Perspectives

Le Gal et al (Sci Transl Med. 2015;7:308re8) discovered that antioxidant administration in mice not only increased lymph node metastases but also increased the migration and invasive properties of human melanoma cells. However, the antioxidant N-acetylcysteine (NAC) had no impact on the number and size of the primary tumors (in mice), and neither NAC nor Trolox (6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid), a structurally unrelated antioxidant and soluble vitamin E analogue, affected the proliferation of human melanoma cells. Hence, the progression of malignant melanoma (MM), a cancer that is sensitive to changes in reduction-oxidation status, may be influenced by exposure to antioxidants and vitamin E.

What’s the issue?

Healthy individuals and oncology patients commonly use supplements containing antioxidants to prevent cancer and fight malignancy, respectively. However, animal studies and human clinical trials have shown that antioxidants increase cancer risk and accelerate the progression of primary lung tumors. Le Gal et al’s study regarding progression of melanoma metastases following exposure to antioxidants extends the observations demonstrated for lung neoplasms. N-acetylcysteine was added to the drinking water of mice, whereas NAC and Trolox were added to a panel of human MM cell lines. N-acetylcysteine increased lymph node metastases in the endogenous mouse model of MM, and both NAC and Trolox markedly increased the migrations and invasive properties of human MM cells.

Cancers may be caused or exacerbated by free radicals. It has been assumed that antioxidants may protect against malignancy by destroying free radicals. Although prior studies have concluded that antioxidants prevent healthy cells from transforming into cancer after exposure to free radicals, Le Gal et al’s research suggests that antioxidants may not only protect but also enhance tumor progression once a cancer has developed.

If one extends the results of animal and tissue culture studies to humans, exposure to antioxidants may potentially influence the course of metastatic disease in patients who have already developed melanoma. In addition to systemic exposure after receiving oral antioxidants, melanoma patients also can be topically exposed to antioxidants. For example, nonprescription skin care products such as cutaneous rejuvenation treatments, emollients, and sunscreens can contain β-carotene, vitamin E, and other antioxidants. It remains to be determined whether topical exposure to antioxidants can cause the same observations that have occurred following systemic absorption in mice or tissue culture studies in human cell lines. Should we caution our melanoma patients with regards to what they apply to their skin?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

Le Gal et al (Sci Transl Med. 2015;7:308re8) discovered that antioxidant administration in mice not only increased lymph node metastases but also increased the migration and invasive properties of human melanoma cells. However, the antioxidant N-acetylcysteine (NAC) had no impact on the number and size of the primary tumors (in mice), and neither NAC nor Trolox (6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid), a structurally unrelated antioxidant and soluble vitamin E analogue, affected the proliferation of human melanoma cells. Hence, the progression of malignant melanoma (MM), a cancer that is sensitive to changes in reduction-oxidation status, may be influenced by exposure to antioxidants and vitamin E.

What’s the issue?

Healthy individuals and oncology patients commonly use supplements containing antioxidants to prevent cancer and fight malignancy, respectively. However, animal studies and human clinical trials have shown that antioxidants increase cancer risk and accelerate the progression of primary lung tumors. Le Gal et al’s study regarding progression of melanoma metastases following exposure to antioxidants extends the observations demonstrated for lung neoplasms. N-acetylcysteine was added to the drinking water of mice, whereas NAC and Trolox were added to a panel of human MM cell lines. N-acetylcysteine increased lymph node metastases in the endogenous mouse model of MM, and both NAC and Trolox markedly increased the migrations and invasive properties of human MM cells.

Cancers may be caused or exacerbated by free radicals. It has been assumed that antioxidants may protect against malignancy by destroying free radicals. Although prior studies have concluded that antioxidants prevent healthy cells from transforming into cancer after exposure to free radicals, Le Gal et al’s research suggests that antioxidants may not only protect but also enhance tumor progression once a cancer has developed.

If one extends the results of animal and tissue culture studies to humans, exposure to antioxidants may potentially influence the course of metastatic disease in patients who have already developed melanoma. In addition to systemic exposure after receiving oral antioxidants, melanoma patients also can be topically exposed to antioxidants. For example, nonprescription skin care products such as cutaneous rejuvenation treatments, emollients, and sunscreens can contain β-carotene, vitamin E, and other antioxidants. It remains to be determined whether topical exposure to antioxidants can cause the same observations that have occurred following systemic absorption in mice or tissue culture studies in human cell lines. Should we caution our melanoma patients with regards to what they apply to their skin?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

Le Gal et al (Sci Transl Med. 2015;7:308re8) discovered that antioxidant administration in mice not only increased lymph node metastases but also increased the migration and invasive properties of human melanoma cells. However, the antioxidant N-acetylcysteine (NAC) had no impact on the number and size of the primary tumors (in mice), and neither NAC nor Trolox (6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid), a structurally unrelated antioxidant and soluble vitamin E analogue, affected the proliferation of human melanoma cells. Hence, the progression of malignant melanoma (MM), a cancer that is sensitive to changes in reduction-oxidation status, may be influenced by exposure to antioxidants and vitamin E.

What’s the issue?

Healthy individuals and oncology patients commonly use supplements containing antioxidants to prevent cancer and fight malignancy, respectively. However, animal studies and human clinical trials have shown that antioxidants increase cancer risk and accelerate the progression of primary lung tumors. Le Gal et al’s study regarding progression of melanoma metastases following exposure to antioxidants extends the observations demonstrated for lung neoplasms. N-acetylcysteine was added to the drinking water of mice, whereas NAC and Trolox were added to a panel of human MM cell lines. N-acetylcysteine increased lymph node metastases in the endogenous mouse model of MM, and both NAC and Trolox markedly increased the migrations and invasive properties of human MM cells.

Cancers may be caused or exacerbated by free radicals. It has been assumed that antioxidants may protect against malignancy by destroying free radicals. Although prior studies have concluded that antioxidants prevent healthy cells from transforming into cancer after exposure to free radicals, Le Gal et al’s research suggests that antioxidants may not only protect but also enhance tumor progression once a cancer has developed.

If one extends the results of animal and tissue culture studies to humans, exposure to antioxidants may potentially influence the course of metastatic disease in patients who have already developed melanoma. In addition to systemic exposure after receiving oral antioxidants, melanoma patients also can be topically exposed to antioxidants. For example, nonprescription skin care products such as cutaneous rejuvenation treatments, emollients, and sunscreens can contain β-carotene, vitamin E, and other antioxidants. It remains to be determined whether topical exposure to antioxidants can cause the same observations that have occurred following systemic absorption in mice or tissue culture studies in human cell lines. Should we caution our melanoma patients with regards to what they apply to their skin?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

As a resident in psychiatry, I am being trained in the art of diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental illness and emotional problems. As part of my training, research and scholarly activities are encouraged—reminding us that clinical medicine is always evolving and that it is every physician’s duty to be at the forefront of advancements in medical science.

Last year, I worked in the clinical trial industry under a seasoned principal investigator. I learned several lessons from my time with him and in the industry. Here, I present these lessons as a starting point for residents who are looking to gain experience or contemplating a career as an expert trialist or principal investigator.

Lesson 1: Know the lingo
To make the transition from physician to principal investigator go more smoothly, I recommend taking the time to learn the language of the industry. The good news? Clinical trials involve patients who have a medical history and take medications, which you are well acquainted with. In addition to medical jargon, the industry has developed its own distinctive terminology and abbreviations: adverse drug reaction (ADR), good clinical practice (GCP), contract research organization (CRO), and more.

Don’t stop there, however. I recommend that you read FDA research guidelines and guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) to be familiar with the ethics and standard regulations of the industry.

Lesson 2: When in doubt, refer to the Protocol
Every clinical trial has a manual, so to speak, known as the Study Protocol, which outlines approved methods of performing diagnostic tests and procedures; provides information on the study timeline; and specifies patient inclusion and exclusion criteria. This document ensures conformity across all study sites, helps prevent errors, limits bias, and answers questions that might come up during the study. It’s worth noting that, in my experience, many of the questions about exclusionary medications arise when psychiatric drugs are involved.

Lesson 3: Document. Document. And document.
The golden rule in clinical practice and research is: “If it isn’t documented, it didn’t happen.” (Recall what I said about reading FDA and ICH-GCP guidelines to learn about regulations.) Documentation of all study-related activities must be meticulous. At any time, your documents might be subject to external or internal audit, conducted to preserve conformity to the protocol and maintain patient safety. Improper documentation can delay, even invalidate, your research.

Lesson 4: Remember that advertising is an art
The real work begins when your site is ready to accept patients. To fill the study, patients need to be aware that you are recruiting participants. A good starting point is to inform likely candidates from your existing patient population about any studies from which they might benefit.

Most times, however, recruiting among your patients is not enough to meet necessary enrollment numbers. You will have to advertise the study to the general public. Advertisements must target the specific patient population, informing them of the study but, at the same time, not be coercive or make false promises. The advertisements must be approved by the study’s institutional review board, which is responsible for protecting the rights and welfare of study participants.

Advertising can be tricky. If an advertisement is too vague, you will get a huge response, causing time and resources to be spent screening patients—most of whom might not be suitable for the study. If an advertisement is too specific, on the other hand, the response might be poor or none at all.

Advertising is its own industry. It might be best to hire an advertising expert who can help you decide on the selection of media (radio, television, print, digital) and can design a campaign that best suits your needs. If you decide to hire a professional, I recommend close collaboration with him (her), to help him understand the medical nature of the study.

Related Resources

• ClinicalTrials.gov. About clinical studies. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-studies.

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Clinical trials and human subject protection. http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/default.htm.

• ICH GCP. International Conference on Harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. http://ichgcp.net/.

As a resident in psychiatry, I am being trained in the art of diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental illness and emotional problems. As part of my training, research and scholarly activities are encouraged—reminding us that clinical medicine is always evolving and that it is every physician’s duty to be at the forefront of advancements in medical science.

Last year, I worked in the clinical trial industry under a seasoned principal investigator. I learned several lessons from my time with him and in the industry. Here, I present these lessons as a starting point for residents who are looking to gain experience or contemplating a career as an expert trialist or principal investigator.

Lesson 1: Know the lingo
To make the transition from physician to principal investigator go more smoothly, I recommend taking the time to learn the language of the industry. The good news? Clinical trials involve patients who have a medical history and take medications, which you are well acquainted with. In addition to medical jargon, the industry has developed its own distinctive terminology and abbreviations: adverse drug reaction (ADR), good clinical practice (GCP), contract research organization (CRO), and more.

Don’t stop there, however. I recommend that you read FDA research guidelines and guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) to be familiar with the ethics and standard regulations of the industry.

Lesson 2: When in doubt, refer to the Protocol
Every clinical trial has a manual, so to speak, known as the Study Protocol, which outlines approved methods of performing diagnostic tests and procedures; provides information on the study timeline; and specifies patient inclusion and exclusion criteria. This document ensures conformity across all study sites, helps prevent errors, limits bias, and answers questions that might come up during the study. It’s worth noting that, in my experience, many of the questions about exclusionary medications arise when psychiatric drugs are involved.

Lesson 3: Document. Document. And document.
The golden rule in clinical practice and research is: “If it isn’t documented, it didn’t happen.” (Recall what I said about reading FDA and ICH-GCP guidelines to learn about regulations.) Documentation of all study-related activities must be meticulous. At any time, your documents might be subject to external or internal audit, conducted to preserve conformity to the protocol and maintain patient safety. Improper documentation can delay, even invalidate, your research.

Lesson 4: Remember that advertising is an art
The real work begins when your site is ready to accept patients. To fill the study, patients need to be aware that you are recruiting participants. A good starting point is to inform likely candidates from your existing patient population about any studies from which they might benefit.

Most times, however, recruiting among your patients is not enough to meet necessary enrollment numbers. You will have to advertise the study to the general public. Advertisements must target the specific patient population, informing them of the study but, at the same time, not be coercive or make false promises. The advertisements must be approved by the study’s institutional review board, which is responsible for protecting the rights and welfare of study participants.

Advertising can be tricky. If an advertisement is too vague, you will get a huge response, causing time and resources to be spent screening patients—most of whom might not be suitable for the study. If an advertisement is too specific, on the other hand, the response might be poor or none at all.

Advertising is its own industry. It might be best to hire an advertising expert who can help you decide on the selection of media (radio, television, print, digital) and can design a campaign that best suits your needs. If you decide to hire a professional, I recommend close collaboration with him (her), to help him understand the medical nature of the study.

Related Resources

• ClinicalTrials.gov. About clinical studies. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-studies.

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Clinical trials and human subject protection. http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/default.htm.

• ICH GCP. International Conference on Harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. http://ichgcp.net/.

As a resident in psychiatry, I am being trained in the art of diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental illness and emotional problems. As part of my training, research and scholarly activities are encouraged—reminding us that clinical medicine is always evolving and that it is every physician’s duty to be at the forefront of advancements in medical science.

