. More money, longer life.

We have the policies and programs in place for heart health, diabetes prevention, and smoking cessation, as they are seen as major threats to public health. So why not do the same for financial security? A low bank account may just be more harmful.
 

Holding the ‘health care and wellness’ gun

Cigarettes are not good for us. We know this.

seanika/ThinkStock

It’s, therefore, not surprising to learn that a business has requested for a U.K. ban on the sale of cigarettes by 2030. However, when that someone turns out to be the CEO of Philip Morris International, tobacco company and maker of Marlboro cigarettes, things get a little confusing.

Banning cigarettes, according to Jacek Olczak, would reduce confusion among consumers, many of whom feel that the alternatives are worse for their health. His company can “see the world without cigarettes ... and actually, the sooner it happens, the better it is for everyone.” A truly noble sentiment from the CEO of a large tobacco company. Nothing nefarious going on here.

Philip Morris International is actually leaning hard into nonsmoking means of tobacco consumption, even going so far as to brand itself a “health care and wellness company” on a mission to “unsmoke the world.” And if those aren’t egregious business euphemisms, we don’t know what is.

Of course, for all the completely believable and sincere rhetoric, the fact is that Marlboros are still on the shelves. Philip Morris is still making and advertising them. If their concern was genuine, why wouldn’t they just stop manufacturing them now?

So, we ask ourselves if this a selfless act of kindness or is it an unscrupulous corporate act to get a leg up on their competitors? We’ll leave it up to the readers to decide.

Okay, we lied, it’s the second one.
 

Autopsy of the living dead

Imagine the absolute terror you’d feel if you opened your eyes to bright, blinding white lights only to see a bone saw 3 inches from your forehead and getting closer by the second. Horrifying for you, certainly, but think about the poor pathologist behind the saw who probably thought a zombie apocalypse was coming. This was close to being a reality for a 29-year-old prisoner at the Asturias Central Penitentiary in Spain.

Gonzalo Montoya Jiménez was discovered in his cell unresponsive. Three physicians examined him and found he was showing signs of death, such as cyanosis and rigor mortis. Mr. Jiménez was processed like any other body and was sent, in a body bag, to a hospital mortuary, where he spent time in a freezer for body preservation. Just before he was due for his autopsy, he began showing signs of life.

It’s not completely clear why this happened to poor Mr. Jiménez, but it was reported that he wasn’t feeling well the day before and that he has epilepsy. Hospital officials suggested he may have been cataleptic, possibly because he had trouble adhering to his medication schedule.

Mr. Jiménez was moved to another hospital under armed guard after coming back to life and regained consciousness after a day or so. Talk about cheating death.
 

With COVID, the fun never ends

Welcome to America’s favorite pandemic-themed game show! Let’s play Covidiot Proof! And now, here’s your host, the lovely and talented Anthony Grouchy!

sabelskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Tony: Hello everyone! Our first category today is America or [blank], and the first clue is for you, Don. This country requires “individuals to use a health pass to patronize indoor establishments such as restaurants, bars, nightclubs and cinemas.”

Don: Freedom-loving Americans would never stand for that, Tony, so I’m going to say Greece.

Tony: That’s correct, Don. One hundred points for you. Okay Joe, here’s your clue: In this country, some people wear disguises to get a COVID vaccination so their friends and families won’t find out.

Joe: Sounds like communism to me, Tony. I’ll say Cuba.

Tony: Sorry Joe, that’s incorrect. Don?

Don: The friends and families sound like freedom-loving Americans, so it must be America.

Tony: It is America. Missouri, to be exact. And now, one last question for both of you to win the game. True or false? Did the pastor of a church in Tennessee say that mask-wearers would be kicked out of the building because “I am not playing these Democrat games up in this church”?

Joe: That’s fake news, Tony. It’s gotta be false.

Tony: Incorrect! It’s absolutely true. That means today’s winner is … Joe? Yes, I’m being told that Tennessee goes to Joe.

Don: That’s bulls#&@! I won this thing! I’ll see you in court!
 

More money, more life

Does it seem to you that the wealthy live forever, while the less financially comfortable live shorter lives? If you answered, yes, it turns out that you’re right.

utah778/Thinkstock

Researchers analyzed the effect of net worth at midlife with mortality. To take out genetic differences among the sample of 5,400 adults aged 46 years, the investigators also studied a subset of 2,490 twin and sibling pairs.

“The within-family association provides strong evidence that an association between wealth accumulation and life expectancy exists, because comparing siblings within the same family to each other controls for all of the life experience and biology that they share,” said coauthor Eric Finegood of Northwestern University, Chicago.

But what if one sibling has a history of cancer, heart disease, or other health conditions? The cost of treatment and employment limitations could affect someone’s ability to stack their wealth, right? Absolutely. The researchers took that into account and looked at only healthy individuals and found the same results. More money, longer life.

We have the policies and programs in place for heart health, diabetes prevention, and smoking cessation, as they are seen as major threats to public health. So why not do the same for financial security? A low bank account may just be more harmful.
 

Holding the ‘health care and wellness’ gun

Cigarettes are not good for us. We know this.

seanika/ThinkStock

It’s, therefore, not surprising to learn that a business has requested for a U.K. ban on the sale of cigarettes by 2030. However, when that someone turns out to be the CEO of Philip Morris International, tobacco company and maker of Marlboro cigarettes, things get a little confusing.

Banning cigarettes, according to Jacek Olczak, would reduce confusion among consumers, many of whom feel that the alternatives are worse for their health. His company can “see the world without cigarettes ... and actually, the sooner it happens, the better it is for everyone.” A truly noble sentiment from the CEO of a large tobacco company. Nothing nefarious going on here.

Philip Morris International is actually leaning hard into nonsmoking means of tobacco consumption, even going so far as to brand itself a “health care and wellness company” on a mission to “unsmoke the world.” And if those aren’t egregious business euphemisms, we don’t know what is.

Of course, for all the completely believable and sincere rhetoric, the fact is that Marlboros are still on the shelves. Philip Morris is still making and advertising them. If their concern was genuine, why wouldn’t they just stop manufacturing them now?

So, we ask ourselves if this a selfless act of kindness or is it an unscrupulous corporate act to get a leg up on their competitors? We’ll leave it up to the readers to decide.

Okay, we lied, it’s the second one.
 

Autopsy of the living dead

Imagine the absolute terror you’d feel if you opened your eyes to bright, blinding white lights only to see a bone saw 3 inches from your forehead and getting closer by the second. Horrifying for you, certainly, but think about the poor pathologist behind the saw who probably thought a zombie apocalypse was coming. This was close to being a reality for a 29-year-old prisoner at the Asturias Central Penitentiary in Spain.

Gonzalo Montoya Jiménez was discovered in his cell unresponsive. Three physicians examined him and found he was showing signs of death, such as cyanosis and rigor mortis. Mr. Jiménez was processed like any other body and was sent, in a body bag, to a hospital mortuary, where he spent time in a freezer for body preservation. Just before he was due for his autopsy, he began showing signs of life.

It’s not completely clear why this happened to poor Mr. Jiménez, but it was reported that he wasn’t feeling well the day before and that he has epilepsy. Hospital officials suggested he may have been cataleptic, possibly because he had trouble adhering to his medication schedule.

Mr. Jiménez was moved to another hospital under armed guard after coming back to life and regained consciousness after a day or so. Talk about cheating death.
 

With COVID, the fun never ends

Welcome to America’s favorite pandemic-themed game show! Let’s play Covidiot Proof! And now, here’s your host, the lovely and talented Anthony Grouchy!

sabelskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Tony: Hello everyone! Our first category today is America or [blank], and the first clue is for you, Don. This country requires “individuals to use a health pass to patronize indoor establishments such as restaurants, bars, nightclubs and cinemas.”

Don: Freedom-loving Americans would never stand for that, Tony, so I’m going to say Greece.

Tony: That’s correct, Don. One hundred points for you. Okay Joe, here’s your clue: In this country, some people wear disguises to get a COVID vaccination so their friends and families won’t find out.

Joe: Sounds like communism to me, Tony. I’ll say Cuba.

Tony: Sorry Joe, that’s incorrect. Don?

Don: The friends and families sound like freedom-loving Americans, so it must be America.

Tony: It is America. Missouri, to be exact. And now, one last question for both of you to win the game. True or false? Did the pastor of a church in Tennessee say that mask-wearers would be kicked out of the building because “I am not playing these Democrat games up in this church”?

Joe: That’s fake news, Tony. It’s gotta be false.

Tony: Incorrect! It’s absolutely true. That means today’s winner is … Joe? Yes, I’m being told that Tennessee goes to Joe.

Don: That’s bulls#&@! I won this thing! I’ll see you in court!
 

More money, more life

Does it seem to you that the wealthy live forever, while the less financially comfortable live shorter lives? If you answered, yes, it turns out that you’re right.

utah778/Thinkstock

Researchers analyzed the effect of net worth at midlife with mortality. To take out genetic differences among the sample of 5,400 adults aged 46 years, the investigators also studied a subset of 2,490 twin and sibling pairs.

“The within-family association provides strong evidence that an association between wealth accumulation and life expectancy exists, because comparing siblings within the same family to each other controls for all of the life experience and biology that they share,” said coauthor Eric Finegood of Northwestern University, Chicago.

But what if one sibling has a history of cancer, heart disease, or other health conditions? The cost of treatment and employment limitations could affect someone’s ability to stack their wealth, right? Absolutely. The researchers took that into account and looked at only healthy individuals and found the same results. More money, longer life.

We have the policies and programs in place for heart health, diabetes prevention, and smoking cessation, as they are seen as major threats to public health. So why not do the same for financial security? A low bank account may just be more harmful.
 

Holding the ‘health care and wellness’ gun

Cigarettes are not good for us. We know this.

seanika/ThinkStock

It’s, therefore, not surprising to learn that a business has requested for a U.K. ban on the sale of cigarettes by 2030. However, when that someone turns out to be the CEO of Philip Morris International, tobacco company and maker of Marlboro cigarettes, things get a little confusing.

Banning cigarettes, according to Jacek Olczak, would reduce confusion among consumers, many of whom feel that the alternatives are worse for their health. His company can “see the world without cigarettes ... and actually, the sooner it happens, the better it is for everyone.” A truly noble sentiment from the CEO of a large tobacco company. Nothing nefarious going on here.

Philip Morris International is actually leaning hard into nonsmoking means of tobacco consumption, even going so far as to brand itself a “health care and wellness company” on a mission to “unsmoke the world.” And if those aren’t egregious business euphemisms, we don’t know what is.

Of course, for all the completely believable and sincere rhetoric, the fact is that Marlboros are still on the shelves. Philip Morris is still making and advertising them. If their concern was genuine, why wouldn’t they just stop manufacturing them now?

So, we ask ourselves if this a selfless act of kindness or is it an unscrupulous corporate act to get a leg up on their competitors? We’ll leave it up to the readers to decide.

Okay, we lied, it’s the second one.
 

Autopsy of the living dead

Imagine the absolute terror you’d feel if you opened your eyes to bright, blinding white lights only to see a bone saw 3 inches from your forehead and getting closer by the second. Horrifying for you, certainly, but think about the poor pathologist behind the saw who probably thought a zombie apocalypse was coming. This was close to being a reality for a 29-year-old prisoner at the Asturias Central Penitentiary in Spain.

Gonzalo Montoya Jiménez was discovered in his cell unresponsive. Three physicians examined him and found he was showing signs of death, such as cyanosis and rigor mortis. Mr. Jiménez was processed like any other body and was sent, in a body bag, to a hospital mortuary, where he spent time in a freezer for body preservation. Just before he was due for his autopsy, he began showing signs of life.

It’s not completely clear why this happened to poor Mr. Jiménez, but it was reported that he wasn’t feeling well the day before and that he has epilepsy. Hospital officials suggested he may have been cataleptic, possibly because he had trouble adhering to his medication schedule.

Mr. Jiménez was moved to another hospital under armed guard after coming back to life and regained consciousness after a day or so. Talk about cheating death.
 

Doctor guilty of fraud and identity theft gets 7 years in jail

Grigoriy T. Rodonaia, MD, a family physician in Port Neches, Tex., was convicted of 12 counts of healthcare fraud, three counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of making a false statement toward the end of 2020.

Dr. Rodonaia began his criminal activity in 2015, when he issued more than 600 prescriptions for scar creams using information from more than 140 beneficiaries of TRICARE, a military healthcare program, without their knowledge or consent. The pharmacy billed TRICARE a total of $6.7 million before Dr. Rodonaia’s scheme was detected. Dr. Rodonaia also forged patients’ records to say that he had examined the patients, and he submitted fraudulent records to the Defense Health Agency in response to an audit.

Dr. Rodonaia was sentenced to 7 years in federal prison on June 24, 2021, and was ordered to pay $195,607.76 in restitution.
 

Psychiatric hospital and nursing staff sued for death of patient

Jeremiah Bagley, 37, died after being restrained by psychiatric nursing staff and injected with an antipsychotic and a sedative at the Rio Grande State Center, in Harlingen, Tex.

An autopsy revealed that Mr. Bagley had several fractured vertebrae, cracked ribs, a lacerated spleen, and multiple contusions on his upper body. The autopsy report lists the cause of death as “excited delirium due to psychosis with restraint-associated blunt force trauma.”

