The Globe’s play on this story should say something — Metro front rather than 1A. Malpractice stories are tricky– serious charges and a response penned by a lawyer, not a doctor. (At 8 a.m., a complete version of the story was lingering on White Coat Notes, outside the paywall.)
Note the Brigham’s carefully worded statement on the link between cancer and morcellation, the procedure used during a minimally invasive hysterectomy.
The Brigham said in a statement that “while it’s not possible to know what impact the procedure will ultimately have on Dr. Reed’s health, we do know that literature suggests morcellation of malignant tumors increases the chances of mortality.
Here’s the lead
A Boston surgeon and his wife, an anesthesiologist, are pushing to stop a widespread surgical technique used on thousands of women during hysterectomies, which they say caused her undetected cancer to dangerously spread.
The she said/she said suggest that
Dr. Barbara Goff president of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology and director of the Division of Gynecologic Oncology at the University of Washington in Seattle says “Morcellation allows many women to have safer hysterectomies with better outcomes than full abdominal surgery, including less blood loss, smaller wounds, and a quicker overall recovery.”
“You try to balance cost and outcomes and doing the best you can for an entire population of women,” Goff said.
But Dr. Bobbie Gostout, chairwoman of obstetrics and gynecology at the Mayo Clinic, said more women should be given the option of a vaginal hysterectomy, where the uterus can often be taken out intact through the vagina, especially because morcellation “is a questionable practice.”
She said morcellating devices are not yet good at capturing tissue or protecting other sensitive organs from rotating blades.
“I don’t want to see [morcellation] go away, but I would like to see it kept in perspective and occupy its necessary place,” she said. “Morcellation is still so far off what it ought to be.”