Last year, I worked in the clinical trial industry under a seasoned principal investigator. I learned several lessons from my time with him and in the industry. Here, I present these lessons as a starting point for residents who are looking to gain experience or contemplating a career as an expert trialist or principal investigator.

Lesson 1: Know the lingo
To make the transition from physician to principal investigator go more smoothly, I recommend taking the time to learn the language of the industry. The good news? Clinical trials involve patients who have a medical history and take medications, which you are well acquainted with. In addition to medical jargon, the industry has developed its own distinctive terminology and abbreviations: adverse drug reaction (ADR), good clinical practice (GCP), contract research organization (CRO), and more.

Don’t stop there, however. I recommend that you read FDA research guidelines and guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) to be familiar with the ethics and standard regulations of the industry.

Lesson 2: When in doubt, refer to the Protocol
Every clinical trial has a manual, so to speak, known as the Study Protocol, which outlines approved methods of performing diagnostic tests and procedures; provides information on the study timeline; and specifies patient inclusion and exclusion criteria. This document ensures conformity across all study sites, helps prevent errors, limits bias, and answers questions that might come up during the study. It’s worth noting that, in my experience, many of the questions about exclusionary medications arise when psychiatric drugs are involved.

Lesson 3: Document. Document. And document.
The golden rule in clinical practice and research is: “If it isn’t documented, it didn’t happen.” (Recall what I said about reading FDA and ICH-GCP guidelines to learn about regulations.) Documentation of all study-related activities must be meticulous. At any time, your documents might be subject to external or internal audit, conducted to preserve conformity to the protocol and maintain patient safety. Improper documentation can delay, even invalidate, your research.

Lesson 4: Remember that advertising is an art
The real work begins when your site is ready to accept patients. To fill the study, patients need to be aware that you are recruiting participants. A good starting point is to inform likely candidates from your existing patient population about any studies from which they might benefit.

Most times, however, recruiting among your patients is not enough to meet necessary enrollment numbers. You will have to advertise the study to the general public. Advertisements must target the specific patient population, informing them of the study but, at the same time, not be coercive or make false promises. The advertisements must be approved by the study’s institutional review board, which is responsible for protecting the rights and welfare of study participants.

Advertising can be tricky. If an advertisement is too vague, you will get a huge response, causing time and resources to be spent screening patients—most of whom might not be suitable for the study. If an advertisement is too specific, on the other hand, the response might be poor or none at all.

Advertising is its own industry. It might be best to hire an advertising expert who can help you decide on the selection of media (radio, television, print, digital) and can design a campaign that best suits your needs. If you decide to hire a professional, I recommend close collaboration with him (her), to help him understand the medical nature of the study.

Related Resources

• ClinicalTrials.gov. About clinical studies. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-studies.

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Clinical trials and human subject protection. http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/default.htm.

• ICH GCP. International Conference on Harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. http://ichgcp.net/.

“You’re wearing an Unna boot – what happened?”

“Doc, my wife made too many tempting desserts while we were in Florida, and when we got back, I had an infected toe. My doctor gave me antibiotics, but the toe turned blue, so they had to amputate.”

I had been treating this man for depression for many years and did not know about his having diabetes, so I asked, “Are you diabetic?”

“No,” he answered. “My doctor says I’ve been prediabetic for 20 years, and he’s put me on a low dose of metformin. … My friends are on twice as much. I don’t even have to have one of those meters.

“I can just go to the senior center or stop by my doctor’s office once a week and have my sugar checked. My wife says she won’t tempt me with any more desserts; she’s buying fruit, which I’m not used to, and I’m not eating bread anymore.

“Hey, those pills you’re giving me for my depression are working great. I am eating and sleeping and doing things I love to do. The wife and I are getting over the kids’ divorces, and we are still able to help out with the grandchild, who has been so sick. When we got back home, I tried to get back with my poker buddies, but one of them is in cardiac rehab; he had a heart attack, and another one, his wife says he’s got Alzheimer’s – he did lose a lot last year and that wasn’t like him. … Yeah, I guess I’m OK. As soon as this toe heals, I’ll be 100%.”

This dialogue is a composite; the names have been changed to protect the innocent, but unfortunately, it is an oft-told tale. The relationship between diabetes and depression has been known for a long time.¹Each one is a risk factor for the other, and together and separately, they are a risk factor for dementia.

For quite a while, it was thought that having a diabetes diagnosis and having to manage it in and of itself was depressing, and that therefore, people would become depressed. It was also thought that people who are depressed might try to soothe themselves with copious amounts of comfort food and alcohol, and would thereby develop diabetes. Certainly, many people’s routes to depression and diabetes are just that – psychological reactions to having the other disease. But research shows that there is a much deeper physiologic relationship between the two.

Since diabetes and depression or their sequelae are among the 14 leading causes of death in the United States, psychiatrists and other medical professionals need to collaborate in the treatment of these diseases in their patients. Medical homes are good, but most patients continue to receive treatment for all disorders separately and in isolation. If it were not for the medical professional asking directly, or discovering some medication after the patient has given permission for an electronic medication prescribing overview of all his medications, treatment for diabetes or depression might be unknown by the other medical professional. Our noncommunicative EHRs will not help here. The only thing that will help is open communication between the patient and all of his medical treaters.

Now that I am educated and alarmed about the diabetes-depression connection, I send a note to the primary care physician and follow up with a few articles from Science Daily such as “Depression, early death among seniors with diabetes: Strong link found by research,”² or “Treating major depression in older adults with diabetes may lower risk of death”^3, or the clincher, “Treatment for diabetes and depression improves both, researchers say.”⁴

For patients with type 2 diabetes, the form of the illness usually referred to in research on diabetes and depression, the body becomes insensitive to insulin, i.e., insulin resistance develops. We now know that insulin resistance occurs throughout the body, including the brain. Insulin receptors are present in all organs of the body, including the brain. We also know that the higher fasting glucose level seen in prediabetes is an indication of the development of insulin resistance. Insulin’s job is to get glucose into cells for ready availability of energy and into muscle for backup energy.

If glucose is too plentiful, as it is when sugary foods are overconsumed, insulin directs the rest of the glucose to be stored as fat in the liver, inside blood vessels, around organs, and subcutaneously. Ultimately, there is nowhere else to store the excess energy, and insulin resistance develops. The pancreas, which secretes insulin, keeps on pumping insulin and can poop out, requiring exogenous insulin to keep things moving.⁵Treatments can include insulin itself, medications that increase insulin sensitivity, diet, and exercise to deplete the energy stores, or bariatric surgery, which, by the way, is said to cure both diabetes and depression within 3 weeks after surgery (this effect is negated if patients regain their weight.)

What the research shows

Clinical research from the University of Pennsylvania⁶ and Massachusetts General Hospital⁷shows that having a third, nonphysician treater work with patients diagnosed with both disorders improves outcomes. Both of those protocols used cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and motivational interviewing, group treatment, and telephone contact as modalities. One also used electronic monitoring of medication dosing and the record of the glucometer to follow patients’ progress.

In both studies, patients in the protocol groups did better than the treatment-as-usual groups in terms of relief of depression and control of diabetes. In the private primary care physician and psychiatrist office setting, a third party is not practical, but psychiatrists can add motivational interviewing and some aspects of CBT. Also, both psychiatrists and primary care physicians can use electronic medication monitoring and blood glucose monitoring. Recently, Apple released apps that the company said will make it easy for patients with those devices^8, but the old glucometer and pharmacy follow-up for prescriptions also can be useful. Medication (bottle cap) monitors can be expensive and may not be practical for some patients.

A prospective study of 2,525 patients showed that those with depression and metabolic risk factors were more than six times more likely to develop diabetes than patients who had depression alone, metabolic risk factors alone, or neither. These results allow for gross sorting out of which people with depression are more likely to develop diabetes.⁹This can provide an opportunity to intervene before diabetes sets in – and would have saved the toe of the patient I described earlier.

At the cellular level, at least in mice, it appears that insulin resistance in the brain alters dopamine turnover and causes behavioral disorders that look like anxiety and depression.¹⁰Mice with a brain-specific knockout of the insulin receptor showed “mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative distress in the dorsal striatum and the nucleus accumbens. Increased levels of MAO A and B leading to increased turnover of dopamine in the mesolimbic system were also observed.”

The depression in these mice was relieved with the use of imipramine and phenelzine, and the researchers also noted that previous research had shown a decrease in depressive-like behavior with the insulin sensitizer rosiglitazone, which reduces glucose in the brain when given to obese, diabetic mice. Certainly, further research is necessary, as is research in humans. But this demonstrates what might be happening to our patients who have metabolic syndrome or diabetes and depression, and may offer suggestions for appropriate treatments.

“If you see something, say something.”

In short, early effective intervention in the metabolic/prediabetes state is best. Taking weights and heights, calculating BMIs, and either measuring or observing waist circumference, can give us a hunch that metabolic syndrome exists. We do our patients a favor if we mention this – and enlist their curiosity and efforts in avoiding or mitigating the ravages of diabetes and worsening depression.

Dr. Harris, a diplomate of the American Board of Obesity Medicine, is in private practice and adult and geriatric psychiatry in Hartford, Conn. She also works as a psychiatric consultant to continuing care retirement organizations and professional groups. Dr. Harris, a former president of the Black Psychiatrists of America, is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association. Besides psychotherapy, her major clinical interests include geriatrics, and the interface between general medicine and psychiatry.

References

1. U.S. Medicine, November 2009.

2. Science Daily, March 29, 2014.

3. Science Daily, Jan. 27, 2016.

4. Science Daily, Jan. 18, 2012.

5. “Diabetes Facts and Guidelines,” Yale Diabetes Center, 2011.

6. Ann Fam Med. 2012 Jan-Feb;10(1):15-22.

7. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(3):625-33.

8. Macworld, May 10, 2016.

9. Mol Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 23. doi: 10:1038/mp 2016.7.

10. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014 Mar 17;112(11):3463-8.

“You’re wearing an Unna boot – what happened?”

“Doc, my wife made too many tempting desserts while we were in Florida, and when we got back, I had an infected toe. My doctor gave me antibiotics, but the toe turned blue, so they had to amputate.”

I had been treating this man for depression for many years and did not know about his having diabetes, so I asked, “Are you diabetic?”

“No,” he answered. “My doctor says I’ve been prediabetic for 20 years, and he’s put me on a low dose of metformin. … My friends are on twice as much. I don’t even have to have one of those meters.

“I can just go to the senior center or stop by my doctor’s office once a week and have my sugar checked. My wife says she won’t tempt me with any more desserts; she’s buying fruit, which I’m not used to, and I’m not eating bread anymore.

“Hey, those pills you’re giving me for my depression are working great. I am eating and sleeping and doing things I love to do. The wife and I are getting over the kids’ divorces, and we are still able to help out with the grandchild, who has been so sick. When we got back home, I tried to get back with my poker buddies, but one of them is in cardiac rehab; he had a heart attack, and another one, his wife says he’s got Alzheimer’s – he did lose a lot last year and that wasn’t like him. … Yeah, I guess I’m OK. As soon as this toe heals, I’ll be 100%.”

This dialogue is a composite; the names have been changed to protect the innocent, but unfortunately, it is an oft-told tale. The relationship between diabetes and depression has been known for a long time.¹Each one is a risk factor for the other, and together and separately, they are a risk factor for dementia.

For quite a while, it was thought that having a diabetes diagnosis and having to manage it in and of itself was depressing, and that therefore, people would become depressed. It was also thought that people who are depressed might try to soothe themselves with copious amounts of comfort food and alcohol, and would thereby develop diabetes. Certainly, many people’s routes to depression and diabetes are just that – psychological reactions to having the other disease. But research shows that there is a much deeper physiologic relationship between the two.

Since diabetes and depression or their sequelae are among the 14 leading causes of death in the United States, psychiatrists and other medical professionals need to collaborate in the treatment of these diseases in their patients. Medical homes are good, but most patients continue to receive treatment for all disorders separately and in isolation. If it were not for the medical professional asking directly, or discovering some medication after the patient has given permission for an electronic medication prescribing overview of all his medications, treatment for diabetes or depression might be unknown by the other medical professional. Our noncommunicative EHRs will not help here. The only thing that will help is open communication between the patient and all of his medical treaters.

Now that I am educated and alarmed about the diabetes-depression connection, I send a note to the primary care physician and follow up with a few articles from Science Daily such as “Depression, early death among seniors with diabetes: Strong link found by research,”² or “Treating major depression in older adults with diabetes may lower risk of death”^3, or the clincher, “Treatment for diabetes and depression improves both, researchers say.”⁴

For patients with type 2 diabetes, the form of the illness usually referred to in research on diabetes and depression, the body becomes insensitive to insulin, i.e., insulin resistance develops. We now know that insulin resistance occurs throughout the body, including the brain. Insulin receptors are present in all organs of the body, including the brain. We also know that the higher fasting glucose level seen in prediabetes is an indication of the development of insulin resistance. Insulin’s job is to get glucose into cells for ready availability of energy and into muscle for backup energy.