Mr. Bagley’s father filed a lawsuit naming the hospital and 10 employees as defendants, saying that his son’s civil rights were violated. The Texas Supreme Court ruled on April 16, 2021, that the staffers who were charged must submit expert reports, despite the fact that medical malpractice was not alleged. Usually, such a lawsuit would be dismissed because a report was not served by the statutory deadline, but in a 9-0 decision, the high court allowed the case to proceed.

Plaintiff attorney Katie P. Klein told the Claims Journal, “He probably struck someone and everybody got mad and they jumped him. He had four or five people on him, which was not permitted.”
 

Ob.gyn. gets 59 years in prison

Javaid Perwaiz, MD, a 71-year-old ob/gyn from Chesapeake, Va., was convicted of performing medically unnecessary and irreversible surgeries, including hysterectomies and sterilizations, on multiple patients for more than 10 years.

Karl Schumann, acting special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Norfolk, Va. field office, said in a statement, “With unnecessary, invasive medical procedures, Dr Perwaiz not only caused enduring complications, pain, and anxiety to his patients, but he assaulted the most personal part of their lives and even robbed some of their future.”

Dr. Perwaiz was also convicted of 52 counts of healthcare fraud and of making false statements in late 2020. His fraud allegedly cost insurance programs nearly $21 million. The investigation began in September 2018 after a hospital employee contacted the FBI after suspecting that Dr. Perwaiz was performing unnecessary surgeries. More than 25 former patients testified at the trial, and the court received more than 60 victim impact statements.

Dr. Perwaiz had a long criminal history, according to the New York Times. In 1982, Dr. Perwaiz lost medical privileges at Maryview Hospital, in Portsmouth, Va., because of performing unnecessary surgeries and displaying poor clinical judgment. His medical license was reinstated in 1998.
 

Doctor who prescribed opioids out of car charged with murder

George M. Blatti, MD, a family physician in New York, was charged with five counts of murder for the opioid-related deaths of his patients and 11 counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree, according to the New York Times. Dr. Blatti’s medical license has been revoked, and he has pleaded not guilty.

Dr. Blatti had been seeing patients and giving prescriptions out of his car in parking lots, where he would prescribe pain medications without examining the patients. Many of these patients were struggling with addiction to opioids or other drugs. The alleged victims — three men and two women, who were between the ages of 30 and 60 — were prescribed 45,000 pills over 4 years, despite the fact that each showed clear signs of addiction, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Blatti knew that several of his patients had died of overdoses, and he ignored pleas from their family members to stop enabling their addictions. They also say he ignored warnings from insurers about excessive opioid prescribing and was questioned by the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct about it in 2017.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctor guilty of fraud and identity theft gets 7 years in jail

Grigoriy T. Rodonaia, MD, a family physician in Port Neches, Tex., was convicted of 12 counts of healthcare fraud, three counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of making a false statement toward the end of 2020.

Dr. Rodonaia began his criminal activity in 2015, when he issued more than 600 prescriptions for scar creams using information from more than 140 beneficiaries of TRICARE, a military healthcare program, without their knowledge or consent. The pharmacy billed TRICARE a total of $6.7 million before Dr. Rodonaia’s scheme was detected. Dr. Rodonaia also forged patients’ records to say that he had examined the patients, and he submitted fraudulent records to the Defense Health Agency in response to an audit.

Dr. Rodonaia was sentenced to 7 years in federal prison on June 24, 2021, and was ordered to pay $195,607.76 in restitution.
 

Psychiatric hospital and nursing staff sued for death of patient

Jeremiah Bagley, 37, died after being restrained by psychiatric nursing staff and injected with an antipsychotic and a sedative at the Rio Grande State Center, in Harlingen, Tex.

An autopsy revealed that Mr. Bagley had several fractured vertebrae, cracked ribs, a lacerated spleen, and multiple contusions on his upper body. The autopsy report lists the cause of death as “excited delirium due to psychosis with restraint-associated blunt force trauma.”

Mr. Bagley’s father filed a lawsuit naming the hospital and 10 employees as defendants, saying that his son’s civil rights were violated. The Texas Supreme Court ruled on April 16, 2021, that the staffers who were charged must submit expert reports, despite the fact that medical malpractice was not alleged. Usually, such a lawsuit would be dismissed because a report was not served by the statutory deadline, but in a 9-0 decision, the high court allowed the case to proceed.

Plaintiff attorney Katie P. Klein told the Claims Journal, “He probably struck someone and everybody got mad and they jumped him. He had four or five people on him, which was not permitted.”
 

Ob.gyn. gets 59 years in prison

Javaid Perwaiz, MD, a 71-year-old ob/gyn from Chesapeake, Va., was convicted of performing medically unnecessary and irreversible surgeries, including hysterectomies and sterilizations, on multiple patients for more than 10 years.

Karl Schumann, acting special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Norfolk, Va. field office, said in a statement, “With unnecessary, invasive medical procedures, Dr Perwaiz not only caused enduring complications, pain, and anxiety to his patients, but he assaulted the most personal part of their lives and even robbed some of their future.”

Dr. Perwaiz was also convicted of 52 counts of healthcare fraud and of making false statements in late 2020. His fraud allegedly cost insurance programs nearly $21 million. The investigation began in September 2018 after a hospital employee contacted the FBI after suspecting that Dr. Perwaiz was performing unnecessary surgeries. More than 25 former patients testified at the trial, and the court received more than 60 victim impact statements.

Dr. Perwaiz had a long criminal history, according to the New York Times. In 1982, Dr. Perwaiz lost medical privileges at Maryview Hospital, in Portsmouth, Va., because of performing unnecessary surgeries and displaying poor clinical judgment. His medical license was reinstated in 1998.
 

Doctor who prescribed opioids out of car charged with murder

George M. Blatti, MD, a family physician in New York, was charged with five counts of murder for the opioid-related deaths of his patients and 11 counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree, according to the New York Times. Dr. Blatti’s medical license has been revoked, and he has pleaded not guilty.

Dr. Blatti had been seeing patients and giving prescriptions out of his car in parking lots, where he would prescribe pain medications without examining the patients. Many of these patients were struggling with addiction to opioids or other drugs. The alleged victims — three men and two women, who were between the ages of 30 and 60 — were prescribed 45,000 pills over 4 years, despite the fact that each showed clear signs of addiction, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Blatti knew that several of his patients had died of overdoses, and he ignored pleas from their family members to stop enabling their addictions. They also say he ignored warnings from insurers about excessive opioid prescribing and was questioned by the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct about it in 2017.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctor guilty of fraud and identity theft gets 7 years in jail

Grigoriy T. Rodonaia, MD, a family physician in Port Neches, Tex., was convicted of 12 counts of healthcare fraud, three counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of making a false statement toward the end of 2020.

Dr. Rodonaia began his criminal activity in 2015, when he issued more than 600 prescriptions for scar creams using information from more than 140 beneficiaries of TRICARE, a military healthcare program, without their knowledge or consent. The pharmacy billed TRICARE a total of $6.7 million before Dr. Rodonaia’s scheme was detected. Dr. Rodonaia also forged patients’ records to say that he had examined the patients, and he submitted fraudulent records to the Defense Health Agency in response to an audit.

Dr. Rodonaia was sentenced to 7 years in federal prison on June 24, 2021, and was ordered to pay $195,607.76 in restitution.
 

Psychiatric hospital and nursing staff sued for death of patient

Jeremiah Bagley, 37, died after being restrained by psychiatric nursing staff and injected with an antipsychotic and a sedative at the Rio Grande State Center, in Harlingen, Tex.

An autopsy revealed that Mr. Bagley had several fractured vertebrae, cracked ribs, a lacerated spleen, and multiple contusions on his upper body. The autopsy report lists the cause of death as “excited delirium due to psychosis with restraint-associated blunt force trauma.”

Mr. Bagley’s father filed a lawsuit naming the hospital and 10 employees as defendants, saying that his son’s civil rights were violated. The Texas Supreme Court ruled on April 16, 2021, that the staffers who were charged must submit expert reports, despite the fact that medical malpractice was not alleged. Usually, such a lawsuit would be dismissed because a report was not served by the statutory deadline, but in a 9-0 decision, the high court allowed the case to proceed.

Plaintiff attorney Katie P. Klein told the Claims Journal, “He probably struck someone and everybody got mad and they jumped him. He had four or five people on him, which was not permitted.”
 

Ob.gyn. gets 59 years in prison

Javaid Perwaiz, MD, a 71-year-old ob/gyn from Chesapeake, Va., was convicted of performing medically unnecessary and irreversible surgeries, including hysterectomies and sterilizations, on multiple patients for more than 10 years.

Karl Schumann, acting special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Norfolk, Va. field office, said in a statement, “With unnecessary, invasive medical procedures, Dr Perwaiz not only caused enduring complications, pain, and anxiety to his patients, but he assaulted the most personal part of their lives and even robbed some of their future.”

Dr. Perwaiz was also convicted of 52 counts of healthcare fraud and of making false statements in late 2020. His fraud allegedly cost insurance programs nearly $21 million. The investigation began in September 2018 after a hospital employee contacted the FBI after suspecting that Dr. Perwaiz was performing unnecessary surgeries. More than 25 former patients testified at the trial, and the court received more than 60 victim impact statements.

Dr. Perwaiz had a long criminal history, according to the New York Times. In 1982, Dr. Perwaiz lost medical privileges at Maryview Hospital, in Portsmouth, Va., because of performing unnecessary surgeries and displaying poor clinical judgment. His medical license was reinstated in 1998.
 

Doctor who prescribed opioids out of car charged with murder

George M. Blatti, MD, a family physician in New York, was charged with five counts of murder for the opioid-related deaths of his patients and 11 counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree, according to the New York Times. Dr. Blatti’s medical license has been revoked, and he has pleaded not guilty.

Dr. Blatti had been seeing patients and giving prescriptions out of his car in parking lots, where he would prescribe pain medications without examining the patients. Many of these patients were struggling with addiction to opioids or other drugs. The alleged victims — three men and two women, who were between the ages of 30 and 60 — were prescribed 45,000 pills over 4 years, despite the fact that each showed clear signs of addiction, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Blatti knew that several of his patients had died of overdoses, and he ignored pleas from their family members to stop enabling their addictions. They also say he ignored warnings from insurers about excessive opioid prescribing and was questioned by the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct about it in 2017.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) once again is recommending that some Americans wear masks indoors. The agency has called for masks in K-12 school settings and in areas of the United States experiencing high or substantial SARS-CoV-2 transmission, even for the fully vaccinated.

The move reverses a controversial announcement the agency made in May 2021 that fully vaccinated Americans could skip wearing a mask in most settings.

Unlike the increasing vaccination rates and decreasing case numbers reported in May, however, some regions of the United States are now reporting large jumps in COVID-19 case numbers. And the Delta variant as well as new evidence of transmission from breakthrough cases are largely driving these changes.

“Today we have new science related to the [D]elta variant that requires us to update the guidance on what you can do when you are fully vaccinated,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said during a media briefing July 27.

New evidence has emerged on breakthrough-case transmission risk, for example. “Information on the [D]elta variant from several states and other countries indicates that in rare cases, some people infected with the [D]elta variant after vaccination may be contagious and spread virus to others,” Dr. Walensky said, adding that the viral loads appear to be about the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

“This new science is worrisome,” she said.

Even though unvaccinated people represent the vast majority of cases of transmission, Dr. Walensky said, “we thought it was important for [vaccinated] people to understand they have the potential to transmit the virus to others.”

As a result, in addition to continuing to strongly encourage everyone to get vaccinated, the CDC recommends that fully vaccinated people wear masks in public indoor settings to help prevent the spread of the Delta variant in areas with substantial or high transmission, Dr. Walensky said. “This includes schools.”
 

Masks in schools

The CDC is now recommending universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status. Their goal is to optimize safety and allow children to return to full-time in-person learning in the fall.

The CDC tracks substantial and high transmission rates through the agency’s COVID Data Tracker site. Substantial transmission means between 50 and 100 cases per 100,000 people reported over 7 days and high means more than 100 cases per 100,000 people.

The B.1.617.2, or Delta, variant is believed to be responsible for COVID-19 cases increasing more than 300% nationally from June 19 to July 23, 2021.
 

“A prudent move”

“I think it’s a prudent move. Given the dominance of the [D]elta variant and the caseloads that we are seeing rising in many locations across the United States, including in my backyard here in San Francisco,” Joe DeRisi, PhD, copresident of the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub and professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. DeRisi said he was not surprised that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections could be capable of transmitting the virus. He added that clinical testing done by the Biohub and UCSF produced a lot of data on viral load levels, “and they cover an enormous range.”

What was unexpected to him was the rapid rise of the dominant variant. “The rise of the [D]elta strain is astonishing. It’s happened so fast,” he said.
 

“I know it’s difficult”

Reacting to the news, Colleen Kraft, MD, said, “One of the things that we’re learning is that if we’re going to have low vaccine uptake or we have a number of people that can’t be vaccinated yet, such as children, that we really need to go back to stopping transmission, which involves mask wearing.”

“I know that it’s very difficult and people feel like we’re sliding backward,” Dr. Kraft said during a media briefing sponsored by Emory University held shortly after the CDC announcement.

She added that the CDC updated guidance seems appropriate. “I don’t think any of us really want to be in this position or want to go back to masking but…we’re finding ourselves in the same place we were a year ago, in July 2020.

“In general we just don’t want anybody to be infected even if there’s a small chance for you to be infected and there’s a small chance for you to transmit it,” said Dr. Kraft, who’s an assistant professor in the department of pathology and associate professor in the department of medicine, division of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.
 

Breakthrough transmissions

“The good news is you’re still unlikely to get critically ill if you’re vaccinated. But what has changed with the [D]elta variant is instead of being 90% plus protected from getting the virus at all, you’re probably more in the 70% to 80% range,” James T. McDeavitt, MD, told this news organization.

“So we’re seeing breakthrough infections,” said Dr. McDeavitt, executive vice president and dean of clinical affairs at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “We are starting to see [such people] are potentially infectious.” Even if a vaccinated person is individually much less likely to experience serious COVID-19 outcomes, “they can spread it to someone else who spreads it to someone else who is more vulnerable. It puts the more at-risk populations at further risk.”

It breaks down to individual and public health concerns. “I am fully vaccinated. I am very confident I am not going to end up in a hospital,” he said. “Now if I were unvaccinated, with the prevalence of the virus around the country, I’m probably in more danger than I’ve ever been in the course of the pandemic. The unvaccinated are really at risk right now.”
 

IDSA and AMA support mask change

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has released a statement supporting the new CDC recommendations. “To stay ahead of the spread of the highly transmissible Delta variant, IDSA also urges that in communities with moderate transmission rates, all individuals, even those who are vaccinated, wear masks in indoor public places,” stated IDSA President Barbara D. Alexander, MD, MHS.

“IDSA also supports CDC’s guidance recommending universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status, until vaccines are authorized and widely available to all children and vaccination rates are sufficient to control transmission.”

“Mask wearing will help reduce infections, prevent serious illnesses and death, limit strain on local hospitals and stave off the development of even more troubling variants,” she added.

The American Medical Association (AMA) also released a statement supporting the CDC’s policy changes.

“According to the CDC, emerging data indicates that vaccinated individuals infected with the Delta variant have similar viral loads as those who are unvaccinated and are capable of transmission,” AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD said in the statement.

“However, the science remains clear, the authorized vaccines remain safe and effective in preventing severe complications from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” he stated. “We strongly support the updated recommendations, which call for universal masking in areas of high or substantial COVID-19 transmission and in K-12 schools, to help reduce transmission of the virus. Wearing a mask is a small but important protective measure that can help us all stay safer.”

“The highest spread of cases and [most] severe outcomes are happening in places with low vaccination rates and among unvaccinated people,” Dr. Walensky said. “With the [D]elta variant, vaccinating more Americans now is more urgent than ever.”

“This moment, and the associated suffering, illness, and death, could have been avoided with higher vaccination coverage in this country,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) once again is recommending that some Americans wear masks indoors. The agency has called for masks in K-12 school settings and in areas of the United States experiencing high or substantial SARS-CoV-2 transmission, even for the fully vaccinated.

The move reverses a controversial announcement the agency made in May 2021 that fully vaccinated Americans could skip wearing a mask in most settings.

Unlike the increasing vaccination rates and decreasing case numbers reported in May, however, some regions of the United States are now reporting large jumps in COVID-19 case numbers. And the Delta variant as well as new evidence of transmission from breakthrough cases are largely driving these changes.

“Today we have new science related to the [D]elta variant that requires us to update the guidance on what you can do when you are fully vaccinated,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said during a media briefing July 27.

New evidence has emerged on breakthrough-case transmission risk, for example. “Information on the [D]elta variant from several states and other countries indicates that in rare cases, some people infected with the [D]elta variant after vaccination may be contagious and spread virus to others,” Dr. Walensky said, adding that the viral loads appear to be about the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

“This new science is worrisome,” she said.

Even though unvaccinated people represent the vast majority of cases of transmission, Dr. Walensky said, “we thought it was important for [vaccinated] people to understand they have the potential to transmit the virus to others.”

As a result, in addition to continuing to strongly encourage everyone to get vaccinated, the CDC recommends that fully vaccinated people wear masks in public indoor settings to help prevent the spread of the Delta variant in areas with substantial or high transmission, Dr. Walensky said. “This includes schools.”
 

Masks in schools

The CDC is now recommending universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status. Their goal is to optimize safety and allow children to return to full-time in-person learning in the fall.

The CDC tracks substantial and high transmission rates through the agency’s COVID Data Tracker site. Substantial transmission means between 50 and 100 cases per 100,000 people reported over 7 days and high means more than 100 cases per 100,000 people.

The B.1.617.2, or Delta, variant is believed to be responsible for COVID-19 cases increasing more than 300% nationally from June 19 to July 23, 2021.
 

“A prudent move”

“I think it’s a prudent move. Given the dominance of the [D]elta variant and the caseloads that we are seeing rising in many locations across the United States, including in my backyard here in San Francisco,” Joe DeRisi, PhD, copresident of the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub and professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. DeRisi said he was not surprised that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections could be capable of transmitting the virus. He added that clinical testing done by the Biohub and UCSF produced a lot of data on viral load levels, “and they cover an enormous range.”

What was unexpected to him was the rapid rise of the dominant variant. “The rise of the [D]elta strain is astonishing. It’s happened so fast,” he said.
 

“I know it’s difficult”

Reacting to the news, Colleen Kraft, MD, said, “One of the things that we’re learning is that if we’re going to have low vaccine uptake or we have a number of people that can’t be vaccinated yet, such as children, that we really need to go back to stopping transmission, which involves mask wearing.”

“I know that it’s very difficult and people feel like we’re sliding backward,” Dr. Kraft said during a media briefing sponsored by Emory University held shortly after the CDC announcement.

She added that the CDC updated guidance seems appropriate. “I don’t think any of us really want to be in this position or want to go back to masking but…we’re finding ourselves in the same place we were a year ago, in July 2020.

“In general we just don’t want anybody to be infected even if there’s a small chance for you to be infected and there’s a small chance for you to transmit it,” said Dr. Kraft, who’s an assistant professor in the department of pathology and associate professor in the department of medicine, division of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.
 

Breakthrough transmissions

“The good news is you’re still unlikely to get critically ill if you’re vaccinated. But what has changed with the [D]elta variant is instead of being 90% plus protected from getting the virus at all, you’re probably more in the 70% to 80% range,” James T. McDeavitt, MD, told this news organization.

“So we’re seeing breakthrough infections,” said Dr. McDeavitt, executive vice president and dean of clinical affairs at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “We are starting to see [such people] are potentially infectious.” Even if a vaccinated person is individually much less likely to experience serious COVID-19 outcomes, “they can spread it to someone else who spreads it to someone else who is more vulnerable. It puts the more at-risk populations at further risk.”

It breaks down to individual and public health concerns. “I am fully vaccinated. I am very confident I am not going to end up in a hospital,” he said. “Now if I were unvaccinated, with the prevalence of the virus around the country, I’m probably in more danger than I’ve ever been in the course of the pandemic. The unvaccinated are really at risk right now.”
 

IDSA and AMA support mask change

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has released a statement supporting the new CDC recommendations. “To stay ahead of the spread of the highly transmissible Delta variant, IDSA also urges that in communities with moderate transmission rates, all individuals, even those who are vaccinated, wear masks in indoor public places,” stated IDSA President Barbara D. Alexander, MD, MHS.

“IDSA also supports CDC’s guidance recommending universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status, until vaccines are authorized and widely available to all children and vaccination rates are sufficient to control transmission.”

“Mask wearing will help reduce infections, prevent serious illnesses and death, limit strain on local hospitals and stave off the development of even more troubling variants,” she added.

The American Medical Association (AMA) also released a statement supporting the CDC’s policy changes.

“According to the CDC, emerging data indicates that vaccinated individuals infected with the Delta variant have similar viral loads as those who are unvaccinated and are capable of transmission,” AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD said in the statement.

“However, the science remains clear, the authorized vaccines remain safe and effective in preventing severe complications from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” he stated. “We strongly support the updated recommendations, which call for universal masking in areas of high or substantial COVID-19 transmission and in K-12 schools, to help reduce transmission of the virus. Wearing a mask is a small but important protective measure that can help us all stay safer.”

“The highest spread of cases and [most] severe outcomes are happening in places with low vaccination rates and among unvaccinated people,” Dr. Walensky said. “With the [D]elta variant, vaccinating more Americans now is more urgent than ever.”

“This moment, and the associated suffering, illness, and death, could have been avoided with higher vaccination coverage in this country,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) once again is recommending that some Americans wear masks indoors. The agency has called for masks in K-12 school settings and in areas of the United States experiencing high or substantial SARS-CoV-2 transmission, even for the fully vaccinated.

The move reverses a controversial announcement the agency made in May 2021 that fully vaccinated Americans could skip wearing a mask in most settings.

Unlike the increasing vaccination rates and decreasing case numbers reported in May, however, some regions of the United States are now reporting large jumps in COVID-19 case numbers. And the Delta variant as well as new evidence of transmission from breakthrough cases are largely driving these changes.

“Today we have new science related to the [D]elta variant that requires us to update the guidance on what you can do when you are fully vaccinated,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said during a media briefing July 27.

New evidence has emerged on breakthrough-case transmission risk, for example. “Information on the [D]elta variant from several states and other countries indicates that in rare cases, some people infected with the [D]elta variant after vaccination may be contagious and spread virus to others,” Dr. Walensky said, adding that the viral loads appear to be about the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

“This new science is worrisome,” she said.

Even though unvaccinated people represent the vast majority of cases of transmission, Dr. Walensky said, “we thought it was important for [vaccinated] people to understand they have the potential to transmit the virus to others.”

As a result, in addition to continuing to strongly encourage everyone to get vaccinated, the CDC recommends that fully vaccinated people wear masks in public indoor settings to help prevent the spread of the Delta variant in areas with substantial or high transmission, Dr. Walensky said. “This includes schools.”
 

Masks in schools

The CDC is now recommending universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status. Their goal is to optimize safety and allow children to return to full-time in-person learning in the fall.

The CDC tracks substantial and high transmission rates through the agency’s COVID Data Tracker site. Substantial transmission means between 50 and 100 cases per 100,000 people reported over 7 days and high means more than 100 cases per 100,000 people.

The B.1.617.2, or Delta, variant is believed to be responsible for COVID-19 cases increasing more than 300% nationally from June 19 to July 23, 2021.
 

“A prudent move”

“I think it’s a prudent move. Given the dominance of the [D]elta variant and the caseloads that we are seeing rising in many locations across the United States, including in my backyard here in San Francisco,” Joe DeRisi, PhD, copresident of the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub and professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. DeRisi said he was not surprised that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections could be capable of transmitting the virus. He added that clinical testing done by the Biohub and UCSF produced a lot of data on viral load levels, “and they cover an enormous range.”

What was unexpected to him was the rapid rise of the dominant variant. “The rise of the [D]elta strain is astonishing. It’s happened so fast,” he said.
 

“I know it’s difficult”

Reacting to the news, Colleen Kraft, MD, said, “One of the things that we’re learning is that if we’re going to have low vaccine uptake or we have a number of people that can’t be vaccinated yet, such as children, that we really need to go back to stopping transmission, which involves mask wearing.”

“I know that it’s very difficult and people feel like we’re sliding backward,” Dr. Kraft said during a media briefing sponsored by Emory University held shortly after the CDC announcement.

She added that the CDC updated guidance seems appropriate. “I don’t think any of us really want to be in this position or want to go back to masking but…we’re finding ourselves in the same place we were a year ago, in July 2020.

“In general we just don’t want anybody to be infected even if there’s a small chance for you to be infected and there’s a small chance for you to transmit it,” said Dr. Kraft, who’s an assistant professor in the department of pathology and associate professor in the department of medicine, division of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.
 

Breakthrough transmissions

“The good news is you’re still unlikely to get critically ill if you’re vaccinated. But what has changed with the [D]elta variant is instead of being 90% plus protected from getting the virus at all, you’re probably more in the 70% to 80% range,” James T. McDeavitt, MD, told this news organization.

“So we’re seeing breakthrough infections,” said Dr. McDeavitt, executive vice president and dean of clinical affairs at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “We are starting to see [such people] are potentially infectious.” Even if a vaccinated person is individually much less likely to experience serious COVID-19 outcomes, “they can spread it to someone else who spreads it to someone else who is more vulnerable. It puts the more at-risk populations at further risk.”

It breaks down to individual and public health concerns. “I am fully vaccinated. I am very confident I am not going to end up in a hospital,” he said. “Now if I were unvaccinated, with the prevalence of the virus around the country, I’m probably in more danger than I’ve ever been in the course of the pandemic. The unvaccinated are really at risk right now.”
 

IDSA and AMA support mask change

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has released a statement supporting the new CDC recommendations. “To stay ahead of the spread of the highly transmissible Delta variant, IDSA also urges that in communities with moderate transmission rates, all individuals, even those who are vaccinated, wear masks in indoor public places,” stated IDSA President Barbara D. Alexander, MD, MHS.

“IDSA also supports CDC’s guidance recommending universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status, until vaccines are authorized and widely available to all children and vaccination rates are sufficient to control transmission.”

“Mask wearing will help reduce infections, prevent serious illnesses and death, limit strain on local hospitals and stave off the development of even more troubling variants,” she added.

The American Medical Association (AMA) also released a statement supporting the CDC’s policy changes.

“According to the CDC, emerging data indicates that vaccinated individuals infected with the Delta variant have similar viral loads as those who are unvaccinated and are capable of transmission,” AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD said in the statement.

“However, the science remains clear, the authorized vaccines remain safe and effective in preventing severe complications from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” he stated. “We strongly support the updated recommendations, which call for universal masking in areas of high or substantial COVID-19 transmission and in K-12 schools, to help reduce transmission of the virus. Wearing a mask is a small but important protective measure that can help us all stay safer.”