If glucose is too plentiful, as it is when sugary foods are overconsumed, insulin directs the rest of the glucose to be stored as fat in the liver, inside blood vessels, around organs, and subcutaneously. Ultimately, there is nowhere else to store the excess energy, and insulin resistance develops. The pancreas, which secretes insulin, keeps on pumping insulin and can poop out, requiring exogenous insulin to keep things moving.⁵Treatments can include insulin itself, medications that increase insulin sensitivity, diet, and exercise to deplete the energy stores, or bariatric surgery, which, by the way, is said to cure both diabetes and depression within 3 weeks after surgery (this effect is negated if patients regain their weight.)

What the research shows

Clinical research from the University of Pennsylvania⁶ and Massachusetts General Hospital⁷shows that having a third, nonphysician treater work with patients diagnosed with both disorders improves outcomes. Both of those protocols used cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and motivational interviewing, group treatment, and telephone contact as modalities. One also used electronic monitoring of medication dosing and the record of the glucometer to follow patients’ progress.

In both studies, patients in the protocol groups did better than the treatment-as-usual groups in terms of relief of depression and control of diabetes. In the private primary care physician and psychiatrist office setting, a third party is not practical, but psychiatrists can add motivational interviewing and some aspects of CBT. Also, both psychiatrists and primary care physicians can use electronic medication monitoring and blood glucose monitoring. Recently, Apple released apps that the company said will make it easy for patients with those devices^8, but the old glucometer and pharmacy follow-up for prescriptions also can be useful. Medication (bottle cap) monitors can be expensive and may not be practical for some patients.

A prospective study of 2,525 patients showed that those with depression and metabolic risk factors were more than six times more likely to develop diabetes than patients who had depression alone, metabolic risk factors alone, or neither. These results allow for gross sorting out of which people with depression are more likely to develop diabetes.⁹This can provide an opportunity to intervene before diabetes sets in – and would have saved the toe of the patient I described earlier.

At the cellular level, at least in mice, it appears that insulin resistance in the brain alters dopamine turnover and causes behavioral disorders that look like anxiety and depression.¹⁰Mice with a brain-specific knockout of the insulin receptor showed “mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative distress in the dorsal striatum and the nucleus accumbens. Increased levels of MAO A and B leading to increased turnover of dopamine in the mesolimbic system were also observed.”

The depression in these mice was relieved with the use of imipramine and phenelzine, and the researchers also noted that previous research had shown a decrease in depressive-like behavior with the insulin sensitizer rosiglitazone, which reduces glucose in the brain when given to obese, diabetic mice. Certainly, further research is necessary, as is research in humans. But this demonstrates what might be happening to our patients who have metabolic syndrome or diabetes and depression, and may offer suggestions for appropriate treatments.

“If you see something, say something.”

In short, early effective intervention in the metabolic/prediabetes state is best. Taking weights and heights, calculating BMIs, and either measuring or observing waist circumference, can give us a hunch that metabolic syndrome exists. We do our patients a favor if we mention this – and enlist their curiosity and efforts in avoiding or mitigating the ravages of diabetes and worsening depression.

Dr. Harris, a diplomate of the American Board of Obesity Medicine, is in private practice and adult and geriatric psychiatry in Hartford, Conn. She also works as a psychiatric consultant to continuing care retirement organizations and professional groups. Dr. Harris, a former president of the Black Psychiatrists of America, is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association. Besides psychotherapy, her major clinical interests include geriatrics, and the interface between general medicine and psychiatry.

References

1. U.S. Medicine, November 2009.

2. Science Daily, March 29, 2014.

3. Science Daily, Jan. 27, 2016.

4. Science Daily, Jan. 18, 2012.

5. “Diabetes Facts and Guidelines,” Yale Diabetes Center, 2011.

6. Ann Fam Med. 2012 Jan-Feb;10(1):15-22.

7. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(3):625-33.

8. Macworld, May 10, 2016.

9. Mol Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 23. doi: 10:1038/mp 2016.7.

10. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014 Mar 17;112(11):3463-8.

“You’re wearing an Unna boot – what happened?”

“Doc, my wife made too many tempting desserts while we were in Florida, and when we got back, I had an infected toe. My doctor gave me antibiotics, but the toe turned blue, so they had to amputate.”

I had been treating this man for depression for many years and did not know about his having diabetes, so I asked, “Are you diabetic?”

“No,” he answered. “My doctor says I’ve been prediabetic for 20 years, and he’s put me on a low dose of metformin. … My friends are on twice as much. I don’t even have to have one of those meters.

“I can just go to the senior center or stop by my doctor’s office once a week and have my sugar checked. My wife says she won’t tempt me with any more desserts; she’s buying fruit, which I’m not used to, and I’m not eating bread anymore.

“Hey, those pills you’re giving me for my depression are working great. I am eating and sleeping and doing things I love to do. The wife and I are getting over the kids’ divorces, and we are still able to help out with the grandchild, who has been so sick. When we got back home, I tried to get back with my poker buddies, but one of them is in cardiac rehab; he had a heart attack, and another one, his wife says he’s got Alzheimer’s – he did lose a lot last year and that wasn’t like him. … Yeah, I guess I’m OK. As soon as this toe heals, I’ll be 100%.”

This dialogue is a composite; the names have been changed to protect the innocent, but unfortunately, it is an oft-told tale. The relationship between diabetes and depression has been known for a long time.¹Each one is a risk factor for the other, and together and separately, they are a risk factor for dementia.

For quite a while, it was thought that having a diabetes diagnosis and having to manage it in and of itself was depressing, and that therefore, people would become depressed. It was also thought that people who are depressed might try to soothe themselves with copious amounts of comfort food and alcohol, and would thereby develop diabetes. Certainly, many people’s routes to depression and diabetes are just that – psychological reactions to having the other disease. But research shows that there is a much deeper physiologic relationship between the two.

Since diabetes and depression or their sequelae are among the 14 leading causes of death in the United States, psychiatrists and other medical professionals need to collaborate in the treatment of these diseases in their patients. Medical homes are good, but most patients continue to receive treatment for all disorders separately and in isolation. If it were not for the medical professional asking directly, or discovering some medication after the patient has given permission for an electronic medication prescribing overview of all his medications, treatment for diabetes or depression might be unknown by the other medical professional. Our noncommunicative EHRs will not help here. The only thing that will help is open communication between the patient and all of his medical treaters.

Now that I am educated and alarmed about the diabetes-depression connection, I send a note to the primary care physician and follow up with a few articles from Science Daily such as “Depression, early death among seniors with diabetes: Strong link found by research,”² or “Treating major depression in older adults with diabetes may lower risk of death”^3, or the clincher, “Treatment for diabetes and depression improves both, researchers say.”⁴

For patients with type 2 diabetes, the form of the illness usually referred to in research on diabetes and depression, the body becomes insensitive to insulin, i.e., insulin resistance develops. We now know that insulin resistance occurs throughout the body, including the brain. Insulin receptors are present in all organs of the body, including the brain. We also know that the higher fasting glucose level seen in prediabetes is an indication of the development of insulin resistance. Insulin’s job is to get glucose into cells for ready availability of energy and into muscle for backup energy.

If glucose is too plentiful, as it is when sugary foods are overconsumed, insulin directs the rest of the glucose to be stored as fat in the liver, inside blood vessels, around organs, and subcutaneously. Ultimately, there is nowhere else to store the excess energy, and insulin resistance develops. The pancreas, which secretes insulin, keeps on pumping insulin and can poop out, requiring exogenous insulin to keep things moving.⁵Treatments can include insulin itself, medications that increase insulin sensitivity, diet, and exercise to deplete the energy stores, or bariatric surgery, which, by the way, is said to cure both diabetes and depression within 3 weeks after surgery (this effect is negated if patients regain their weight.)

What the research shows

Clinical research from the University of Pennsylvania⁶ and Massachusetts General Hospital⁷shows that having a third, nonphysician treater work with patients diagnosed with both disorders improves outcomes. Both of those protocols used cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and motivational interviewing, group treatment, and telephone contact as modalities. One also used electronic monitoring of medication dosing and the record of the glucometer to follow patients’ progress.

In both studies, patients in the protocol groups did better than the treatment-as-usual groups in terms of relief of depression and control of diabetes. In the private primary care physician and psychiatrist office setting, a third party is not practical, but psychiatrists can add motivational interviewing and some aspects of CBT. Also, both psychiatrists and primary care physicians can use electronic medication monitoring and blood glucose monitoring. Recently, Apple released apps that the company said will make it easy for patients with those devices^8, but the old glucometer and pharmacy follow-up for prescriptions also can be useful. Medication (bottle cap) monitors can be expensive and may not be practical for some patients.

A prospective study of 2,525 patients showed that those with depression and metabolic risk factors were more than six times more likely to develop diabetes than patients who had depression alone, metabolic risk factors alone, or neither. These results allow for gross sorting out of which people with depression are more likely to develop diabetes.⁹This can provide an opportunity to intervene before diabetes sets in – and would have saved the toe of the patient I described earlier.

At the cellular level, at least in mice, it appears that insulin resistance in the brain alters dopamine turnover and causes behavioral disorders that look like anxiety and depression.¹⁰Mice with a brain-specific knockout of the insulin receptor showed “mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative distress in the dorsal striatum and the nucleus accumbens. Increased levels of MAO A and B leading to increased turnover of dopamine in the mesolimbic system were also observed.”

The depression in these mice was relieved with the use of imipramine and phenelzine, and the researchers also noted that previous research had shown a decrease in depressive-like behavior with the insulin sensitizer rosiglitazone, which reduces glucose in the brain when given to obese, diabetic mice. Certainly, further research is necessary, as is research in humans. But this demonstrates what might be happening to our patients who have metabolic syndrome or diabetes and depression, and may offer suggestions for appropriate treatments.

“If you see something, say something.”

In short, early effective intervention in the metabolic/prediabetes state is best. Taking weights and heights, calculating BMIs, and either measuring or observing waist circumference, can give us a hunch that metabolic syndrome exists. We do our patients a favor if we mention this – and enlist their curiosity and efforts in avoiding or mitigating the ravages of diabetes and worsening depression.

Dr. Harris, a diplomate of the American Board of Obesity Medicine, is in private practice and adult and geriatric psychiatry in Hartford, Conn. She also works as a psychiatric consultant to continuing care retirement organizations and professional groups. Dr. Harris, a former president of the Black Psychiatrists of America, is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association. Besides psychotherapy, her major clinical interests include geriatrics, and the interface between general medicine and psychiatry.

References

1. U.S. Medicine, November 2009.

2. Science Daily, March 29, 2014.

3. Science Daily, Jan. 27, 2016.

4. Science Daily, Jan. 18, 2012.

5. “Diabetes Facts and Guidelines,” Yale Diabetes Center, 2011.

6. Ann Fam Med. 2012 Jan-Feb;10(1):15-22.

7. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(3):625-33.

8. Macworld, May 10, 2016.

9. Mol Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 23. doi: 10:1038/mp 2016.7.

10. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014 Mar 17;112(11):3463-8.

Over the past 50 years, there has been explosive change in gynecologic surgery. Ob.Gyn. News has been at the forefront of capturing and chronicling this paradigm shift in the treatment of the female patient.

Our beginnings

From antiquity, physicians and surgeons have struggled with pelvic prolapse, uterine fibroids, ovarian cysts, urinary incontinence, vesicovaginal fistulas, pelvic pain, and abnormal uterine bleeding. At the time of the first edition of Ob.Gyn. News, it had been less than a century since Thomas Edison invented the light bulb; just over 50 years since Hans Christian Jacobaeus first created air pneumoperitoneum using a trocar, followed by the Nitze cystoscope; about 40 years since Richard Zollikofer created a carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum; 25 years since F.H. Powers and A.C. Barnes had first described laparoscopic tubal sterilization by cautery; and about 20 years since Raoul Palmer, considered the father of modern laparoscopy, had first described the technique – left upper quadrant entry, testing insufflation, Trendelenburg positioning, and simple laparoscopic instrumentation.

Courtesy Robyn Sheldon, Edward-Elmhurst Health

In the 1950s, Hans Frangenheim would bring monopolar electrosurgery to laparoscopy and Harold Hopkins would introduce fiber optics. It was not until 1967 that Patrick Steptoe would publish the first textbook on laparoscopy in the English language.