“The highest spread of cases and [most] severe outcomes are happening in places with low vaccination rates and among unvaccinated people,” Dr. Walensky said. “With the [D]elta variant, vaccinating more Americans now is more urgent than ever.”

“This moment, and the associated suffering, illness, and death, could have been avoided with higher vaccination coverage in this country,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This year, the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. again ranked as the top hospital for gynecology, according to U.S. News and World Report, which released its annual rankings today.

The top five hospitals for gynecology were the same this year and were in the same order. In second place again this year was Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, followed by the Cleveland Clinic, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Rounding out the top 10 were (6) Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, Virginia; (7) the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital; (8) Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland; and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, California, which tied for the ninth spot.

U.S. News compared more than 4,750 medical centers nationwide in 15 specialties. Of those, 531 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals on the basis of their strong performance in multiple areas of care.

In 12 of the specialties, including gynecology, rankings are determined by a data-driven analysis that combines performance measures in structure, process, and outcomes. Rankings in three other specialties – ophthalmology, psychiatry, and rheumatology – rely on expert opinion alone, according to the U.S. News methodology report.

The top 20 hospitals overall were also named to the Honor Roll.

Mayo Clinic was again no. 1 on the honor roll, a ranking it has held for 6 years in a row, according to a press release.

In other top specialties, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center ranked no. 1 in cancer; the Cleveland Clinic is no. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery; and the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, is no. 1 in orthopedics.

A full list of rankings is available on the magazine’s website.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This year, the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. again ranked as the top hospital for gynecology, according to U.S. News and World Report, which released its annual rankings today.

The top five hospitals for gynecology were the same this year and were in the same order. In second place again this year was Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, followed by the Cleveland Clinic, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Rounding out the top 10 were (6) Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, Virginia; (7) the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital; (8) Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland; and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, California, which tied for the ninth spot.

U.S. News compared more than 4,750 medical centers nationwide in 15 specialties. Of those, 531 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals on the basis of their strong performance in multiple areas of care.

In 12 of the specialties, including gynecology, rankings are determined by a data-driven analysis that combines performance measures in structure, process, and outcomes. Rankings in three other specialties – ophthalmology, psychiatry, and rheumatology – rely on expert opinion alone, according to the U.S. News methodology report.

The top 20 hospitals overall were also named to the Honor Roll.

Mayo Clinic was again no. 1 on the honor roll, a ranking it has held for 6 years in a row, according to a press release.

In other top specialties, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center ranked no. 1 in cancer; the Cleveland Clinic is no. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery; and the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, is no. 1 in orthopedics.

A full list of rankings is available on the magazine’s website.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This year, the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. again ranked as the top hospital for gynecology, according to U.S. News and World Report, which released its annual rankings today.

The top five hospitals for gynecology were the same this year and were in the same order. In second place again this year was Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, followed by the Cleveland Clinic, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Rounding out the top 10 were (6) Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, Virginia; (7) the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital; (8) Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland; and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, California, which tied for the ninth spot.

U.S. News compared more than 4,750 medical centers nationwide in 15 specialties. Of those, 531 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals on the basis of their strong performance in multiple areas of care.

In 12 of the specialties, including gynecology, rankings are determined by a data-driven analysis that combines performance measures in structure, process, and outcomes. Rankings in three other specialties – ophthalmology, psychiatry, and rheumatology – rely on expert opinion alone, according to the U.S. News methodology report.

The top 20 hospitals overall were also named to the Honor Roll.

Mayo Clinic was again no. 1 on the honor roll, a ranking it has held for 6 years in a row, according to a press release.

In other top specialties, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center ranked no. 1 in cancer; the Cleveland Clinic is no. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery; and the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, is no. 1 in orthopedics.

A full list of rankings is available on the magazine’s website.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When Jerry Gardner, MD, and a junior colleague received the acceptance notification for their abstract to be presented at Digestive Diseases Week® (DDW) 2021, a clause in the mandatory participation agreement gave Dr. Gardner pause. It required his colleague, as the submitting author, to completely accept any and all legal responsibility for any claims that might arise out of their presentation.

VladKol/Getty Images

The clause was a red flag to Dr. Gardner, president of Science for Organizations, a Mill Valley, Calif.–based consulting firm. The gastroenterologist and former head of the digestive diseases branch at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases – who has made hundreds of presentations and had participated in DDW for 40 years – had never encountered such a broad indemnity clause.

This news organization investigated just how risky it is to make a presentation at a conference – more than a dozen professional societies were contacted. Although DDW declined to discuss its agreement, Houston health care attorney Rachel V. Rose said that Dr. Gardner was smart to be cautious. “I would not sign that agreement. I have never seen anything that broad and all encompassing,” she said.

The DDW requirement “means that participants must put themselves at great potential financial risk in order to present their work,” Dr. Gardner said. He added that he and his colleague would not have submitted an abstract had they known about the indemnification clause up front.

Dr. Gardner advised his colleague not to sign the DDW agreement. She did not, and both missed the meeting.
 

Speakers ‘have to be careful’

Dr. Gardner may be an exception. How many doctors are willing to forgo a presentation because of a concern about something in an agreement?

John Mandrola, MD, said he operates under the assumption that if he does not sign the agreement, then he won’t be able to give his presentation. He admits that he generally just signs them and is careful with his presentations. “I’ve never really paid much attention to them,” said Dr. Mandrola, a cardiac electrophysiologist in Louisville, Ky., and chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.

Not everyone takes that approach. “I do think that people read them, but they also take them with a grain of salt,” said E. Magnus Ohman, MBBS, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. He said he’s pragmatic and regards the agreements as a necessary evil in a litigious nation. Speakers “have to be careful, obviously,” Dr. Ohman said in an interview.

Some argue that the requirements are not only fair but also understandable. David Johnson, MD, a former president of the American College of Gastroenterology, said he has never had questions about agreements for meetings he has been involved with. “To me, this is not anything other than standard operating procedure,” he said.

Presenters participate by invitation, noted Dr. Johnson, a professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who is a contributor to this news organization. “If they stand up and do something egregious, I would concur that the society should not be liable,” he said.
 

Big asks, big secrecy

Even for those who generally agree with Dr. Johnson’s position, it may be hard to completely understand what’s at stake without an attorney.

Although many declined to discuss their policies, a handful of professional societies provided their agreements for review. In general, the agreements appear to offer broad protection and rights to the organizers and large liability exposure for the participants. Participants are charged with a wide range of responsibilities, such as ensuring against copyright violations and intellectual property infringement, and that they also agree to unlimited use of their presentations and their name and likeness.

The American Academy of Neurology, which held its meeting virtually in 2021, required participants to indemnify the organization against all “losses, expenses, damages, or liabilities,” including “reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Federal employees, however, could opt out of indemnification.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that it does not usually require indemnification from its meeting participants. However, a spokesperson noted that ASCO did require participants at its 2021 virtual meeting to abide by the terms of use for content posted to the ASCO website. Those terms specify that users agree to indemnify ASCO from damages related to posts.

The American Psychiatric Association said it does not require any indemnification but did not make its agreement available. The American Academy of Pediatrics also said it did not require indemnification but would not share its agreement.

An American Diabetes Association spokesperson said that “every association is different in what they ask or require from speakers,” but would not share its requirements.

The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the Endocrine Society all declined to participate.

The organizations that withheld agreements “probably don’t want anybody picking apart their documents,” said Kyle Claussen, CEO of the Resolve Physician Agency, which reviews employment contracts and other contracts for physicians. “The more fair a document, the more likely they would be willing to disclose that, because they have nothing to hide,” he said.
 

‘It’s all on you’

Requiring indemnification for any and all aspects of a presentation appears to be increasingly common, said the attorneys interviewed for this article. As organizations repackage meeting presentations for sale, they put the content further out into the world and for a longer period, which increases liability exposure.

“If I’m the attorney for DDW, I certainly think I’d want to have this in place,” said Mr. Claussen.

“It’s good business sense for them because it reduces their risk,” said Courtney H. A. Thompson, an attorney with Fredrikson & Byron in Minneapolis, who advises regional and national corporations and ad agencies on advertising, marketing, and trademark law. She also works with clients who speak at meetings and who thus encounter meeting agreements.

Ms. Thompson said indemnity clauses have become fairly common over the past decade, especially as more companies and organizations have sought to protect trademarks, copyrights, and intellectual property and to minimize litigation costs.

A conference organizer “doesn’t want a third party to come after them for intellectual property, privacy, or publicity right infringement based on the participation of the customer or, in this case, the speaker,” said Ms. Thompson.

The agreements also reflect America’s litigation-prone culture.

Dean Fanelli, a patent attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of Cooley LLP, said the agreements he’s been asked to sign as a speaker increasingly seem “overly lawyerly.”

Two decades ago, a speaker might have been asked to sign a paragraph or a one-page form. Now “they often look more like formalized legal agreements,” Mr. Fanelli told this news organization.

The DDW agreement, for instance, ran four pages and contained 21 detailed clauses.

The increasingly complicated agreements “are a little over the top,” said Mr. Fanelli. But as an attorney who works with clients in the pharmaceutical industry, he said he understands that meeting organizers want to protect their rights.

DDW’s main indemnification clause requires the participant to indemnify DDW and its agents, directors, and employees “against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses,” including attorneys’ fees “arising out of a claim, action or proceeding” based on a breach or “alleged breach” by the participant.

“You’re releasing this information to them and then you’re also giving them blanket indemnity back, saying if there’s any type of intellectual property violation on your end – if you’ve included any type of work that’s protected, if this causes any problems – it’s all on you,” said Mr. Claussen.
 

Other potential pitfalls

Aside from indemnification, participation agreements can contain other potentially worrisome clauses, including onerous terms for cancellation and reuse of content without remuneration.

DDW requires royalty-free licensing of a speaker’s content; the organization can reproduce it in perpetuity without royalties. Many organizations have such a clause in their agreements, including the AAN and the American College of Cardiology.

ASCO’s general authorization form for meeting participants requires that they assign to ASCO rights to their content “perpetually, irrevocably, worldwide and royalty free.” Participants can contact the organization if they seek to opt out, but it’s not clear whether ASCO grants such requests.

Participants in the upcoming American Heart Association annual meeting can deny permission to record their presentation. But if they allow recording and do not agree to assign all rights and copyright ownership to the AHA, the work will be excluded from publication in the meeting program, e-posters, and the meeting supplement in Circulation.

Mr. Claussen said granting royalty-free rights presents a conundrum. Having content reproduced in various formats “might be better for your personal brand,” but it’s not likely to result in any direct compensation and could increase liability exposure, he said.
 

How presenters must prepare

Mr. Claussen and Ms. Rose said speakers should be vigilant about their own rights and responsibilities, including ensuring that they do not violate copyrights or infringe on intellectual property rights.

“I would recommend that folks be meticulous about what is in their slide deck and materials,” said Ms. Thompson. He said that presenters should be sure they have the right to share material. Technologies crawl the internet seeking out infringement, which often leads to cease and desist letters from attorneys, she said.

It’s better to head off such a letter, Ms. Thompson said. “You need to defend it whether or not it’s a viable claim,” and that can be costly, she said.

Both Ms. Thompson and Mr. Fanelli also warn about disclosing anything that might be considered a trade secret. Many agreements prohibit presenters from engaging in commercial promotion, but if a talk includes information about a drug or device, the manufacturer will want to review the presentation before it’s made public, said Mr. Fanelli.

Many organizations prohibit attendees from photographing, recording, or tweeting at meetings and often require speakers to warn the audience about doing so. DDW goes further by holding presenters liable if someone violates the rule.

“That’s a huge problem,” said Dr. Mandrola. He noted that although it might be easy to police journalists attending a meeting, “it seems hard to enforce that rule amongst just regular attendees.”
 

Accept or negotiate?

Individuals who submit work to an organization might feel they must sign an agreement as is, especially if they are looking to advance their career or expand knowledge by presenting work at a meeting. But some attorneys said it might be possible to negotiate with meeting organizers.

“My personal opinion is that it never hurts to ask,” said Ms. Thompson. If she were speaking at a legal conference, she would mark up a contract and “see what happens.” The more times pushback is accepted – say, if it works with three out of five speaking engagements – the more it reduces overall liability exposure.

Mr. Fanelli, however, said that although he always reads over an agreement, he typically signs without negotiating. “I don’t usually worry about it because I’m just trying to talk at a particular seminar,” he said.

Prospective presenters “have to weigh that balance – do you want to talk at a seminar, or are you concerned about the legal issues?” said Mr. Fanelli.

If in doubt, talk with a lawyer.

“If you ever have a question on whether or not you should consult an attorney, the answer is always yes,” said Mr. Claussen. It would be “an ounce of prevention,” especially if it’s just a short agreement, he said.

Dr. Ohman, however, said that he believed “it would be fairly costly” and potentially unwieldy. “You can’t litigate everything in life,” he added.

As for Dr. Gardner, he said he would not be as likely to attend DDW in the future if he has to agree to cover any and all liability. “I can’t conceive of ever agreeing to personally indemnify DDW in order to make a presentation at the annual meeting,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When Jerry Gardner, MD, and a junior colleague received the acceptance notification for their abstract to be presented at Digestive Diseases Week® (DDW) 2021, a clause in the mandatory participation agreement gave Dr. Gardner pause. It required his colleague, as the submitting author, to completely accept any and all legal responsibility for any claims that might arise out of their presentation.

VladKol/Getty Images

The clause was a red flag to Dr. Gardner, president of Science for Organizations, a Mill Valley, Calif.–based consulting firm. The gastroenterologist and former head of the digestive diseases branch at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases – who has made hundreds of presentations and had participated in DDW for 40 years – had never encountered such a broad indemnity clause.

This news organization investigated just how risky it is to make a presentation at a conference – more than a dozen professional societies were contacted. Although DDW declined to discuss its agreement, Houston health care attorney Rachel V. Rose said that Dr. Gardner was smart to be cautious. “I would not sign that agreement. I have never seen anything that broad and all encompassing,” she said.

The DDW requirement “means that participants must put themselves at great potential financial risk in order to present their work,” Dr. Gardner said. He added that he and his colleague would not have submitted an abstract had they known about the indemnification clause up front.

Dr. Gardner advised his colleague not to sign the DDW agreement. She did not, and both missed the meeting.
 

Speakers ‘have to be careful’

Dr. Gardner may be an exception. How many doctors are willing to forgo a presentation because of a concern about something in an agreement?

John Mandrola, MD, said he operates under the assumption that if he does not sign the agreement, then he won’t be able to give his presentation. He admits that he generally just signs them and is careful with his presentations. “I’ve never really paid much attention to them,” said Dr. Mandrola, a cardiac electrophysiologist in Louisville, Ky., and chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.

Not everyone takes that approach. “I do think that people read them, but they also take them with a grain of salt,” said E. Magnus Ohman, MBBS, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. He said he’s pragmatic and regards the agreements as a necessary evil in a litigious nation. Speakers “have to be careful, obviously,” Dr. Ohman said in an interview.

Some argue that the requirements are not only fair but also understandable. David Johnson, MD, a former president of the American College of Gastroenterology, said he has never had questions about agreements for meetings he has been involved with. “To me, this is not anything other than standard operating procedure,” he said.

Presenters participate by invitation, noted Dr. Johnson, a professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who is a contributor to this news organization. “If they stand up and do something egregious, I would concur that the society should not be liable,” he said.
 

Big asks, big secrecy

Even for those who generally agree with Dr. Johnson’s position, it may be hard to completely understand what’s at stake without an attorney.

Although many declined to discuss their policies, a handful of professional societies provided their agreements for review. In general, the agreements appear to offer broad protection and rights to the organizers and large liability exposure for the participants. Participants are charged with a wide range of responsibilities, such as ensuring against copyright violations and intellectual property infringement, and that they also agree to unlimited use of their presentations and their name and likeness.

The American Academy of Neurology, which held its meeting virtually in 2021, required participants to indemnify the organization against all “losses, expenses, damages, or liabilities,” including “reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Federal employees, however, could opt out of indemnification.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that it does not usually require indemnification from its meeting participants. However, a spokesperson noted that ASCO did require participants at its 2021 virtual meeting to abide by the terms of use for content posted to the ASCO website. Those terms specify that users agree to indemnify ASCO from damages related to posts.

The American Psychiatric Association said it does not require any indemnification but did not make its agreement available. The American Academy of Pediatrics also said it did not require indemnification but would not share its agreement.

An American Diabetes Association spokesperson said that “every association is different in what they ask or require from speakers,” but would not share its requirements.

The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the Endocrine Society all declined to participate.

The organizations that withheld agreements “probably don’t want anybody picking apart their documents,” said Kyle Claussen, CEO of the Resolve Physician Agency, which reviews employment contracts and other contracts for physicians. “The more fair a document, the more likely they would be willing to disclose that, because they have nothing to hide,” he said.
 

‘It’s all on you’

Requiring indemnification for any and all aspects of a presentation appears to be increasingly common, said the attorneys interviewed for this article. As organizations repackage meeting presentations for sale, they put the content further out into the world and for a longer period, which increases liability exposure.

“If I’m the attorney for DDW, I certainly think I’d want to have this in place,” said Mr. Claussen.

“It’s good business sense for them because it reduces their risk,” said Courtney H. A. Thompson, an attorney with Fredrikson & Byron in Minneapolis, who advises regional and national corporations and ad agencies on advertising, marketing, and trademark law. She also works with clients who speak at meetings and who thus encounter meeting agreements.

Ms. Thompson said indemnity clauses have become fairly common over the past decade, especially as more companies and organizations have sought to protect trademarks, copyrights, and intellectual property and to minimize litigation costs.

A conference organizer “doesn’t want a third party to come after them for intellectual property, privacy, or publicity right infringement based on the participation of the customer or, in this case, the speaker,” said Ms. Thompson.

The agreements also reflect America’s litigation-prone culture.

Dean Fanelli, a patent attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of Cooley LLP, said the agreements he’s been asked to sign as a speaker increasingly seem “overly lawyerly.”

Two decades ago, a speaker might have been asked to sign a paragraph or a one-page form. Now “they often look more like formalized legal agreements,” Mr. Fanelli told this news organization.

The DDW agreement, for instance, ran four pages and contained 21 detailed clauses.

The increasingly complicated agreements “are a little over the top,” said Mr. Fanelli. But as an attorney who works with clients in the pharmaceutical industry, he said he understands that meeting organizers want to protect their rights.

DDW’s main indemnification clause requires the participant to indemnify DDW and its agents, directors, and employees “against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses,” including attorneys’ fees “arising out of a claim, action or proceeding” based on a breach or “alleged breach” by the participant.

“You’re releasing this information to them and then you’re also giving them blanket indemnity back, saying if there’s any type of intellectual property violation on your end – if you’ve included any type of work that’s protected, if this causes any problems – it’s all on you,” said Mr. Claussen.
 

Other potential pitfalls

Aside from indemnification, participation agreements can contain other potentially worrisome clauses, including onerous terms for cancellation and reuse of content without remuneration.

DDW requires royalty-free licensing of a speaker’s content; the organization can reproduce it in perpetuity without royalties. Many organizations have such a clause in their agreements, including the AAN and the American College of Cardiology.

ASCO’s general authorization form for meeting participants requires that they assign to ASCO rights to their content “perpetually, irrevocably, worldwide and royalty free.” Participants can contact the organization if they seek to opt out, but it’s not clear whether ASCO grants such requests.

Participants in the upcoming American Heart Association annual meeting can deny permission to record their presentation. But if they allow recording and do not agree to assign all rights and copyright ownership to the AHA, the work will be excluded from publication in the meeting program, e-posters, and the meeting supplement in Circulation.

Mr. Claussen said granting royalty-free rights presents a conundrum. Having content reproduced in various formats “might be better for your personal brand,” but it’s not likely to result in any direct compensation and could increase liability exposure, he said.
 

How presenters must prepare

Mr. Claussen and Ms. Rose said speakers should be vigilant about their own rights and responsibilities, including ensuring that they do not violate copyrights or infringe on intellectual property rights.

“I would recommend that folks be meticulous about what is in their slide deck and materials,” said Ms. Thompson. He said that presenters should be sure they have the right to share material. Technologies crawl the internet seeking out infringement, which often leads to cease and desist letters from attorneys, she said.

It’s better to head off such a letter, Ms. Thompson said. “You need to defend it whether or not it’s a viable claim,” and that can be costly, she said.

Both Ms. Thompson and Mr. Fanelli also warn about disclosing anything that might be considered a trade secret. Many agreements prohibit presenters from engaging in commercial promotion, but if a talk includes information about a drug or device, the manufacturer will want to review the presentation before it’s made public, said Mr. Fanelli.

Many organizations prohibit attendees from photographing, recording, or tweeting at meetings and often require speakers to warn the audience about doing so. DDW goes further by holding presenters liable if someone violates the rule.

“That’s a huge problem,” said Dr. Mandrola. He noted that although it might be easy to police journalists attending a meeting, “it seems hard to enforce that rule amongst just regular attendees.”
 

Accept or negotiate?

Individuals who submit work to an organization might feel they must sign an agreement as is, especially if they are looking to advance their career or expand knowledge by presenting work at a meeting. But some attorneys said it might be possible to negotiate with meeting organizers.

“My personal opinion is that it never hurts to ask,” said Ms. Thompson. If she were speaking at a legal conference, she would mark up a contract and “see what happens.” The more times pushback is accepted – say, if it works with three out of five speaking engagements – the more it reduces overall liability exposure.

Mr. Fanelli, however, said that although he always reads over an agreement, he typically signs without negotiating. “I don’t usually worry about it because I’m just trying to talk at a particular seminar,” he said.

Prospective presenters “have to weigh that balance – do you want to talk at a seminar, or are you concerned about the legal issues?” said Mr. Fanelli.

If in doubt, talk with a lawyer.

“If you ever have a question on whether or not you should consult an attorney, the answer is always yes,” said Mr. Claussen. It would be “an ounce of prevention,” especially if it’s just a short agreement, he said.

Dr. Ohman, however, said that he believed “it would be fairly costly” and potentially unwieldy. “You can’t litigate everything in life,” he added.

As for Dr. Gardner, he said he would not be as likely to attend DDW in the future if he has to agree to cover any and all liability. “I can’t conceive of ever agreeing to personally indemnify DDW in order to make a presentation at the annual meeting,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When Jerry Gardner, MD, and a junior colleague received the acceptance notification for their abstract to be presented at Digestive Diseases Week® (DDW) 2021, a clause in the mandatory participation agreement gave Dr. Gardner pause. It required his colleague, as the submitting author, to completely accept any and all legal responsibility for any claims that might arise out of their presentation.

VladKol/Getty Images

The clause was a red flag to Dr. Gardner, president of Science for Organizations, a Mill Valley, Calif.–based consulting firm. The gastroenterologist and former head of the digestive diseases branch at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases – who has made hundreds of presentations and had participated in DDW for 40 years – had never encountered such a broad indemnity clause.

This news organization investigated just how risky it is to make a presentation at a conference – more than a dozen professional societies were contacted. Although DDW declined to discuss its agreement, Houston health care attorney Rachel V. Rose said that Dr. Gardner was smart to be cautious. “I would not sign that agreement. I have never seen anything that broad and all encompassing,” she said.

The DDW requirement “means that participants must put themselves at great potential financial risk in order to present their work,” Dr. Gardner said. He added that he and his colleague would not have submitted an abstract had they known about the indemnification clause up front.

Dr. Gardner advised his colleague not to sign the DDW agreement. She did not, and both missed the meeting.
 

Speakers ‘have to be careful’

Dr. Gardner may be an exception. How many doctors are willing to forgo a presentation because of a concern about something in an agreement?

John Mandrola, MD, said he operates under the assumption that if he does not sign the agreement, then he won’t be able to give his presentation. He admits that he generally just signs them and is careful with his presentations. “I’ve never really paid much attention to them,” said Dr. Mandrola, a cardiac electrophysiologist in Louisville, Ky., and chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.

Not everyone takes that approach. “I do think that people read them, but they also take them with a grain of salt,” said E. Magnus Ohman, MBBS, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. He said he’s pragmatic and regards the agreements as a necessary evil in a litigious nation. Speakers “have to be careful, obviously,” Dr. Ohman said in an interview.

Some argue that the requirements are not only fair but also understandable. David Johnson, MD, a former president of the American College of Gastroenterology, said he has never had questions about agreements for meetings he has been involved with. “To me, this is not anything other than standard operating procedure,” he said.

Presenters participate by invitation, noted Dr. Johnson, a professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who is a contributor to this news organization. “If they stand up and do something egregious, I would concur that the society should not be liable,” he said.
 

Big asks, big secrecy

Even for those who generally agree with Dr. Johnson’s position, it may be hard to completely understand what’s at stake without an attorney.

Although many declined to discuss their policies, a handful of professional societies provided their agreements for review. In general, the agreements appear to offer broad protection and rights to the organizers and large liability exposure for the participants. Participants are charged with a wide range of responsibilities, such as ensuring against copyright violations and intellectual property infringement, and that they also agree to unlimited use of their presentations and their name and likeness.

The American Academy of Neurology, which held its meeting virtually in 2021, required participants to indemnify the organization against all “losses, expenses, damages, or liabilities,” including “reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Federal employees, however, could opt out of indemnification.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that it does not usually require indemnification from its meeting participants. However, a spokesperson noted that ASCO did require participants at its 2021 virtual meeting to abide by the terms of use for content posted to the ASCO website. Those terms specify that users agree to indemnify ASCO from damages related to posts.

The American Psychiatric Association said it does not require any indemnification but did not make its agreement available. The American Academy of Pediatrics also said it did not require indemnification but would not share its agreement.

An American Diabetes Association spokesperson said that “every association is different in what they ask or require from speakers,” but would not share its requirements.

The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the Endocrine Society all declined to participate.

The organizations that withheld agreements “probably don’t want anybody picking apart their documents,” said Kyle Claussen, CEO of the Resolve Physician Agency, which reviews employment contracts and other contracts for physicians. “The more fair a document, the more likely they would be willing to disclose that, because they have nothing to hide,” he said.
 

‘It’s all on you’

Requiring indemnification for any and all aspects of a presentation appears to be increasingly common, said the attorneys interviewed for this article. As organizations repackage meeting presentations for sale, they put the content further out into the world and for a longer period, which increases liability exposure.

“If I’m the attorney for DDW, I certainly think I’d want to have this in place,” said Mr. Claussen.

“It’s good business sense for them because it reduces their risk,” said Courtney H. A. Thompson, an attorney with Fredrikson & Byron in Minneapolis, who advises regional and national corporations and ad agencies on advertising, marketing, and trademark law. She also works with clients who speak at meetings and who thus encounter meeting agreements.