Although usage as a diagnostic tool and a method of sterilization increased popularity of laparoscopy in the 1960s and early 1970s, there were few advances. In fact, a review of early editions of Ob.Gyn. News during that time period shows that the majority of articles involving laparoscopy dealt with sterilization; including the introduction of clips for tubal sterilization by Jaroslav Hulka in 1972. This did not deter the efforts of Jordan Phillips, who along with Jacques Rioux, Louis Keith, Richard Soderstrom – four early laparoscopists – incorporated a new society, the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (the AAGL) in 1971.

Simultaneously, in 1979, James Daniell in the United States, Maurice Bruhart in France, and Yona Tadir in Israel were promoting efforts to couple the carbon dioxide laser to the laparoscope to treat pelvic adhesions and endometriosis. Later on, fiber lasers, KTP, Nd:YAG, and Argon lasers would be utilized in our field. Still, only a few extirpative procedures were being performed via a laparoscope route. This included linear salpingostomy for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy, championed by Professor Bruhart and H. Manhes in Europe, and Alan DeCherney in the United States.

During the 1980s, laparoscopic surgery was at its innovative best. Through the pioneering efforts of Professor Kurt Semm and his protégée, Liselotte Mettler, the gynecologic laparoscopist was introduced to endoloops, simple suturing techniques, and mechanical morcellation techniques.

Procedures such as salpingo-oophorectomy, appendectomy, and myomectomy could now be performed via the laparoscope. Dr. Camran Nezhat coupled the carbon dioxide laser, the laparoscope, and the television monitor, coining the term laparoscopy. Most importantly, the laparoscopic surgeon was liberated; he or she could remain upright and perform surgery with both hands. Through the 1980s and 1990s, Dr. Nezhat, Dr. Harry Reich, and other innovators pushed the envelope in increasing the ability to extirpate endometriosis, excise severe pelvic adhesions, and perform discoid and segmental bowel resection.

The day the earth stood still

Every gynecologic laparoscopic surgeon should remember Jan. 26, 1988, as that was the date that Dr. Harry Reich performed the first total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Now, little more than 25 years later, in many parts of the country, a laparoscopic approach to hysterectomy is indeed the most common route. Over the years, with the evolution of instrumentation, including new energy systems (ultrasonic, advanced bipolar) and the introduction of barbed sutures, hysterectomy can now be performed via minilaparoscopy, single-site laparoscopy, robot-assisted, and robotic single site, all of which have been featured in the Ob.Gyn. News’ Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.

But hysteroscopy came first

Abulkasim utilized a mirror to reflect light into the vaginal vault in 1,000 A.D. In 1806, Philipp Bozzini originated the idea of illuminating body cavities by an external light source. Through a system of mirrors and tubes, candlelight could be reflected into the body. In 1869, D.C. Pantaleoni used a cystoscope developed by Antoine Desormeaux – who has been called the father of endoscopy – to treat endometrial polyps with silver nitrate.

Through the 50 years of Ob.Gyn. News and over the past 12 years of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, our community has been consistently updated as to advances in hysteroscopy, not only to enhance treatment efficacy, but safety as well. This has included such advances as the continuous flow hysteroscope, the Hamou contact hysteroscope, and fluid management systems to enhance visualization.

In 1978, Robert Neuwirth introduced loops to perform hysteroscopic myomectomy. The loop resectoscope was quickly followed by the rollerball to perform endometrial ablation. In the late 1990s, hysteroscopic bipolar cutting loops were introduced. This enabled use of ionic distension media saline, instead of nonionic media, thus decreasing risks related to hyponatremia.

In 2003, Mark Emanuel introduced hysteroscopic morcellation systems, which enabled more gynecologists to perform operative hysteroscopy safely. Resected tissue is removed immediately to allow superior visualization. The flexible hysteroscope coupled with vaginoscopy has enabled hysteroscopy to be done with minimal to no anesthesia in an in-office setting.

With advances in hysteroscopy over the past 35 years, hysteroscopic procedures such as polypectomy, myomectomy, lysis of adhesions, transection of endometriosis, evacuation of retained products of conception, and endometrial ablation/resection have become routine.

And now, the controversy

Since its inception, laparoscopic surgery has not been without controversy. In 1933, Karl Fervers described explosion and flashes of light from a combination of high frequency electric current and oxygen distension gas while performing laparoscopic adhesiolysis with the coagulation probe of the ureterocystoscope.

In the early 1970s, Professor Kurt Semm’s pioneering effort was not rewarded by his department, in Kiel, Germany, which instead recommended he schedule a brain scan and psychological testing.

Courtesy Dr. Christopher Sutton

Nearly 20 years later, in a 1992 edition of Current Science, Professor Semm, along with Alan DeCherney, stated that “over 80% of gynecological operations can now be performed by laparoscopy.” Shortly thereafter, however, Dr. Roy Pitkin, who at the time was president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, wrote an editorial in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology – “Operative Laparoscopy: Surgical Advance or Technical Gimmick?” (Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Mar;79[3]:441-2).

Fortunately, 18 years later, with the continued advances in laparoscopic surgery making it less expensive, safer, and more accessible, Dr. Pitkin did retract his statement (Obstet Gynecol. 2010 May;115[5]:890-1).

Currently, the gynecologic community is embroiled in controversies involving the use of the robot to assist in the performance of laparoscopic surgery, the incorporation of synthetic mesh to enhance urogynecologic procedures, the placement of Essure micro-inserts to occlude fallopian tubes, and the use of electronic power morcellation at time of laparoscopic or robot-assisted hysterectomy, myomectomy, or sacrocolpopexy.

After reading the 2013 article by Dr. Jason Wright, published in JAMA, comparing laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotic hysterectomy, no one can deny that the rise in a minimally invasive route to hysterectomy has coincided with the advent of the robot (JAMA. 2013 Feb 20;309[7]:689-98). On the other hand, many detractors, including Dr. James Breeden (past ACOG president 2012-2013), find the higher cost of robotic surgery very problematic. In fact, many of these detractors cite the paucity of data showing a significant advantage to use of robotics.

While certainly cost, more than ever, must be a major consideration, remember that during the 1990s, there were multiple articles in Ob.Gyn. News raising concerns about the cost of laparoscopic hysterectomy. Interestingly, studies over the past decade by Warren and Jonsdottir show a cost savings when hysterectomy is done laparoscopically as opposed to its being done by laparotomy. Thus, it certainly can be anticipated that with more physician experience, improved instrumentation, and robotic industry competition, the overall cost will become more comparable to a laparoscopic route.

In 1995, Ulf Ulmsten first described the use of tension-free tape (TVT) to treat stress urinary incontinence. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of the TVT sling in the United States. Since then, transobturator tension-free vaginal tape (TVT-O) and single incision mini-slings have been introduced. All of these techniques have been shown to be successful and have been well adapted into the armamentarium of physicians treating stress urinary incontinence.

With the success of synthetic mesh for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence, its use was extended to pelvic prolapse. In 2002, the first mesh device with indications for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse was approved by the FDA. While the erosion rate utilizing synthetic mesh for stress urinary incontinence has been noted to be 2%, rates up to 8.3% have been noted in patients treated for pelvic prolapse.

In 2008, the FDA issued a warning regarding the use of mesh for prolapse and incontinence repair secondary to the sequelae of mesh erosion. Subsequently, in 2011, the concern was limited to vaginal mesh to correct pelvic organ prolapse. Finally, on Jan. 4, 2016, the FDA issued an order to reclassify surgical mesh to repair pelvic organ prolapse from class II, which includes moderate-risk devices, to class III, which includes high-risk devices. Moreover, the FDA issued a second order to manufacturers to submit a premarket approval application to support the safety and effectiveness of synthetic mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse.

Courtesy Bayer

Essure micro-inserts for permanent birth control received initial approval from the FDA in November 2002. Despite the fact that Essure can be easily placed, is highly effective, and has seemingly low complication rates, concerns have been raised by the Facebook group “Essure Problems” and Erin Brockovich, the focus of the 2000 biographical film starring Julia Roberts.

After more than 5,000 women filed grievances with the FDA between November 2002 and May 2015, based on unintended pregnancies, miscarriages, stillbirths, severe pain, and bleeding, the FDA announced in 2016 that it would require a boxed warning label for Essure. The FDA also called upon Bayer, which makes and markets Essure, to conduct surveillance to assess “risks of the device in a real-world environment.” The agency stated it will use the results to “determine what, if any, further actions related to Essure are needed to protect public health.”

While Jan. 26, 1988, is a very special date in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery, April 17, 2014, is a day of infamy for the gynecologic laparoscopist. For on this day, the FDA announced a warning regarding electronic power morcellation. Many hospitals and hospital systems throughout the country issued bans on electronic power morcellation, leading to needless open laparotomy procedures and thus, introducing prolonged recovery times and increased risk.

At a time when the recent introduction of barbed suture had made both closure of the vaginal cuff at time of hysterectomy and repair of the hysterotomy at myomectomy easier and faster, the gynecologic laparoscopist was taking a step backward. The FDA based this decision and a subsequent boxed warning – issued in November 2014 – on a small number of studies showing potential upstaging of leiomyosarcoma post electronic power morcellation. Interestingly, many of the morcellation procedures cited did not use power morcellation. Furthermore, a more comprehensive meta-analysis by Elizabeth A. Pritts and colleagues, showed a far lower risk than suggested by the FDA (Gynecol Surg. 2015;12[3]:165-77).

Recently, an article by William Parker and colleagues recommended that the FDA reverse its position (Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;127[1]:18-22). Many believe that ultimately, the solution will be morcellation in a containment bag, which I and my colleagues have been performing in virtually every power morcellation procedure since May 2014. During this current power morcellation controversy, the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery has continued to update its readers with three different articles related to the subject.

And in conclusion

Without a doubt, the past 50 years of gynecologic surgery has been a time of unparalleled innovation with occasional controversy thrown in. Ob.Gyn. News and more recently, the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, has had a major leadership role in bringing this profound ingenuity to the gynecology community by introducing this explosion of surgical creativity to its readers.

And what will the next 50 years bring? I believe we will continue to see tremendous advancements in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. There will be a definite impact of costs on the marketplace. Thus, many of the minor minimally invasive procedures currently performed in the hospital or surgery center will be brought into office settings. In addition, secondary to reimbursement, the more complex cases will be carried out by fewer gynecologic surgeons who have undergone more intense training in pelvic surgery and who can perform these cases more efficiently and with fewer complications. Our ability to perform surgery and what type of procedures we do will not only be based on randomized, controlled trials, but big data collection as well.

Dr. Miller is clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and past president of the AAGL and the International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (ISGE). He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in private practice in Naperville and Schaumburg, Ill.; director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery and the director of the AAGL/Society of Reproductive Surgery fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill.; and the medical editor of this column, Master Class. Dr. Miller is a consultant and is on the speakers bureau for Ethicon.

Over the past 50 years, there has been explosive change in gynecologic surgery. Ob.Gyn. News has been at the forefront of capturing and chronicling this paradigm shift in the treatment of the female patient.

Our beginnings

From antiquity, physicians and surgeons have struggled with pelvic prolapse, uterine fibroids, ovarian cysts, urinary incontinence, vesicovaginal fistulas, pelvic pain, and abnormal uterine bleeding. At the time of the first edition of Ob.Gyn. News, it had been less than a century since Thomas Edison invented the light bulb; just over 50 years since Hans Christian Jacobaeus first created air pneumoperitoneum using a trocar, followed by the Nitze cystoscope; about 40 years since Richard Zollikofer created a carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum; 25 years since F.H. Powers and A.C. Barnes had first described laparoscopic tubal sterilization by cautery; and about 20 years since Raoul Palmer, considered the father of modern laparoscopy, had first described the technique – left upper quadrant entry, testing insufflation, Trendelenburg positioning, and simple laparoscopic instrumentation.

Courtesy Robyn Sheldon, Edward-Elmhurst Health

In the 1950s, Hans Frangenheim would bring monopolar electrosurgery to laparoscopy and Harold Hopkins would introduce fiber optics. It was not until 1967 that Patrick Steptoe would publish the first textbook on laparoscopy in the English language.

Although usage as a diagnostic tool and a method of sterilization increased popularity of laparoscopy in the 1960s and early 1970s, there were few advances. In fact, a review of early editions of Ob.Gyn. News during that time period shows that the majority of articles involving laparoscopy dealt with sterilization; including the introduction of clips for tubal sterilization by Jaroslav Hulka in 1972. This did not deter the efforts of Jordan Phillips, who along with Jacques Rioux, Louis Keith, Richard Soderstrom – four early laparoscopists – incorporated a new society, the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (the AAGL) in 1971.

Simultaneously, in 1979, James Daniell in the United States, Maurice Bruhart in France, and Yona Tadir in Israel were promoting efforts to couple the carbon dioxide laser to the laparoscope to treat pelvic adhesions and endometriosis. Later on, fiber lasers, KTP, Nd:YAG, and Argon lasers would be utilized in our field. Still, only a few extirpative procedures were being performed via a laparoscope route. This included linear salpingostomy for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy, championed by Professor Bruhart and H. Manhes in Europe, and Alan DeCherney in the United States.