Ms. Thompson said indemnity clauses have become fairly common over the past decade, especially as more companies and organizations have sought to protect trademarks, copyrights, and intellectual property and to minimize litigation costs.

A conference organizer “doesn’t want a third party to come after them for intellectual property, privacy, or publicity right infringement based on the participation of the customer or, in this case, the speaker,” said Ms. Thompson.

The agreements also reflect America’s litigation-prone culture.

Dean Fanelli, a patent attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of Cooley LLP, said the agreements he’s been asked to sign as a speaker increasingly seem “overly lawyerly.”

Two decades ago, a speaker might have been asked to sign a paragraph or a one-page form. Now “they often look more like formalized legal agreements,” Mr. Fanelli told this news organization.

The DDW agreement, for instance, ran four pages and contained 21 detailed clauses.

The increasingly complicated agreements “are a little over the top,” said Mr. Fanelli. But as an attorney who works with clients in the pharmaceutical industry, he said he understands that meeting organizers want to protect their rights.

DDW’s main indemnification clause requires the participant to indemnify DDW and its agents, directors, and employees “against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses,” including attorneys’ fees “arising out of a claim, action or proceeding” based on a breach or “alleged breach” by the participant.

“You’re releasing this information to them and then you’re also giving them blanket indemnity back, saying if there’s any type of intellectual property violation on your end – if you’ve included any type of work that’s protected, if this causes any problems – it’s all on you,” said Mr. Claussen.
 

Other potential pitfalls

Aside from indemnification, participation agreements can contain other potentially worrisome clauses, including onerous terms for cancellation and reuse of content without remuneration.

DDW requires royalty-free licensing of a speaker’s content; the organization can reproduce it in perpetuity without royalties. Many organizations have such a clause in their agreements, including the AAN and the American College of Cardiology.

ASCO’s general authorization form for meeting participants requires that they assign to ASCO rights to their content “perpetually, irrevocably, worldwide and royalty free.” Participants can contact the organization if they seek to opt out, but it’s not clear whether ASCO grants such requests.

Participants in the upcoming American Heart Association annual meeting can deny permission to record their presentation. But if they allow recording and do not agree to assign all rights and copyright ownership to the AHA, the work will be excluded from publication in the meeting program, e-posters, and the meeting supplement in Circulation.

Mr. Claussen said granting royalty-free rights presents a conundrum. Having content reproduced in various formats “might be better for your personal brand,” but it’s not likely to result in any direct compensation and could increase liability exposure, he said.
 

How presenters must prepare

Mr. Claussen and Ms. Rose said speakers should be vigilant about their own rights and responsibilities, including ensuring that they do not violate copyrights or infringe on intellectual property rights.

“I would recommend that folks be meticulous about what is in their slide deck and materials,” said Ms. Thompson. He said that presenters should be sure they have the right to share material. Technologies crawl the internet seeking out infringement, which often leads to cease and desist letters from attorneys, she said.

It’s better to head off such a letter, Ms. Thompson said. “You need to defend it whether or not it’s a viable claim,” and that can be costly, she said.

Both Ms. Thompson and Mr. Fanelli also warn about disclosing anything that might be considered a trade secret. Many agreements prohibit presenters from engaging in commercial promotion, but if a talk includes information about a drug or device, the manufacturer will want to review the presentation before it’s made public, said Mr. Fanelli.

Many organizations prohibit attendees from photographing, recording, or tweeting at meetings and often require speakers to warn the audience about doing so. DDW goes further by holding presenters liable if someone violates the rule.

“That’s a huge problem,” said Dr. Mandrola. He noted that although it might be easy to police journalists attending a meeting, “it seems hard to enforce that rule amongst just regular attendees.”
 

Accept or negotiate?

Individuals who submit work to an organization might feel they must sign an agreement as is, especially if they are looking to advance their career or expand knowledge by presenting work at a meeting. But some attorneys said it might be possible to negotiate with meeting organizers.

“My personal opinion is that it never hurts to ask,” said Ms. Thompson. If she were speaking at a legal conference, she would mark up a contract and “see what happens.” The more times pushback is accepted – say, if it works with three out of five speaking engagements – the more it reduces overall liability exposure.

Mr. Fanelli, however, said that although he always reads over an agreement, he typically signs without negotiating. “I don’t usually worry about it because I’m just trying to talk at a particular seminar,” he said.

Prospective presenters “have to weigh that balance – do you want to talk at a seminar, or are you concerned about the legal issues?” said Mr. Fanelli.

If in doubt, talk with a lawyer.

“If you ever have a question on whether or not you should consult an attorney, the answer is always yes,” said Mr. Claussen. It would be “an ounce of prevention,” especially if it’s just a short agreement, he said.

Dr. Ohman, however, said that he believed “it would be fairly costly” and potentially unwieldy. “You can’t litigate everything in life,” he added.

As for Dr. Gardner, he said he would not be as likely to attend DDW in the future if he has to agree to cover any and all liability. “I can’t conceive of ever agreeing to personally indemnify DDW in order to make a presentation at the annual meeting,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cervical insufficiency is an important cause of preterm birth and complicates up to 1% of pregnancies. It is typically diagnosed as painless cervical dilation without contractions, often in the second trimester at around 16-18 weeks, but the clinical presentation can be variable. In some cases, a rescue cerclage can be placed to prevent second trimester loss or preterm birth.

A recent landmark randomized controlled trial of abdominal vs. vaginal cerclage – the MAVRIC trial (Multicentre Abdominal vs. Vaginal Randomized Intervention of Cerclage)¹ published in 2020 – has offered significant validation for the belief that an abdominal approach is the preferred approach for patients with cervical insufficiency and a prior failed vaginal cerclage.

Obstetricians traditionally have had a high threshold for placement of an abdominal cerclage given the need for cesarean delivery and the morbidity of an open procedure. Laparoscopic abdominal cerclage has lowered this threshold and is increasingly the preferred method for cerclage placement. Reported complication rates are generally lower than for open abdominal cerclage, and neonatal survival rates are similar or improved.

In our experience, the move toward laparoscopic abdominal cerclage is largely a patient-driven shift. Since 2007, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, we have performed over 150 laparoscopic abdominal cerclage placements. The majority of patients had at least one prior second-trimester loss (many of them had multiple losses), with many having also failed a transvaginal cerclage.

In an analysis of 137 of these cases published recently in Fertility and Sterility, the neonatal survival rate was 93.8% in the 80 pregnancies that followed and extended beyond the first trimester, and the mean gestational age at delivery was 36.9 weeks.² (First trimester losses are typically excluded from the denominator because they are unlikely to be the result of cervical insufficiency.)

History and outcomes data

The vaginal cerclage has long been a mainstay of therapy because it is a simple procedure. The McDonald technique, described in the 1950s, uses a simple purse string suture at the cervico-vaginal juncture, and the Shirodkar approach, also described in the 1950s, involves placing the cerclage higher on the cervix, as close to the internal os as possible. The Shirodkar technique is more complex, requiring more dissection, and is used less often than the McDonald approach.

The abdominal cerclage, first reported in 1965,³ is placed higher on the cervix, right near the juncture of the lower uterine segment and the cervix, and has generally been thought to provide optimal integrity. It is this point of placement – right at the juncture where membranes begin protruding into the cervix as it shortens and softens – that offers the strongest defense against cervical insufficiency.

The laparoscopic abdominal approach has been gaining popularity since it was first reported in 1998.⁴ Its traditional indication has been after a prior failed vaginal cerclage or when the cervix is too short to place a vaginal cerclage – as a result of a congenital anomaly or cervical conization, for instance.

Some of my patients have had one pregnancy loss in which cervical insufficiency was suspected and have sought laparoscopic abdominal cerclage without attempting a vaginal cerclage. Data to support this scenario are unavailable, but given the psychological trauma of pregnancy loss and the minimally invasive and low-risk nature of laparoscopic abdominal cerclage, I have been inclined to agree to preventive laparoscopic abdominal procedures without a trial of a vaginal cerclage. I believe this is a reasonable option.

The recently published MAVRIC trial included only abdominal cerclages performed using an open approach, but it provides good data for the scenario in which a vaginal cerclage has failed.

The rates of preterm birth at less than 32 weeks were significantly lower with abdominal cerclage than with low vaginal cerclage (McDonald technique) or high vaginal cerclage (Shirodkar technique) (8% vs. 33%, and 8% vs. 38%). No neonatal deaths occurred.

The analysis covered 111 women who conceived and had known pregnancy outcomes, out of 139 who were recruited and randomized. Cerclage placement occurred either between 10 and 16 weeks of gestation for vaginal cerclages and at 14 weeks for abdominal cerclages or before conception for those assigned to receive an abdominal or high vaginal cerclage.

Reviews of the literature done by our group1 and others have found equivalent outcomes between abdominal cerclages placed through laparotomy and through laparoscopy. The largest systematic review analyzed 31 studies involving 1,844 patients and found that neonatal survival rates were significantly greater in the laparoscopic group (97% vs. 90%), as were rates of deliveries after 34 weeks of gestation (83% vs. 76%).⁵

The better outcomes in the laparoscopic group may at least partly reflect improved laparoscopic surgeon techniques and improvements in neonatal care over time. At the minimum, we can conclude that neonatal outcomes are at least equivalent when an abdominal cerclage is placed through laparotomy or with a minimally invasive approach.

Our technique

Laparoscopic cerclages are much more easily placed – and with less risk of surgical complications or blood loss – in patients who are not pregnant. Postconception cerclage placement also carries a unique, small risk of fetal loss (estimated to occur in 1.2% of laparoscopic cases and 3% of open cases). ¹ We therefore prefer to perform the procedure before pregnancy, though we do place abdominal cerclages in early pregnancy as well. (Approximately 10% of the 137 patients in our analysis were pregnant at the time of cerclage placement. ¹ )

The procedure, described here for the nonpregnant patient, typically requires 3-4 ports. My preference is to use a 10-mm scope at the umbilicus, two 5-mm ipsilateral ports, and an additional 5-mm port for my assistant. We generally use a uterine manipulator to help with dissection and facilitate the correct angulation of the suture needle.

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

Direct insertion of the needle simplifies the procedure and has not led to any complications thus far.

We prefer to insert the suture posteriorly at the level of the internal os just above the insertion of the uterosacral ligaments. It is helpful to view the uterus and cervix as an hourglass, with the level of the internal os is at the narrowest point of the hourglass.

The suture is passed carefully between the uterine vessels and the cervical stroma. The uterine artery should be lateral to placement of the needle, and the uterosacral ligament should be below. The surgeon should see a pulsation of the uterine artery. The use of blunt needles is advantageous because, especially when newer to the procedure, the surgeon can place the needle in slightly more medial than may be deemed necessary so as to avert the uterine vessels, then adjust placement slightly more laterally if resistance is met.

Suture placement should follow a fairly low-impact path. Encountering too much resistance with the needle signals passage into the cervix and necessitates redirection of the needle with a slightly more lateral placement. Twisting the uterus with the uterine manipulator can be helpful throughout this process.

Once the needles are passed through, they are cut off the Mersilene tape and removed. For suturing, it’s important that the first and second knots are tied down snuggly and flat.

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

I usually ask my assistant to hold down the first knot so that it doesn’t unravel while I tie the second knot. I usually tie 6 square knots with the tape.

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

The edges of the tape are then trimmed, and with a 2.0 silk suture, the ends are secured to the lower uterine segment to prevent a theoretical risk of erosion into the bladder.

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

We then close the overlying vesicouterine peritoneum with 2-0 Monocryl suture, tying it intracorporally. Closing the peritoneum posteriorly is generally not necessary.

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

A note on patient care

We recommend that patients not become pregnant for 2 months after the laparoscopic abdominal cerclage is placed, and that they receive obstetrical care as high-risk patients. The cerclage can be removed at the time of cesarean delivery if the patient has completed childbearing. Otherwise, if the cerclage appears normal, it can be left in place for future pregnancies.

In the event of a miscarriage, a dilatation and evacuation procedure can be performed with an abdominal cerclage in place, up to 18 weeks of pregnancy. Beyond this point, the patient likely will need to have the cerclage removed laparoscopically to allow vaginal passing of the fetus.

References

1. Shennan A et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(3):261.E1-261.E9.

2. Clark NV & Einarsson JI. Fertil Steril. 2020;113:717-22.

3. Benson RC & Durfee RB. Obstet Gynecol. 1965;25:145-55.

4. Lesser KB et al. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:855-6.

5. Moawad GN et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:277-86.
 

Cervical insufficiency is an important cause of preterm birth and complicates up to 1% of pregnancies. It is typically diagnosed as painless cervical dilation without contractions, often in the second trimester at around 16-18 weeks, but the clinical presentation can be variable. In some cases, a rescue cerclage can be placed to prevent second trimester loss or preterm birth.

A recent landmark randomized controlled trial of abdominal vs. vaginal cerclage – the MAVRIC trial (Multicentre Abdominal vs. Vaginal Randomized Intervention of Cerclage)¹ published in 2020 – has offered significant validation for the belief that an abdominal approach is the preferred approach for patients with cervical insufficiency and a prior failed vaginal cerclage.

Obstetricians traditionally have had a high threshold for placement of an abdominal cerclage given the need for cesarean delivery and the morbidity of an open procedure. Laparoscopic abdominal cerclage has lowered this threshold and is increasingly the preferred method for cerclage placement. Reported complication rates are generally lower than for open abdominal cerclage, and neonatal survival rates are similar or improved.

In our experience, the move toward laparoscopic abdominal cerclage is largely a patient-driven shift. Since 2007, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, we have performed over 150 laparoscopic abdominal cerclage placements. The majority of patients had at least one prior second-trimester loss (many of them had multiple losses), with many having also failed a transvaginal cerclage.

In an analysis of 137 of these cases published recently in Fertility and Sterility, the neonatal survival rate was 93.8% in the 80 pregnancies that followed and extended beyond the first trimester, and the mean gestational age at delivery was 36.9 weeks.² (First trimester losses are typically excluded from the denominator because they are unlikely to be the result of cervical insufficiency.)

History and outcomes data

The vaginal cerclage has long been a mainstay of therapy because it is a simple procedure. The McDonald technique, described in the 1950s, uses a simple purse string suture at the cervico-vaginal juncture, and the Shirodkar approach, also described in the 1950s, involves placing the cerclage higher on the cervix, as close to the internal os as possible. The Shirodkar technique is more complex, requiring more dissection, and is used less often than the McDonald approach.

The abdominal cerclage, first reported in 1965,³ is placed higher on the cervix, right near the juncture of the lower uterine segment and the cervix, and has generally been thought to provide optimal integrity. It is this point of placement – right at the juncture where membranes begin protruding into the cervix as it shortens and softens – that offers the strongest defense against cervical insufficiency.

The laparoscopic abdominal approach has been gaining popularity since it was first reported in 1998.⁴ Its traditional indication has been after a prior failed vaginal cerclage or when the cervix is too short to place a vaginal cerclage – as a result of a congenital anomaly or cervical conization, for instance.

Some of my patients have had one pregnancy loss in which cervical insufficiency was suspected and have sought laparoscopic abdominal cerclage without attempting a vaginal cerclage. Data to support this scenario are unavailable, but given the psychological trauma of pregnancy loss and the minimally invasive and low-risk nature of laparoscopic abdominal cerclage, I have been inclined to agree to preventive laparoscopic abdominal procedures without a trial of a vaginal cerclage. I believe this is a reasonable option.

The recently published MAVRIC trial included only abdominal cerclages performed using an open approach, but it provides good data for the scenario in which a vaginal cerclage has failed.

The rates of preterm birth at less than 32 weeks were significantly lower with abdominal cerclage than with low vaginal cerclage (McDonald technique) or high vaginal cerclage (Shirodkar technique) (8% vs. 33%, and 8% vs. 38%). No neonatal deaths occurred.

The analysis covered 111 women who conceived and had known pregnancy outcomes, out of 139 who were recruited and randomized. Cerclage placement occurred either between 10 and 16 weeks of gestation for vaginal cerclages and at 14 weeks for abdominal cerclages or before conception for those assigned to receive an abdominal or high vaginal cerclage.

Reviews of the literature done by our group1 and others have found equivalent outcomes between abdominal cerclages placed through laparotomy and through laparoscopy. The largest systematic review analyzed 31 studies involving 1,844 patients and found that neonatal survival rates were significantly greater in the laparoscopic group (97% vs. 90%), as were rates of deliveries after 34 weeks of gestation (83% vs. 76%).⁵

The better outcomes in the laparoscopic group may at least partly reflect improved laparoscopic surgeon techniques and improvements in neonatal care over time. At the minimum, we can conclude that neonatal outcomes are at least equivalent when an abdominal cerclage is placed through laparotomy or with a minimally invasive approach.

Our technique

Laparoscopic cerclages are much more easily placed – and with less risk of surgical complications or blood loss – in patients who are not pregnant. Postconception cerclage placement also carries a unique, small risk of fetal loss (estimated to occur in 1.2% of laparoscopic cases and 3% of open cases). ¹ We therefore prefer to perform the procedure before pregnancy, though we do place abdominal cerclages in early pregnancy as well. (Approximately 10% of the 137 patients in our analysis were pregnant at the time of cerclage placement. ¹ )

The procedure, described here for the nonpregnant patient, typically requires 3-4 ports. My preference is to use a 10-mm scope at the umbilicus, two 5-mm ipsilateral ports, and an additional 5-mm port for my assistant. We generally use a uterine manipulator to help with dissection and facilitate the correct angulation of the suture needle.

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

Direct insertion of the needle simplifies the procedure and has not led to any complications thus far.

We prefer to insert the suture posteriorly at the level of the internal os just above the insertion of the uterosacral ligaments. It is helpful to view the uterus and cervix as an hourglass, with the level of the internal os is at the narrowest point of the hourglass.

The suture is passed carefully between the uterine vessels and the cervical stroma. The uterine artery should be lateral to placement of the needle, and the uterosacral ligament should be below. The surgeon should see a pulsation of the uterine artery. The use of blunt needles is advantageous because, especially when newer to the procedure, the surgeon can place the needle in slightly more medial than may be deemed necessary so as to avert the uterine vessels, then adjust placement slightly more laterally if resistance is met.

Suture placement should follow a fairly low-impact path. Encountering too much resistance with the needle signals passage into the cervix and necessitates redirection of the needle with a slightly more lateral placement. Twisting the uterus with the uterine manipulator can be helpful throughout this process.

Once the needles are passed through, they are cut off the Mersilene tape and removed. For suturing, it’s important that the first and second knots are tied down snuggly and flat.

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

I usually ask my assistant to hold down the first knot so that it doesn’t unravel while I tie the second knot. I usually tie 6 square knots with the tape.

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

The edges of the tape are then trimmed, and with a 2.0 silk suture, the ends are secured to the lower uterine segment to prevent a theoretical risk of erosion into the bladder.

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

We then close the overlying vesicouterine peritoneum with 2-0 Monocryl suture, tying it intracorporally. Closing the peritoneum posteriorly is generally not necessary.

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

A note on patient care

We recommend that patients not become pregnant for 2 months after the laparoscopic abdominal cerclage is placed, and that they receive obstetrical care as high-risk patients. The cerclage can be removed at the time of cesarean delivery if the patient has completed childbearing. Otherwise, if the cerclage appears normal, it can be left in place for future pregnancies.

In the event of a miscarriage, a dilatation and evacuation procedure can be performed with an abdominal cerclage in place, up to 18 weeks of pregnancy. Beyond this point, the patient likely will need to have the cerclage removed laparoscopically to allow vaginal passing of the fetus.

References

1. Shennan A et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(3):261.E1-261.E9.

2. Clark NV & Einarsson JI. Fertil Steril. 2020;113:717-22.

3. Benson RC & Durfee RB. Obstet Gynecol. 1965;25:145-55.

4. Lesser KB et al. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:855-6.

5. Moawad GN et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:277-86.
 

Cervical insufficiency is an important cause of preterm birth and complicates up to 1% of pregnancies. It is typically diagnosed as painless cervical dilation without contractions, often in the second trimester at around 16-18 weeks, but the clinical presentation can be variable. In some cases, a rescue cerclage can be placed to prevent second trimester loss or preterm birth.

A recent landmark randomized controlled trial of abdominal vs. vaginal cerclage – the MAVRIC trial (Multicentre Abdominal vs. Vaginal Randomized Intervention of Cerclage)¹ published in 2020 – has offered significant validation for the belief that an abdominal approach is the preferred approach for patients with cervical insufficiency and a prior failed vaginal cerclage.

Obstetricians traditionally have had a high threshold for placement of an abdominal cerclage given the need for cesarean delivery and the morbidity of an open procedure. Laparoscopic abdominal cerclage has lowered this threshold and is increasingly the preferred method for cerclage placement. Reported complication rates are generally lower than for open abdominal cerclage, and neonatal survival rates are similar or improved.

In our experience, the move toward laparoscopic abdominal cerclage is largely a patient-driven shift. Since 2007, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, we have performed over 150 laparoscopic abdominal cerclage placements. The majority of patients had at least one prior second-trimester loss (many of them had multiple losses), with many having also failed a transvaginal cerclage.

In an analysis of 137 of these cases published recently in Fertility and Sterility, the neonatal survival rate was 93.8% in the 80 pregnancies that followed and extended beyond the first trimester, and the mean gestational age at delivery was 36.9 weeks.² (First trimester losses are typically excluded from the denominator because they are unlikely to be the result of cervical insufficiency.)

History and outcomes data

The vaginal cerclage has long been a mainstay of therapy because it is a simple procedure. The McDonald technique, described in the 1950s, uses a simple purse string suture at the cervico-vaginal juncture, and the Shirodkar approach, also described in the 1950s, involves placing the cerclage higher on the cervix, as close to the internal os as possible. The Shirodkar technique is more complex, requiring more dissection, and is used less often than the McDonald approach.

The abdominal cerclage, first reported in 1965,³ is placed higher on the cervix, right near the juncture of the lower uterine segment and the cervix, and has generally been thought to provide optimal integrity. It is this point of placement – right at the juncture where membranes begin protruding into the cervix as it shortens and softens – that offers the strongest defense against cervical insufficiency.

The laparoscopic abdominal approach has been gaining popularity since it was first reported in 1998.⁴ Its traditional indication has been after a prior failed vaginal cerclage or when the cervix is too short to place a vaginal cerclage – as a result of a congenital anomaly or cervical conization, for instance.

Some of my patients have had one pregnancy loss in which cervical insufficiency was suspected and have sought laparoscopic abdominal cerclage without attempting a vaginal cerclage. Data to support this scenario are unavailable, but given the psychological trauma of pregnancy loss and the minimally invasive and low-risk nature of laparoscopic abdominal cerclage, I have been inclined to agree to preventive laparoscopic abdominal procedures without a trial of a vaginal cerclage. I believe this is a reasonable option.

The recently published MAVRIC trial included only abdominal cerclages performed using an open approach, but it provides good data for the scenario in which a vaginal cerclage has failed.

The rates of preterm birth at less than 32 weeks were significantly lower with abdominal cerclage than with low vaginal cerclage (McDonald technique) or high vaginal cerclage (Shirodkar technique) (8% vs. 33%, and 8% vs. 38%). No neonatal deaths occurred.

The analysis covered 111 women who conceived and had known pregnancy outcomes, out of 139 who were recruited and randomized. Cerclage placement occurred either between 10 and 16 weeks of gestation for vaginal cerclages and at 14 weeks for abdominal cerclages or before conception for those assigned to receive an abdominal or high vaginal cerclage.

Reviews of the literature done by our group1 and others have found equivalent outcomes between abdominal cerclages placed through laparotomy and through laparoscopy. The largest systematic review analyzed 31 studies involving 1,844 patients and found that neonatal survival rates were significantly greater in the laparoscopic group (97% vs. 90%), as were rates of deliveries after 34 weeks of gestation (83% vs. 76%).⁵

The better outcomes in the laparoscopic group may at least partly reflect improved laparoscopic surgeon techniques and improvements in neonatal care over time. At the minimum, we can conclude that neonatal outcomes are at least equivalent when an abdominal cerclage is placed through laparotomy or with a minimally invasive approach.

Our technique

Laparoscopic cerclages are much more easily placed – and with less risk of surgical complications or blood loss – in patients who are not pregnant. Postconception cerclage placement also carries a unique, small risk of fetal loss (estimated to occur in 1.2% of laparoscopic cases and 3% of open cases). ¹ We therefore prefer to perform the procedure before pregnancy, though we do place abdominal cerclages in early pregnancy as well. (Approximately 10% of the 137 patients in our analysis were pregnant at the time of cerclage placement. ¹ )

The procedure, described here for the nonpregnant patient, typically requires 3-4 ports. My preference is to use a 10-mm scope at the umbilicus, two 5-mm ipsilateral ports, and an additional 5-mm port for my assistant. We generally use a uterine manipulator to help with dissection and facilitate the correct angulation of the suture needle.

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

Direct insertion of the needle simplifies the procedure and has not led to any complications thus far.

We prefer to insert the suture posteriorly at the level of the internal os just above the insertion of the uterosacral ligaments. It is helpful to view the uterus and cervix as an hourglass, with the level of the internal os is at the narrowest point of the hourglass.

The suture is passed carefully between the uterine vessels and the cervical stroma. The uterine artery should be lateral to placement of the needle, and the uterosacral ligament should be below. The surgeon should see a pulsation of the uterine artery. The use of blunt needles is advantageous because, especially when newer to the procedure, the surgeon can place the needle in slightly more medial than may be deemed necessary so as to avert the uterine vessels, then adjust placement slightly more laterally if resistance is met.

Suture placement should follow a fairly low-impact path. Encountering too much resistance with the needle signals passage into the cervix and necessitates redirection of the needle with a slightly more lateral placement. Twisting the uterus with the uterine manipulator can be helpful throughout this process.

Once the needles are passed through, they are cut off the Mersilene tape and removed. For suturing, it’s important that the first and second knots are tied down snuggly and flat.

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

I usually ask my assistant to hold down the first knot so that it doesn’t unravel while I tie the second knot. I usually tie 6 square knots with the tape.

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

The edges of the tape are then trimmed, and with a 2.0 silk suture, the ends are secured to the lower uterine segment to prevent a theoretical risk of erosion into the bladder.

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

We then close the overlying vesicouterine peritoneum with 2-0 Monocryl suture, tying it intracorporally. Closing the peritoneum posteriorly is generally not necessary.