During the 1980s, laparoscopic surgery was at its innovative best. Through the pioneering efforts of Professor Kurt Semm and his protégée, Liselotte Mettler, the gynecologic laparoscopist was introduced to endoloops, simple suturing techniques, and mechanical morcellation techniques.

Procedures such as salpingo-oophorectomy, appendectomy, and myomectomy could now be performed via the laparoscope. Dr. Camran Nezhat coupled the carbon dioxide laser, the laparoscope, and the television monitor, coining the term laparoscopy. Most importantly, the laparoscopic surgeon was liberated; he or she could remain upright and perform surgery with both hands. Through the 1980s and 1990s, Dr. Nezhat, Dr. Harry Reich, and other innovators pushed the envelope in increasing the ability to extirpate endometriosis, excise severe pelvic adhesions, and perform discoid and segmental bowel resection.

The day the earth stood still

Every gynecologic laparoscopic surgeon should remember Jan. 26, 1988, as that was the date that Dr. Harry Reich performed the first total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Now, little more than 25 years later, in many parts of the country, a laparoscopic approach to hysterectomy is indeed the most common route. Over the years, with the evolution of instrumentation, including new energy systems (ultrasonic, advanced bipolar) and the introduction of barbed sutures, hysterectomy can now be performed via minilaparoscopy, single-site laparoscopy, robot-assisted, and robotic single site, all of which have been featured in the Ob.Gyn. News’ Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.

But hysteroscopy came first

Abulkasim utilized a mirror to reflect light into the vaginal vault in 1,000 A.D. In 1806, Philipp Bozzini originated the idea of illuminating body cavities by an external light source. Through a system of mirrors and tubes, candlelight could be reflected into the body. In 1869, D.C. Pantaleoni used a cystoscope developed by Antoine Desormeaux – who has been called the father of endoscopy – to treat endometrial polyps with silver nitrate.

Through the 50 years of Ob.Gyn. News and over the past 12 years of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, our community has been consistently updated as to advances in hysteroscopy, not only to enhance treatment efficacy, but safety as well. This has included such advances as the continuous flow hysteroscope, the Hamou contact hysteroscope, and fluid management systems to enhance visualization.

In 1978, Robert Neuwirth introduced loops to perform hysteroscopic myomectomy. The loop resectoscope was quickly followed by the rollerball to perform endometrial ablation. In the late 1990s, hysteroscopic bipolar cutting loops were introduced. This enabled use of ionic distension media saline, instead of nonionic media, thus decreasing risks related to hyponatremia.

In 2003, Mark Emanuel introduced hysteroscopic morcellation systems, which enabled more gynecologists to perform operative hysteroscopy safely. Resected tissue is removed immediately to allow superior visualization. The flexible hysteroscope coupled with vaginoscopy has enabled hysteroscopy to be done with minimal to no anesthesia in an in-office setting.

With advances in hysteroscopy over the past 35 years, hysteroscopic procedures such as polypectomy, myomectomy, lysis of adhesions, transection of endometriosis, evacuation of retained products of conception, and endometrial ablation/resection have become routine.

And now, the controversy

Since its inception, laparoscopic surgery has not been without controversy. In 1933, Karl Fervers described explosion and flashes of light from a combination of high frequency electric current and oxygen distension gas while performing laparoscopic adhesiolysis with the coagulation probe of the ureterocystoscope.

In the early 1970s, Professor Kurt Semm’s pioneering effort was not rewarded by his department, in Kiel, Germany, which instead recommended he schedule a brain scan and psychological testing.

Courtesy Dr. Christopher Sutton

Nearly 20 years later, in a 1992 edition of Current Science, Professor Semm, along with Alan DeCherney, stated that “over 80% of gynecological operations can now be performed by laparoscopy.” Shortly thereafter, however, Dr. Roy Pitkin, who at the time was president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, wrote an editorial in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology – “Operative Laparoscopy: Surgical Advance or Technical Gimmick?” (Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Mar;79[3]:441-2).

Fortunately, 18 years later, with the continued advances in laparoscopic surgery making it less expensive, safer, and more accessible, Dr. Pitkin did retract his statement (Obstet Gynecol. 2010 May;115[5]:890-1).

Currently, the gynecologic community is embroiled in controversies involving the use of the robot to assist in the performance of laparoscopic surgery, the incorporation of synthetic mesh to enhance urogynecologic procedures, the placement of Essure micro-inserts to occlude fallopian tubes, and the use of electronic power morcellation at time of laparoscopic or robot-assisted hysterectomy, myomectomy, or sacrocolpopexy.

After reading the 2013 article by Dr. Jason Wright, published in JAMA, comparing laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotic hysterectomy, no one can deny that the rise in a minimally invasive route to hysterectomy has coincided with the advent of the robot (JAMA. 2013 Feb 20;309[7]:689-98). On the other hand, many detractors, including Dr. James Breeden (past ACOG president 2012-2013), find the higher cost of robotic surgery very problematic. In fact, many of these detractors cite the paucity of data showing a significant advantage to use of robotics.

While certainly cost, more than ever, must be a major consideration, remember that during the 1990s, there were multiple articles in Ob.Gyn. News raising concerns about the cost of laparoscopic hysterectomy. Interestingly, studies over the past decade by Warren and Jonsdottir show a cost savings when hysterectomy is done laparoscopically as opposed to its being done by laparotomy. Thus, it certainly can be anticipated that with more physician experience, improved instrumentation, and robotic industry competition, the overall cost will become more comparable to a laparoscopic route.

In 1995, Ulf Ulmsten first described the use of tension-free tape (TVT) to treat stress urinary incontinence. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of the TVT sling in the United States. Since then, transobturator tension-free vaginal tape (TVT-O) and single incision mini-slings have been introduced. All of these techniques have been shown to be successful and have been well adapted into the armamentarium of physicians treating stress urinary incontinence.

With the success of synthetic mesh for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence, its use was extended to pelvic prolapse. In 2002, the first mesh device with indications for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse was approved by the FDA. While the erosion rate utilizing synthetic mesh for stress urinary incontinence has been noted to be 2%, rates up to 8.3% have been noted in patients treated for pelvic prolapse.

In 2008, the FDA issued a warning regarding the use of mesh for prolapse and incontinence repair secondary to the sequelae of mesh erosion. Subsequently, in 2011, the concern was limited to vaginal mesh to correct pelvic organ prolapse. Finally, on Jan. 4, 2016, the FDA issued an order to reclassify surgical mesh to repair pelvic organ prolapse from class II, which includes moderate-risk devices, to class III, which includes high-risk devices. Moreover, the FDA issued a second order to manufacturers to submit a premarket approval application to support the safety and effectiveness of synthetic mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse.

Courtesy Bayer

Essure micro-inserts for permanent birth control received initial approval from the FDA in November 2002. Despite the fact that Essure can be easily placed, is highly effective, and has seemingly low complication rates, concerns have been raised by the Facebook group “Essure Problems” and Erin Brockovich, the focus of the 2000 biographical film starring Julia Roberts.

After more than 5,000 women filed grievances with the FDA between November 2002 and May 2015, based on unintended pregnancies, miscarriages, stillbirths, severe pain, and bleeding, the FDA announced in 2016 that it would require a boxed warning label for Essure. The FDA also called upon Bayer, which makes and markets Essure, to conduct surveillance to assess “risks of the device in a real-world environment.” The agency stated it will use the results to “determine what, if any, further actions related to Essure are needed to protect public health.”

While Jan. 26, 1988, is a very special date in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery, April 17, 2014, is a day of infamy for the gynecologic laparoscopist. For on this day, the FDA announced a warning regarding electronic power morcellation. Many hospitals and hospital systems throughout the country issued bans on electronic power morcellation, leading to needless open laparotomy procedures and thus, introducing prolonged recovery times and increased risk.

At a time when the recent introduction of barbed suture had made both closure of the vaginal cuff at time of hysterectomy and repair of the hysterotomy at myomectomy easier and faster, the gynecologic laparoscopist was taking a step backward. The FDA based this decision and a subsequent boxed warning – issued in November 2014 – on a small number of studies showing potential upstaging of leiomyosarcoma post electronic power morcellation. Interestingly, many of the morcellation procedures cited did not use power morcellation. Furthermore, a more comprehensive meta-analysis by Elizabeth A. Pritts and colleagues, showed a far lower risk than suggested by the FDA (Gynecol Surg. 2015;12[3]:165-77).

Recently, an article by William Parker and colleagues recommended that the FDA reverse its position (Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;127[1]:18-22). Many believe that ultimately, the solution will be morcellation in a containment bag, which I and my colleagues have been performing in virtually every power morcellation procedure since May 2014. During this current power morcellation controversy, the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery has continued to update its readers with three different articles related to the subject.

And in conclusion

Without a doubt, the past 50 years of gynecologic surgery has been a time of unparalleled innovation with occasional controversy thrown in. Ob.Gyn. News and more recently, the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, has had a major leadership role in bringing this profound ingenuity to the gynecology community by introducing this explosion of surgical creativity to its readers.

And what will the next 50 years bring? I believe we will continue to see tremendous advancements in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. There will be a definite impact of costs on the marketplace. Thus, many of the minor minimally invasive procedures currently performed in the hospital or surgery center will be brought into office settings. In addition, secondary to reimbursement, the more complex cases will be carried out by fewer gynecologic surgeons who have undergone more intense training in pelvic surgery and who can perform these cases more efficiently and with fewer complications. Our ability to perform surgery and what type of procedures we do will not only be based on randomized, controlled trials, but big data collection as well.

Dr. Miller is clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and past president of the AAGL and the International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (ISGE). He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in private practice in Naperville and Schaumburg, Ill.; director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery and the director of the AAGL/Society of Reproductive Surgery fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill.; and the medical editor of this column, Master Class. Dr. Miller is a consultant and is on the speakers bureau for Ethicon.

Over the past 50 years, there has been explosive change in gynecologic surgery. Ob.Gyn. News has been at the forefront of capturing and chronicling this paradigm shift in the treatment of the female patient.

Our beginnings

From antiquity, physicians and surgeons have struggled with pelvic prolapse, uterine fibroids, ovarian cysts, urinary incontinence, vesicovaginal fistulas, pelvic pain, and abnormal uterine bleeding. At the time of the first edition of Ob.Gyn. News, it had been less than a century since Thomas Edison invented the light bulb; just over 50 years since Hans Christian Jacobaeus first created air pneumoperitoneum using a trocar, followed by the Nitze cystoscope; about 40 years since Richard Zollikofer created a carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum; 25 years since F.H. Powers and A.C. Barnes had first described laparoscopic tubal sterilization by cautery; and about 20 years since Raoul Palmer, considered the father of modern laparoscopy, had first described the technique – left upper quadrant entry, testing insufflation, Trendelenburg positioning, and simple laparoscopic instrumentation.

Courtesy Robyn Sheldon, Edward-Elmhurst Health

In the 1950s, Hans Frangenheim would bring monopolar electrosurgery to laparoscopy and Harold Hopkins would introduce fiber optics. It was not until 1967 that Patrick Steptoe would publish the first textbook on laparoscopy in the English language.

Although usage as a diagnostic tool and a method of sterilization increased popularity of laparoscopy in the 1960s and early 1970s, there were few advances. In fact, a review of early editions of Ob.Gyn. News during that time period shows that the majority of articles involving laparoscopy dealt with sterilization; including the introduction of clips for tubal sterilization by Jaroslav Hulka in 1972. This did not deter the efforts of Jordan Phillips, who along with Jacques Rioux, Louis Keith, Richard Soderstrom – four early laparoscopists – incorporated a new society, the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (the AAGL) in 1971.

Simultaneously, in 1979, James Daniell in the United States, Maurice Bruhart in France, and Yona Tadir in Israel were promoting efforts to couple the carbon dioxide laser to the laparoscope to treat pelvic adhesions and endometriosis. Later on, fiber lasers, KTP, Nd:YAG, and Argon lasers would be utilized in our field. Still, only a few extirpative procedures were being performed via a laparoscope route. This included linear salpingostomy for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy, championed by Professor Bruhart and H. Manhes in Europe, and Alan DeCherney in the United States.

During the 1980s, laparoscopic surgery was at its innovative best. Through the pioneering efforts of Professor Kurt Semm and his protégée, Liselotte Mettler, the gynecologic laparoscopist was introduced to endoloops, simple suturing techniques, and mechanical morcellation techniques.