Dr. Jon I. Einarsson

A note on patient care

We recommend that patients not become pregnant for 2 months after the laparoscopic abdominal cerclage is placed, and that they receive obstetrical care as high-risk patients. The cerclage can be removed at the time of cesarean delivery if the patient has completed childbearing. Otherwise, if the cerclage appears normal, it can be left in place for future pregnancies.

In the event of a miscarriage, a dilatation and evacuation procedure can be performed with an abdominal cerclage in place, up to 18 weeks of pregnancy. Beyond this point, the patient likely will need to have the cerclage removed laparoscopically to allow vaginal passing of the fetus.

References

1. Shennan A et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(3):261.E1-261.E9.

2. Clark NV & Einarsson JI. Fertil Steril. 2020;113:717-22.

3. Benson RC & Durfee RB. Obstet Gynecol. 1965;25:145-55.

4. Lesser KB et al. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:855-6.

5. Moawad GN et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:277-86.
 

Preterm birth remains a significant cause of infant morbidity and mortality. A well-established cause of preterm birth is cervical insufficiency, which occurs in approximately 1% of pregnancies and up to 8% of recurrent miscarriages and midtrimester pregnancy loss. A cerclage, a purse-string suture around the cervix, is placed to treat cervical insufficiency and, thus, prevent second-trimester loss and preterm birth. While, traditionally, placement of the cerclage was performed via a vaginal route, over the past 50 years, abdominal cerclage has been utilized in cases in which a vaginal cerclage has failed or the cervix is extremely short. The advantage of the abdominal approach is the ability to place the suture at the level of the internal os. Moreover, there is no potential risk of ascending infection and resultant preterm labor or premature rupture of membranes secondary to a foreign body in the vagina, as in the case of vaginal cerclage. There has been a reluctance to perform abdominal cerclage as a first-time treatment secondary to the need for cesarean section, risk of hemorrhage at the uterine vessels, and in the past, the need for a laparotomy.

With the introduction of a laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach to abdominal cerclage in preterm birth prevention, there has been an upsurge in the popularity of abdominal cerclage as the first-line surgical procedure, especially after a failed vaginal cerclage. In 2018, Moawad et al., in a systematic review of laparoscopic abdominal cerclage, noted slight improvement in neonatal outcomes with laparoscopy vs. laparotomy.

For this edition of the Master Class in gynecologic surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Jon I. Einarsson, MD, PhD, MPH, who is chief of the division of minimally invasive gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of obstetrics/gynecology at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Einarsson is a past president of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. He is a very well-known, published clinical researcher and surgical innovator. Dr. Einarsson is the founder of Freyja Healthcare, a privately held medical device company advancing women’s health through innovation.

It is a pleasure and honor to welcome my friend and colleague, Dr. Jon I. Einarsson, to this edition of the Master Class in gynecologic surgery.

Dr. Miller is professor of obstetrics and gynecology in the department of clinical sciences, Rosalind Franklin University, North Chicago, and director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. Dr. Miller reported that he has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Preterm birth remains a significant cause of infant morbidity and mortality. A well-established cause of preterm birth is cervical insufficiency, which occurs in approximately 1% of pregnancies and up to 8% of recurrent miscarriages and midtrimester pregnancy loss. A cerclage, a purse-string suture around the cervix, is placed to treat cervical insufficiency and, thus, prevent second-trimester loss and preterm birth. While, traditionally, placement of the cerclage was performed via a vaginal route, over the past 50 years, abdominal cerclage has been utilized in cases in which a vaginal cerclage has failed or the cervix is extremely short. The advantage of the abdominal approach is the ability to place the suture at the level of the internal os. Moreover, there is no potential risk of ascending infection and resultant preterm labor or premature rupture of membranes secondary to a foreign body in the vagina, as in the case of vaginal cerclage. There has been a reluctance to perform abdominal cerclage as a first-time treatment secondary to the need for cesarean section, risk of hemorrhage at the uterine vessels, and in the past, the need for a laparotomy.

With the introduction of a laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach to abdominal cerclage in preterm birth prevention, there has been an upsurge in the popularity of abdominal cerclage as the first-line surgical procedure, especially after a failed vaginal cerclage. In 2018, Moawad et al., in a systematic review of laparoscopic abdominal cerclage, noted slight improvement in neonatal outcomes with laparoscopy vs. laparotomy.

For this edition of the Master Class in gynecologic surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Jon I. Einarsson, MD, PhD, MPH, who is chief of the division of minimally invasive gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of obstetrics/gynecology at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Einarsson is a past president of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. He is a very well-known, published clinical researcher and surgical innovator. Dr. Einarsson is the founder of Freyja Healthcare, a privately held medical device company advancing women’s health through innovation.

It is a pleasure and honor to welcome my friend and colleague, Dr. Jon I. Einarsson, to this edition of the Master Class in gynecologic surgery.

Dr. Miller is professor of obstetrics and gynecology in the department of clinical sciences, Rosalind Franklin University, North Chicago, and director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. Dr. Miller reported that he has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Preterm birth remains a significant cause of infant morbidity and mortality. A well-established cause of preterm birth is cervical insufficiency, which occurs in approximately 1% of pregnancies and up to 8% of recurrent miscarriages and midtrimester pregnancy loss. A cerclage, a purse-string suture around the cervix, is placed to treat cervical insufficiency and, thus, prevent second-trimester loss and preterm birth. While, traditionally, placement of the cerclage was performed via a vaginal route, over the past 50 years, abdominal cerclage has been utilized in cases in which a vaginal cerclage has failed or the cervix is extremely short. The advantage of the abdominal approach is the ability to place the suture at the level of the internal os. Moreover, there is no potential risk of ascending infection and resultant preterm labor or premature rupture of membranes secondary to a foreign body in the vagina, as in the case of vaginal cerclage. There has been a reluctance to perform abdominal cerclage as a first-time treatment secondary to the need for cesarean section, risk of hemorrhage at the uterine vessels, and in the past, the need for a laparotomy.

With the introduction of a laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach to abdominal cerclage in preterm birth prevention, there has been an upsurge in the popularity of abdominal cerclage as the first-line surgical procedure, especially after a failed vaginal cerclage. In 2018, Moawad et al., in a systematic review of laparoscopic abdominal cerclage, noted slight improvement in neonatal outcomes with laparoscopy vs. laparotomy.

For this edition of the Master Class in gynecologic surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Jon I. Einarsson, MD, PhD, MPH, who is chief of the division of minimally invasive gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of obstetrics/gynecology at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Einarsson is a past president of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. He is a very well-known, published clinical researcher and surgical innovator. Dr. Einarsson is the founder of Freyja Healthcare, a privately held medical device company advancing women’s health through innovation.

It is a pleasure and honor to welcome my friend and colleague, Dr. Jon I. Einarsson, to this edition of the Master Class in gynecologic surgery.

Dr. Miller is professor of obstetrics and gynecology in the department of clinical sciences, Rosalind Franklin University, North Chicago, and director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. Dr. Miller reported that he has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the state of California, and New York City announced July 26 that employees will be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in coming months -- or, in the case of California and New York City, undergo regular testing.

The VA becomes the first federal agency to mandate COVID vaccinations for workers. In a news release, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said the mandate is “the best way to keep Veterans safe, especially as the Delta variant spreads across the country.”

VA health care personnel -- including doctors, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, registered nurses, physician assistants, and chiropractors -- have 8 weeks to become fully vaccinated, the news release said. The New York Times reported that about 115,000 workers will be affected.

The trifecta of federal-state-municipal vaccine requirements arrived as the nation searches for ways to get more people vaccinated to tamp down the Delta variant.

Some organizations, including the military, have already said vaccinations will be required as soon as the Food and Drug Administration formally approves the vaccines, which are now given under emergency use authorizations. The FDA has said the Pfizer vaccine could receive full approval within months.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the requirements he announced July 27 were the first in the nation on the state level.

“As the state’s largest employer, we are leading by example and requiring all state and health care workers to show proof of vaccination or be tested regularly, and we are encouraging local governments and businesses to do the same,” he said in a news release.

California employees must provide proof of vaccination or get tested at least once a week. The policy starts Aug. 2 for state employees and Aug. 9 for state health care workers and employees of congregate facilities, such as jails or homeless shelters.

California, especially the southern part of the state, is grappling with a COVID-19 surge. The state’s daily case rate more than quadrupled, from a low of 1.9 cases per 100,000 in May to at least 9.5 cases per 100,000 today, the release said.

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio had previously announced that city health and hospital employees and those working in Department of Health and Mental Hygiene clinical settings would be required to provide proof of vaccination or have regular testing.

On July 27 he expanded the rule to cover all city employees, with a Sept. 13 deadline for most of them, according to a news release.

“This is what it takes to continue our recovery for all of us while fighting back the Delta variant,” Mayor de Blasio said. “It’s going to take all of us to finally end the fight against COVID-19.”

“We have a moral responsibility to take every precaution possible to ensure we keep ourselves, our colleagues and loved ones safe,” NYC Health + Hospitals President and CEO Mitchell Katz, MD, said in the release. “Our city’s new testing requirement for city workers provides more [peace] of mind until more people get their safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine.”

NBC News reported the plan would affect about 340,000 employees.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the state of California, and New York City announced July 26 that employees will be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in coming months -- or, in the case of California and New York City, undergo regular testing.

The VA becomes the first federal agency to mandate COVID vaccinations for workers. In a news release, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said the mandate is “the best way to keep Veterans safe, especially as the Delta variant spreads across the country.”

VA health care personnel -- including doctors, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, registered nurses, physician assistants, and chiropractors -- have 8 weeks to become fully vaccinated, the news release said. The New York Times reported that about 115,000 workers will be affected.

The trifecta of federal-state-municipal vaccine requirements arrived as the nation searches for ways to get more people vaccinated to tamp down the Delta variant.

Some organizations, including the military, have already said vaccinations will be required as soon as the Food and Drug Administration formally approves the vaccines, which are now given under emergency use authorizations. The FDA has said the Pfizer vaccine could receive full approval within months.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the requirements he announced July 27 were the first in the nation on the state level.

“As the state’s largest employer, we are leading by example and requiring all state and health care workers to show proof of vaccination or be tested regularly, and we are encouraging local governments and businesses to do the same,” he said in a news release.

California employees must provide proof of vaccination or get tested at least once a week. The policy starts Aug. 2 for state employees and Aug. 9 for state health care workers and employees of congregate facilities, such as jails or homeless shelters.

California, especially the southern part of the state, is grappling with a COVID-19 surge. The state’s daily case rate more than quadrupled, from a low of 1.9 cases per 100,000 in May to at least 9.5 cases per 100,000 today, the release said.

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio had previously announced that city health and hospital employees and those working in Department of Health and Mental Hygiene clinical settings would be required to provide proof of vaccination or have regular testing.

On July 27 he expanded the rule to cover all city employees, with a Sept. 13 deadline for most of them, according to a news release.

“This is what it takes to continue our recovery for all of us while fighting back the Delta variant,” Mayor de Blasio said. “It’s going to take all of us to finally end the fight against COVID-19.”

“We have a moral responsibility to take every precaution possible to ensure we keep ourselves, our colleagues and loved ones safe,” NYC Health + Hospitals President and CEO Mitchell Katz, MD, said in the release. “Our city’s new testing requirement for city workers provides more [peace] of mind until more people get their safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine.”

NBC News reported the plan would affect about 340,000 employees.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the state of California, and New York City announced July 26 that employees will be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in coming months -- or, in the case of California and New York City, undergo regular testing.

The VA becomes the first federal agency to mandate COVID vaccinations for workers. In a news release, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said the mandate is “the best way to keep Veterans safe, especially as the Delta variant spreads across the country.”

VA health care personnel -- including doctors, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, registered nurses, physician assistants, and chiropractors -- have 8 weeks to become fully vaccinated, the news release said. The New York Times reported that about 115,000 workers will be affected.

The trifecta of federal-state-municipal vaccine requirements arrived as the nation searches for ways to get more people vaccinated to tamp down the Delta variant.

Some organizations, including the military, have already said vaccinations will be required as soon as the Food and Drug Administration formally approves the vaccines, which are now given under emergency use authorizations. The FDA has said the Pfizer vaccine could receive full approval within months.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the requirements he announced July 27 were the first in the nation on the state level.

“As the state’s largest employer, we are leading by example and requiring all state and health care workers to show proof of vaccination or be tested regularly, and we are encouraging local governments and businesses to do the same,” he said in a news release.

California employees must provide proof of vaccination or get tested at least once a week. The policy starts Aug. 2 for state employees and Aug. 9 for state health care workers and employees of congregate facilities, such as jails or homeless shelters.

California, especially the southern part of the state, is grappling with a COVID-19 surge. The state’s daily case rate more than quadrupled, from a low of 1.9 cases per 100,000 in May to at least 9.5 cases per 100,000 today, the release said.

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio had previously announced that city health and hospital employees and those working in Department of Health and Mental Hygiene clinical settings would be required to provide proof of vaccination or have regular testing.

On July 27 he expanded the rule to cover all city employees, with a Sept. 13 deadline for most of them, according to a news release.

“This is what it takes to continue our recovery for all of us while fighting back the Delta variant,” Mayor de Blasio said. “It’s going to take all of us to finally end the fight against COVID-19.”

“We have a moral responsibility to take every precaution possible to ensure we keep ourselves, our colleagues and loved ones safe,” NYC Health + Hospitals President and CEO Mitchell Katz, MD, said in the release. “Our city’s new testing requirement for city workers provides more [peace] of mind until more people get their safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine.”

NBC News reported the plan would affect about 340,000 employees.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.