Procedures such as salpingo-oophorectomy, appendectomy, and myomectomy could now be performed via the laparoscope. Dr. Camran Nezhat coupled the carbon dioxide laser, the laparoscope, and the television monitor, coining the term laparoscopy. Most importantly, the laparoscopic surgeon was liberated; he or she could remain upright and perform surgery with both hands. Through the 1980s and 1990s, Dr. Nezhat, Dr. Harry Reich, and other innovators pushed the envelope in increasing the ability to extirpate endometriosis, excise severe pelvic adhesions, and perform discoid and segmental bowel resection.

The day the earth stood still

Every gynecologic laparoscopic surgeon should remember Jan. 26, 1988, as that was the date that Dr. Harry Reich performed the first total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Now, little more than 25 years later, in many parts of the country, a laparoscopic approach to hysterectomy is indeed the most common route. Over the years, with the evolution of instrumentation, including new energy systems (ultrasonic, advanced bipolar) and the introduction of barbed sutures, hysterectomy can now be performed via minilaparoscopy, single-site laparoscopy, robot-assisted, and robotic single site, all of which have been featured in the Ob.Gyn. News’ Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.

But hysteroscopy came first

Abulkasim utilized a mirror to reflect light into the vaginal vault in 1,000 A.D. In 1806, Philipp Bozzini originated the idea of illuminating body cavities by an external light source. Through a system of mirrors and tubes, candlelight could be reflected into the body. In 1869, D.C. Pantaleoni used a cystoscope developed by Antoine Desormeaux – who has been called the father of endoscopy – to treat endometrial polyps with silver nitrate.

Through the 50 years of Ob.Gyn. News and over the past 12 years of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, our community has been consistently updated as to advances in hysteroscopy, not only to enhance treatment efficacy, but safety as well. This has included such advances as the continuous flow hysteroscope, the Hamou contact hysteroscope, and fluid management systems to enhance visualization.

In 1978, Robert Neuwirth introduced loops to perform hysteroscopic myomectomy. The loop resectoscope was quickly followed by the rollerball to perform endometrial ablation. In the late 1990s, hysteroscopic bipolar cutting loops were introduced. This enabled use of ionic distension media saline, instead of nonionic media, thus decreasing risks related to hyponatremia.

In 2003, Mark Emanuel introduced hysteroscopic morcellation systems, which enabled more gynecologists to perform operative hysteroscopy safely. Resected tissue is removed immediately to allow superior visualization. The flexible hysteroscope coupled with vaginoscopy has enabled hysteroscopy to be done with minimal to no anesthesia in an in-office setting.

With advances in hysteroscopy over the past 35 years, hysteroscopic procedures such as polypectomy, myomectomy, lysis of adhesions, transection of endometriosis, evacuation of retained products of conception, and endometrial ablation/resection have become routine.

And now, the controversy

Since its inception, laparoscopic surgery has not been without controversy. In 1933, Karl Fervers described explosion and flashes of light from a combination of high frequency electric current and oxygen distension gas while performing laparoscopic adhesiolysis with the coagulation probe of the ureterocystoscope.

In the early 1970s, Professor Kurt Semm’s pioneering effort was not rewarded by his department, in Kiel, Germany, which instead recommended he schedule a brain scan and psychological testing.

Courtesy Dr. Christopher Sutton

Nearly 20 years later, in a 1992 edition of Current Science, Professor Semm, along with Alan DeCherney, stated that “over 80% of gynecological operations can now be performed by laparoscopy.” Shortly thereafter, however, Dr. Roy Pitkin, who at the time was president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, wrote an editorial in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology – “Operative Laparoscopy: Surgical Advance or Technical Gimmick?” (Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Mar;79[3]:441-2).

Fortunately, 18 years later, with the continued advances in laparoscopic surgery making it less expensive, safer, and more accessible, Dr. Pitkin did retract his statement (Obstet Gynecol. 2010 May;115[5]:890-1).

Currently, the gynecologic community is embroiled in controversies involving the use of the robot to assist in the performance of laparoscopic surgery, the incorporation of synthetic mesh to enhance urogynecologic procedures, the placement of Essure micro-inserts to occlude fallopian tubes, and the use of electronic power morcellation at time of laparoscopic or robot-assisted hysterectomy, myomectomy, or sacrocolpopexy.

After reading the 2013 article by Dr. Jason Wright, published in JAMA, comparing laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotic hysterectomy, no one can deny that the rise in a minimally invasive route to hysterectomy has coincided with the advent of the robot (JAMA. 2013 Feb 20;309[7]:689-98). On the other hand, many detractors, including Dr. James Breeden (past ACOG president 2012-2013), find the higher cost of robotic surgery very problematic. In fact, many of these detractors cite the paucity of data showing a significant advantage to use of robotics.

While certainly cost, more than ever, must be a major consideration, remember that during the 1990s, there were multiple articles in Ob.Gyn. News raising concerns about the cost of laparoscopic hysterectomy. Interestingly, studies over the past decade by Warren and Jonsdottir show a cost savings when hysterectomy is done laparoscopically as opposed to its being done by laparotomy. Thus, it certainly can be anticipated that with more physician experience, improved instrumentation, and robotic industry competition, the overall cost will become more comparable to a laparoscopic route.

In 1995, Ulf Ulmsten first described the use of tension-free tape (TVT) to treat stress urinary incontinence. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of the TVT sling in the United States. Since then, transobturator tension-free vaginal tape (TVT-O) and single incision mini-slings have been introduced. All of these techniques have been shown to be successful and have been well adapted into the armamentarium of physicians treating stress urinary incontinence.

With the success of synthetic mesh for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence, its use was extended to pelvic prolapse. In 2002, the first mesh device with indications for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse was approved by the FDA. While the erosion rate utilizing synthetic mesh for stress urinary incontinence has been noted to be 2%, rates up to 8.3% have been noted in patients treated for pelvic prolapse.

In 2008, the FDA issued a warning regarding the use of mesh for prolapse and incontinence repair secondary to the sequelae of mesh erosion. Subsequently, in 2011, the concern was limited to vaginal mesh to correct pelvic organ prolapse. Finally, on Jan. 4, 2016, the FDA issued an order to reclassify surgical mesh to repair pelvic organ prolapse from class II, which includes moderate-risk devices, to class III, which includes high-risk devices. Moreover, the FDA issued a second order to manufacturers to submit a premarket approval application to support the safety and effectiveness of synthetic mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse.

Courtesy Bayer

Essure micro-inserts for permanent birth control received initial approval from the FDA in November 2002. Despite the fact that Essure can be easily placed, is highly effective, and has seemingly low complication rates, concerns have been raised by the Facebook group “Essure Problems” and Erin Brockovich, the focus of the 2000 biographical film starring Julia Roberts.

After more than 5,000 women filed grievances with the FDA between November 2002 and May 2015, based on unintended pregnancies, miscarriages, stillbirths, severe pain, and bleeding, the FDA announced in 2016 that it would require a boxed warning label for Essure. The FDA also called upon Bayer, which makes and markets Essure, to conduct surveillance to assess “risks of the device in a real-world environment.” The agency stated it will use the results to “determine what, if any, further actions related to Essure are needed to protect public health.”

While Jan. 26, 1988, is a very special date in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery, April 17, 2014, is a day of infamy for the gynecologic laparoscopist. For on this day, the FDA announced a warning regarding electronic power morcellation. Many hospitals and hospital systems throughout the country issued bans on electronic power morcellation, leading to needless open laparotomy procedures and thus, introducing prolonged recovery times and increased risk.

At a time when the recent introduction of barbed suture had made both closure of the vaginal cuff at time of hysterectomy and repair of the hysterotomy at myomectomy easier and faster, the gynecologic laparoscopist was taking a step backward. The FDA based this decision and a subsequent boxed warning – issued in November 2014 – on a small number of studies showing potential upstaging of leiomyosarcoma post electronic power morcellation. Interestingly, many of the morcellation procedures cited did not use power morcellation. Furthermore, a more comprehensive meta-analysis by Elizabeth A. Pritts and colleagues, showed a far lower risk than suggested by the FDA (Gynecol Surg. 2015;12[3]:165-77).

Recently, an article by William Parker and colleagues recommended that the FDA reverse its position (Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;127[1]:18-22). Many believe that ultimately, the solution will be morcellation in a containment bag, which I and my colleagues have been performing in virtually every power morcellation procedure since May 2014. During this current power morcellation controversy, the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery has continued to update its readers with three different articles related to the subject.

And in conclusion

Without a doubt, the past 50 years of gynecologic surgery has been a time of unparalleled innovation with occasional controversy thrown in. Ob.Gyn. News and more recently, the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, has had a major leadership role in bringing this profound ingenuity to the gynecology community by introducing this explosion of surgical creativity to its readers.

And what will the next 50 years bring? I believe we will continue to see tremendous advancements in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. There will be a definite impact of costs on the marketplace. Thus, many of the minor minimally invasive procedures currently performed in the hospital or surgery center will be brought into office settings. In addition, secondary to reimbursement, the more complex cases will be carried out by fewer gynecologic surgeons who have undergone more intense training in pelvic surgery and who can perform these cases more efficiently and with fewer complications. Our ability to perform surgery and what type of procedures we do will not only be based on randomized, controlled trials, but big data collection as well.

Dr. Miller is clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and past president of the AAGL and the International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (ISGE). He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in private practice in Naperville and Schaumburg, Ill.; director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery and the director of the AAGL/Society of Reproductive Surgery fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill.; and the medical editor of this column, Master Class. Dr. Miller is a consultant and is on the speakers bureau for Ethicon.

In an article published online on January 26 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, my colleagues and I (Menge et al) reported on the use of reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) for challenging facial lesions. We studied the diagnosis of lentigo maligna (LM) based on RCM versus the histopathologic diagnosis after biopsy.

In this study 17 patients were seen for evaluation of known or suspected LM at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, New York). Among these patients, a total of 63 sites on the skin were evaluated using RCM and a presumptive diagnosis was made. These sites were then biopsied to compare the diagnosis using RCM with that made by histopathology. When LM was present as determined by biopsy, RCM also was able to detect it 100% of the time (sensitivity). When LM was absent as determined by biopsy, RCM also indicated it was absent 71% of the time (specificity).

What’s the issue?

Lentigo maligna is a form of melanoma in situ occurring on sun-damaged skin. It can be quite subtle to detect clinically and therefore may go undiagnosed for a while. Lentigo maligna also has been shown to have notable subclinical extension with which traditional surgical margins for truncal melanoma may be too narrow to clear LM on the head and neck. Therefore, presurgical consultation may be difficult due to the amorphous borders. Random blind biopsies also are discouraged because of sampling error.

Additionally, repetitive biopsies over time, which may be frequently needed in individuals with heavy sun exposure, can be costly and cause adverse effects.

This study showed the usefulness and reliability of using RCM for challenging facial lesions that are suspicious for LM. The sensitivity and specificity of RCM in this study indicated that this technology performs well in detecting LM when present; however, false-positives were noted in this study. False-positives included pigmented actinic keratosis and melanocytosis. Dermatologists who are advanced in RCM technology and interpretation also were utilized in this study. More research is needed to understand how to best utilize this technology, but overall the ability of RCM to accurately identify LM without biopsy represents an exciting new development in how dermatologists can better diagnose, manage, and treat melanoma.

How will you adopt advances in cutaneous noninvasive imaging?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

In an article published online on January 26 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, my colleagues and I (Menge et al) reported on the use of reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) for challenging facial lesions. We studied the diagnosis of lentigo maligna (LM) based on RCM versus the histopathologic diagnosis after biopsy.

In this study 17 patients were seen for evaluation of known or suspected LM at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, New York). Among these patients, a total of 63 sites on the skin were evaluated using RCM and a presumptive diagnosis was made. These sites were then biopsied to compare the diagnosis using RCM with that made by histopathology. When LM was present as determined by biopsy, RCM also was able to detect it 100% of the time (sensitivity). When LM was absent as determined by biopsy, RCM also indicated it was absent 71% of the time (specificity).

What’s the issue?

Lentigo maligna is a form of melanoma in situ occurring on sun-damaged skin. It can be quite subtle to detect clinically and therefore may go undiagnosed for a while. Lentigo maligna also has been shown to have notable subclinical extension with which traditional surgical margins for truncal melanoma may be too narrow to clear LM on the head and neck. Therefore, presurgical consultation may be difficult due to the amorphous borders. Random blind biopsies also are discouraged because of sampling error.

Additionally, repetitive biopsies over time, which may be frequently needed in individuals with heavy sun exposure, can be costly and cause adverse effects.

This study showed the usefulness and reliability of using RCM for challenging facial lesions that are suspicious for LM. The sensitivity and specificity of RCM in this study indicated that this technology performs well in detecting LM when present; however, false-positives were noted in this study. False-positives included pigmented actinic keratosis and melanocytosis. Dermatologists who are advanced in RCM technology and interpretation also were utilized in this study. More research is needed to understand how to best utilize this technology, but overall the ability of RCM to accurately identify LM without biopsy represents an exciting new development in how dermatologists can better diagnose, manage, and treat melanoma.

How will you adopt advances in cutaneous noninvasive imaging?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

In an article published online on January 26 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, my colleagues and I (Menge et al) reported on the use of reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) for challenging facial lesions. We studied the diagnosis of lentigo maligna (LM) based on RCM versus the histopathologic diagnosis after biopsy.

In this study 17 patients were seen for evaluation of known or suspected LM at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, New York). Among these patients, a total of 63 sites on the skin were evaluated using RCM and a presumptive diagnosis was made. These sites were then biopsied to compare the diagnosis using RCM with that made by histopathology. When LM was present as determined by biopsy, RCM also was able to detect it 100% of the time (sensitivity). When LM was absent as determined by biopsy, RCM also indicated it was absent 71% of the time (specificity).

What’s the issue?

Lentigo maligna is a form of melanoma in situ occurring on sun-damaged skin. It can be quite subtle to detect clinically and therefore may go undiagnosed for a while. Lentigo maligna also has been shown to have notable subclinical extension with which traditional surgical margins for truncal melanoma may be too narrow to clear LM on the head and neck. Therefore, presurgical consultation may be difficult due to the amorphous borders. Random blind biopsies also are discouraged because of sampling error.

Additionally, repetitive biopsies over time, which may be frequently needed in individuals with heavy sun exposure, can be costly and cause adverse effects.

This study showed the usefulness and reliability of using RCM for challenging facial lesions that are suspicious for LM. The sensitivity and specificity of RCM in this study indicated that this technology performs well in detecting LM when present; however, false-positives were noted in this study. False-positives included pigmented actinic keratosis and melanocytosis. Dermatologists who are advanced in RCM technology and interpretation also were utilized in this study. More research is needed to understand how to best utilize this technology, but overall the ability of RCM to accurately identify LM without biopsy represents an exciting new development in how dermatologists can better diagnose, manage, and treat melanoma.

How will you adopt advances in cutaneous noninvasive imaging?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

What if this increase had occurred in cardiovascular disease or cancer (both on the decline, in fact, thanks to the intense attention they receive)? I think there would have been a public outcry, followed by demands by Congress that the National Institutes of Health and the CDC address this catastrophic rise immediately. And billions of dollars would then be earmarked to prevent these 2 diseases. 

How sad that society has “forgotten” that mental illness has deadly consequences, often leading to suicide (42,773 deaths in 2014 alone²—the second most common cause among people age 15 to 25³)! Hundreds of thousands of people attempt suicide every year, and those who do not lose their life often end up injured or maimed. Millions who suffer depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, or a substance use disorder are at high risk of suicide, and many never receive the timely intervention that might save their life.

Our national blind spot
It is poignant that the CDC report was released in spring: The rate of suicide is highest in April and May, when the light-dark cycle is reversed. This springtime peak runs contrary to the common belief that the rate of suicide is highest during winter months. The Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association convenes in May, such that, ironically, thousands of psychiatrists are away from their office exactly when their patients might need them most

Lack of attention to the high risk of suicide among all ages and both sexes is emblematic of society’s inexplicable neglect of the needs of the mentally ill. That neglect is fueled, and exacerbated, by the destructive stigma attached to brain disorders that display psychiatric symptoms. As a neuropsychiatrist, I label this neglect societal anosognosia—the same as the lack of insight seen in patients with acute schizophrenia, who are unaware of how impaired they are and insist that they are not sick. (Anosognosia also occurs in stroke patients who deny that their limb is paralyzed and insist that all is well.)

Loss of insight can have serious consequences for patients who lose the ability to monitor and evaluate their physical and mental health. Just as patients with anosognosia think they do not need help, a society that fails to attend to the mental illness of its citizens endangers their overall health and welfare.

From neglect of mental illness many hazards arise
Tens of millions of Americans suffer from mental illness, according to the National Institute of Mental Health-sponsored Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study.⁴ The last thing these people can afford is societal anosognosia, which deprives them of necessary and timely access to psychiatric care.

Societal anosognosia is associated with numerous hazards for persons with mental illness, including:

• Lack of compassion, which is readily available for people with a medical ailment (broken bones, cardiovascular disease, cancer).
• Lack of adequate, affordable health insurance and financial support, compared with what is available for non-psychiatric disorders.
• Shortage of publicly funded programs and mental health practitioners to provide prevention and intervention for those who consider ending their life during an episode of depression, psychosis, stress, or a panic attack.
• Allowing the stigma to continue unabated. Why are there strict laws about hate crimes, but not about stigma? Why does society continue to portray depression and anxiety as a personal weakness or failure, while patients with Parkinson’s disease or multiple sclerosis who have motor weakness are not stigmatized for their physical deficits?
• Transforming the seriously mentally ill into felons by arresting and jailing them because of erratic behavior—instead of hospitalizing them for the medical care they need. The trans­institutionalization of the mentally ill—from state hospitals to prisons—is one of the most shameful consequences of societal anosognosia, burdening our patients with the dual stigma of being a criminal and mentally ill.
• Turning a blind eye to abuses by insurance companies. More appalling is the perpetuation of restricted health coverage despite the passage of parity laws! Why are sensory and motor disorders of brain lesions covered fully, while the thought, emotional, and behavior disorders of the brain covered only partially?
• Consent laws that restrict psychiatrists from medicating acutely psychotic or depressed patients unless they consent—but no laws that restrict a cardiologist from immediately treating an unconscious heart attack patient who cannot consent, or an obtunded stroke patient who cannot communicate? The duration of untreated psychosis or depression has been shown repeatedly to have deleterious effects on brain tissue and functional outcomes, yet treatment of an acutely ill psychiatric patient is often delayed until a court order is obtained. When was the last time a court order was needed to treat an acute myocardial infarction?
• Failure to recognize that premature mortality (by approximately 25 years) is a devastating consequence of mental illness, whether from suicide or cardiometabolic risk factors due to smoking, substance use (often used to self-medicate because proper treatment is lacking), poor diet, and sedentary living.
• Failure to provide basic primary care to people with severe mental illness, and the much lower use of life-saving diagnostic and treatment procedures offered to these patients, compared with non-psychiatric patients.
• Inadequate funding for research on psychiatric disorders, compared with other medical disorders—even though direct and indirect costs of mental illness to society (hundreds of billions of dollars a year) far exceed costs of most medical disorders.
• Severe shortage of rehabilitation programs for the mentally ill, compared with many other medical disorders. Why does paralysis of the mind receive far less support than paralysis of the legs or arms? 

The rising suicide rate reflects poorly on us
Societal anosognosia is a global scourge, affecting many underdeveloped countries. Why do developed nations, like ours, have the same blind spot for mental illness? Might ignorance and discrimination be universal?

The tragic rise in the rate of death by suicide in men and women, among all age groups, year after year, is stunningly incongruent when juxtaposed against the elimination of smallpox and other communicable diseases through a concerted societal effort to support scientific advances in vaccine development. Societal anosognosia appears to be selective: We have comprehensive insight about diseases of the body but not diseases of the mind.

The essence and soul of a society are the collective minds of its citizens, not their bodies. Societal anosognosia is a serious dysfunction of its mind, and a rising suicide rate is a symptom of that pathological dysfunction.

What if this increase had occurred in cardiovascular disease or cancer (both on the decline, in fact, thanks to the intense attention they receive)? I think there would have been a public outcry, followed by demands by Congress that the National Institutes of Health and the CDC address this catastrophic rise immediately. And billions of dollars would then be earmarked to prevent these 2 diseases. 

How sad that society has “forgotten” that mental illness has deadly consequences, often leading to suicide (42,773 deaths in 2014 alone²—the second most common cause among people age 15 to 25³)! Hundreds of thousands of people attempt suicide every year, and those who do not lose their life often end up injured or maimed. Millions who suffer depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, or a substance use disorder are at high risk of suicide, and many never receive the timely intervention that might save their life.

Our national blind spot
It is poignant that the CDC report was released in spring: The rate of suicide is highest in April and May, when the light-dark cycle is reversed. This springtime peak runs contrary to the common belief that the rate of suicide is highest during winter months. The Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association convenes in May, such that, ironically, thousands of psychiatrists are away from their office exactly when their patients might need them most

Lack of attention to the high risk of suicide among all ages and both sexes is emblematic of society’s inexplicable neglect of the needs of the mentally ill. That neglect is fueled, and exacerbated, by the destructive stigma attached to brain disorders that display psychiatric symptoms. As a neuropsychiatrist, I label this neglect societal anosognosia—the same as the lack of insight seen in patients with acute schizophrenia, who are unaware of how impaired they are and insist that they are not sick. (Anosognosia also occurs in stroke patients who deny that their limb is paralyzed and insist that all is well.)

Loss of insight can have serious consequences for patients who lose the ability to monitor and evaluate their physical and mental health. Just as patients with anosognosia think they do not need help, a society that fails to attend to the mental illness of its citizens endangers their overall health and welfare.

From neglect of mental illness many hazards arise
Tens of millions of Americans suffer from mental illness, according to the National Institute of Mental Health-sponsored Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study.⁴ The last thing these people can afford is societal anosognosia, which deprives them of necessary and timely access to psychiatric care.

Societal anosognosia is associated with numerous hazards for persons with mental illness, including:

• Lack of compassion, which is readily available for people with a medical ailment (broken bones, cardiovascular disease, cancer).
• Lack of adequate, affordable health insurance and financial support, compared with what is available for non-psychiatric disorders.
• Shortage of publicly funded programs and mental health practitioners to provide prevention and intervention for those who consider ending their life during an episode of depression, psychosis, stress, or a panic attack.
• Allowing the stigma to continue unabated. Why are there strict laws about hate crimes, but not about stigma? Why does society continue to portray depression and anxiety as a personal weakness or failure, while patients with Parkinson’s disease or multiple sclerosis who have motor weakness are not stigmatized for their physical deficits?
• Transforming the seriously mentally ill into felons by arresting and jailing them because of erratic behavior—instead of hospitalizing them for the medical care they need. The trans­institutionalization of the mentally ill—from state hospitals to prisons—is one of the most shameful consequences of societal anosognosia, burdening our patients with the dual stigma of being a criminal and mentally ill.
• Turning a blind eye to abuses by insurance companies. More appalling is the perpetuation of restricted health coverage despite the passage of parity laws! Why are sensory and motor disorders of brain lesions covered fully, while the thought, emotional, and behavior disorders of the brain covered only partially?
• Consent laws that restrict psychiatrists from medicating acutely psychotic or depressed patients unless they consent—but no laws that restrict a cardiologist from immediately treating an unconscious heart attack patient who cannot consent, or an obtunded stroke patient who cannot communicate? The duration of untreated psychosis or depression has been shown repeatedly to have deleterious effects on brain tissue and functional outcomes, yet treatment of an acutely ill psychiatric patient is often delayed until a court order is obtained. When was the last time a court order was needed to treat an acute myocardial infarction?
• Failure to recognize that premature mortality (by approximately 25 years) is a devastating consequence of mental illness, whether from suicide or cardiometabolic risk factors due to smoking, substance use (often used to self-medicate because proper treatment is lacking), poor diet, and sedentary living.
• Failure to provide basic primary care to people with severe mental illness, and the much lower use of life-saving diagnostic and treatment procedures offered to these patients, compared with non-psychiatric patients.
• Inadequate funding for research on psychiatric disorders, compared with other medical disorders—even though direct and indirect costs of mental illness to society (hundreds of billions of dollars a year) far exceed costs of most medical disorders.
• Severe shortage of rehabilitation programs for the mentally ill, compared with many other medical disorders. Why does paralysis of the mind receive far less support than paralysis of the legs or arms? 

The rising suicide rate reflects poorly on us
Societal anosognosia is a global scourge, affecting many underdeveloped countries. Why do developed nations, like ours, have the same blind spot for mental illness? Might ignorance and discrimination be universal?

The tragic rise in the rate of death by suicide in men and women, among all age groups, year after year, is stunningly incongruent when juxtaposed against the elimination of smallpox and other communicable diseases through a concerted societal effort to support scientific advances in vaccine development. Societal anosognosia appears to be selective: We have comprehensive insight about diseases of the body but not diseases of the mind.

The essence and soul of a society are the collective minds of its citizens, not their bodies. Societal anosognosia is a serious dysfunction of its mind, and a rising suicide rate is a symptom of that pathological dysfunction.

What if this increase had occurred in cardiovascular disease or cancer (both on the decline, in fact, thanks to the intense attention they receive)? I think there would have been a public outcry, followed by demands by Congress that the National Institutes of Health and the CDC address this catastrophic rise immediately. And billions of dollars would then be earmarked to prevent these 2 diseases. 

How sad that society has “forgotten” that mental illness has deadly consequences, often leading to suicide (42,773 deaths in 2014 alone²—the second most common cause among people age 15 to 25³)! Hundreds of thousands of people attempt suicide every year, and those who do not lose their life often end up injured or maimed. Millions who suffer depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, or a substance use disorder are at high risk of suicide, and many never receive the timely intervention that might save their life.

Our national blind spot
It is poignant that the CDC report was released in spring: The rate of suicide is highest in April and May, when the light-dark cycle is reversed. This springtime peak runs contrary to the common belief that the rate of suicide is highest during winter months. The Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association convenes in May, such that, ironically, thousands of psychiatrists are away from their office exactly when their patients might need them most

Lack of attention to the high risk of suicide among all ages and both sexes is emblematic of society’s inexplicable neglect of the needs of the mentally ill. That neglect is fueled, and exacerbated, by the destructive stigma attached to brain disorders that display psychiatric symptoms. As a neuropsychiatrist, I label this neglect societal anosognosia—the same as the lack of insight seen in patients with acute schizophrenia, who are unaware of how impaired they are and insist that they are not sick. (Anosognosia also occurs in stroke patients who deny that their limb is paralyzed and insist that all is well.)

Loss of insight can have serious consequences for patients who lose the ability to monitor and evaluate their physical and mental health. Just as patients with anosognosia think they do not need help, a society that fails to attend to the mental illness of its citizens endangers their overall health and welfare.

From neglect of mental illness many hazards arise
Tens of millions of Americans suffer from mental illness, according to the National Institute of Mental Health-sponsored Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study.⁴ The last thing these people can afford is societal anosognosia, which deprives them of necessary and timely access to psychiatric care.

Societal anosognosia is associated with numerous hazards for persons with mental illness, including:

• Lack of compassion, which is readily available for people with a medical ailment (broken bones, cardiovascular disease, cancer).
• Lack of adequate, affordable health insurance and financial support, compared with what is available for non-psychiatric disorders.
• Shortage of publicly funded programs and mental health practitioners to provide prevention and intervention for those who consider ending their life during an episode of depression, psychosis, stress, or a panic attack.
• Allowing the stigma to continue unabated. Why are there strict laws about hate crimes, but not about stigma? Why does society continue to portray depression and anxiety as a personal weakness or failure, while patients with Parkinson’s disease or multiple sclerosis who have motor weakness are not stigmatized for their physical deficits?
• Transforming the seriously mentally ill into felons by arresting and jailing them because of erratic behavior—instead of hospitalizing them for the medical care they need. The trans­institutionalization of the mentally ill—from state hospitals to prisons—is one of the most shameful consequences of societal anosognosia, burdening our patients with the dual stigma of being a criminal and mentally ill.
• Turning a blind eye to abuses by insurance companies. More appalling is the perpetuation of restricted health coverage despite the passage of parity laws! Why are sensory and motor disorders of brain lesions covered fully, while the thought, emotional, and behavior disorders of the brain covered only partially?
• Consent laws that restrict psychiatrists from medicating acutely psychotic or depressed patients unless they consent—but no laws that restrict a cardiologist from immediately treating an unconscious heart attack patient who cannot consent, or an obtunded stroke patient who cannot communicate? The duration of untreated psychosis or depression has been shown repeatedly to have deleterious effects on brain tissue and functional outcomes, yet treatment of an acutely ill psychiatric patient is often delayed until a court order is obtained. When was the last time a court order was needed to treat an acute myocardial infarction?
• Failure to recognize that premature mortality (by approximately 25 years) is a devastating consequence of mental illness, whether from suicide or cardiometabolic risk factors due to smoking, substance use (often used to self-medicate because proper treatment is lacking), poor diet, and sedentary living.
• Failure to provide basic primary care to people with severe mental illness, and the much lower use of life-saving diagnostic and treatment procedures offered to these patients, compared with non-psychiatric patients.
• Inadequate funding for research on psychiatric disorders, compared with other medical disorders—even though direct and indirect costs of mental illness to society (hundreds of billions of dollars a year) far exceed costs of most medical disorders.
• Severe shortage of rehabilitation programs for the mentally ill, compared with many other medical disorders. Why does paralysis of the mind receive far less support than paralysis of the legs or arms? 

The rising suicide rate reflects poorly on us
Societal anosognosia is a global scourge, affecting many underdeveloped countries. Why do developed nations, like ours, have the same blind spot for mental illness? Might ignorance and discrimination be universal?

The tragic rise in the rate of death by suicide in men and women, among all age groups, year after year, is stunningly incongruent when juxtaposed against the elimination of smallpox and other communicable diseases through a concerted societal effort to support scientific advances in vaccine development. Societal anosognosia appears to be selective: We have comprehensive insight about diseases of the body but not diseases of the mind.

The essence and soul of a society are the collective minds of its citizens, not their bodies. Societal anosognosia is a serious dysfunction of its mind, and a rising suicide rate is a symptom of that pathological dysfunction.

In a study published online on April 14 in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, Khalid et al evaluated the risk for AAA in patients with psoriasis in a nationwide cohort study in Denmark. The study participants were Danish residents 18 years and older who were observed from January 1, 1997 until diagnosis of AAA; December 31, 2011; migration; or death. Incidence rates for AAA were calculated, and incidence rate ratios were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, medications, socioeconomic status, and smoking.

A total of 5,495,203 individuals were eligible for this study. Of them, Khalid et al identified 59,423 patients with mild psoriasis and 11,566 patients with severe psoriasis. The overall incidence rates of AAA were 3.72, 7.30, and 9.87 per 10,000 person-years for the reference population (23,696 cases), mild psoriasis (240 cases), and severe psoriasis (50 cases), respectively. The corresponding adjusted incidence rate ratios for AAA were increased in patients with psoriasis with incidence rate ratios of 1.20 (95% CI, 1.03-1.39) and 1.67 (95% CI, 1.21-2.32) for individuals with mild and severe disease, respectively.

Khalid et al concluded that psoriasis was associated with a disease severity–dependent increased risk for AAA; however, the mechanisms and consequences of this novel finding require further investigation.

What’s the issue?

Another example of an association of a comorbidity with psoriasis, this finding emphasizes the need for cardiovascular referral in psoriasis patients with risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus. How will these data influence your evaluation of psoriasis patients?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

In a study published online on April 14 in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, Khalid et al evaluated the risk for AAA in patients with psoriasis in a nationwide cohort study in Denmark. The study participants were Danish residents 18 years and older who were observed from January 1, 1997 until diagnosis of AAA; December 31, 2011; migration; or death. Incidence rates for AAA were calculated, and incidence rate ratios were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, medications, socioeconomic status, and smoking.

A total of 5,495,203 individuals were eligible for this study. Of them, Khalid et al identified 59,423 patients with mild psoriasis and 11,566 patients with severe psoriasis. The overall incidence rates of AAA were 3.72, 7.30, and 9.87 per 10,000 person-years for the reference population (23,696 cases), mild psoriasis (240 cases), and severe psoriasis (50 cases), respectively. The corresponding adjusted incidence rate ratios for AAA were increased in patients with psoriasis with incidence rate ratios of 1.20 (95% CI, 1.03-1.39) and 1.67 (95% CI, 1.21-2.32) for individuals with mild and severe disease, respectively.

Khalid et al concluded that psoriasis was associated with a disease severity–dependent increased risk for AAA; however, the mechanisms and consequences of this novel finding require further investigation.

What’s the issue?

Another example of an association of a comorbidity with psoriasis, this finding emphasizes the need for cardiovascular referral in psoriasis patients with risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus. How will these data influence your evaluation of psoriasis patients?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

In a study published online on April 14 in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, Khalid et al evaluated the risk for AAA in patients with psoriasis in a nationwide cohort study in Denmark. The study participants were Danish residents 18 years and older who were observed from January 1, 1997 until diagnosis of AAA; December 31, 2011; migration; or death. Incidence rates for AAA were calculated, and incidence rate ratios were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, medications, socioeconomic status, and smoking.

A total of 5,495,203 individuals were eligible for this study. Of them, Khalid et al identified 59,423 patients with mild psoriasis and 11,566 patients with severe psoriasis. The overall incidence rates of AAA were 3.72, 7.30, and 9.87 per 10,000 person-years for the reference population (23,696 cases), mild psoriasis (240 cases), and severe psoriasis (50 cases), respectively. The corresponding adjusted incidence rate ratios for AAA were increased in patients with psoriasis with incidence rate ratios of 1.20 (95% CI, 1.03-1.39) and 1.67 (95% CI, 1.21-2.32) for individuals with mild and severe disease, respectively.

Khalid et al concluded that psoriasis was associated with a disease severity–dependent increased risk for AAA; however, the mechanisms and consequences of this novel finding require further investigation.

What’s the issue?

Another example of an association of a comorbidity with psoriasis, this finding emphasizes the need for cardiovascular referral in psoriasis patients with risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus. How will these data influence your evaluation of psoriasis patients?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

By now, most of us have heard of accountable care organizations and bundled payment. But for many of you, the shift to value-based population health management or compensation based on performance hasn’t affected your practice.

You still get paid fee for service. You’ve seen “the next big thing” in health care come and go; you don’t have the capital or spare intellectual bandwidth to make the transformation to value-based care – and as many of you have told me, at the end of the day, you just want to see patients.

There are a lot of reasons to sit on the sidelines a while longer. I get it. But that indecision could result in the biggest decision of your career. But it won’t be your decision – it will be defaulted to others. Why?

Welcome to MACRA – the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act. On April 16, 2015, President Obama signed sweeping legislation irrevocably moving the American health care system to value-based payment. The United States Senate and House – Republicans and Democrats – came together to replace the Sustainable Growth Rate formula (SGR) with MACRA.

MACRA represents the end of a long history of perpetually delayed Medicare physician fee schedule cuts that were to be automatically triggered under the punitive SGR formula absent Congress’ annual postponement ritual. After providing for a series of annual physician payment increases, MACRA’s reimbursement methodology transitions to a value-based model that includes two pathways: 1) the Alternative Payment Model (APM), and 2) the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS).

APMs include organizations that are focused on providing high-quality and cost-effective care, while also taking on significant financial risk (for example, an ACO).

MACRA highly incentivizes provider participation in APMs. For example, APM participants will receive 5% bonus payments from 2019 to 2024, if they receive a certain percentage of their Medicare revenue through APMs. In addition, providers qualifying as APM participants are excluded from participating in the MIPS model and are subject only to their own quality standards.

Under the MIPS model, provider performance will be evaluated according to established performance standards and used to calculate an adjustment factor that will then determine a provider’s payment for the year.

The performance standards will include the following weighted categories: 1. quality, 2. resource use, 3. clinical practice improvement activities, and 4. meaningful use. Depending on their performance in these categories, providers will receive either a positive adjustment, no adjustment, or a negative adjustment.

In 2022, these adjustments will range from a 9% negative adjustment to a similar positive adjustment. MIPS will apply to all Medicare services and items provided on or after Jan. 1, 2019.

What does this mean to you?

You are going to be reimbursed as if you have embraced value-based population health management, whether you really do or not. The MIPS formula could deny you north of 9% of your payments. Conversely, if you decide to get into an ACO or something similar, you not only don’t get dinged, you receive a 5% bump in fee-for-service compensation and the chance for additional savings payments. Of course, you have to decide to actually engage and lead this care improvement from your medical home. A fake ACO that lets costs rise will be responsible for those increases.

Readers of this column know that the statistics are bearing out the fact that primary care–led ACOs are the best model. The whole premise has changed. Instead of paying for volume and expensive procedures for very sick people, it rewards value – that is the highest quality at the lowest costs – through things in primary care’s wheelhouse: prevention, wellness, care coordination, complex patient management, and medical home care transition management.

In fact, CMS has recognized this by making primary care subspecialties the only ones required to be in the Medicare ACO program and the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP), and recently with its ACO Investment Model, which prioritized ACO advanced infrastructure payments to physician- or small hospital-led ACOs in rural areas.

There are more physician-owned ACOs today than any other kind. If you are part of another type of ACO, such as one driven by a health system or multispecialty practice, don’t despair. They can work, too. But you need to step up and make sure they do.

The price of passivity

MACRA’s shifting of the annual flow of $3 trillion from rewarding volume to rewarding value will, in this author’s estimation, have MACRA easily eclipse the Affordable Care Act in significance. Indecision will not stop your placement in the value-based payment system. Why not control your destiny to achieve your professional and financial goals as leaders of health care? Through indecision, you will be both unprepared and defaulted into the quality and efficiency compensation measurements of MIPS.

MACRA has changed everything. You’ve been asked to lead American health care and get paid to do it. This is not a hard question. Please feel free to contact me directly with questions or comments on how to prepare.

Mr. Bobbitt is a head of the Health Law Group at the Smith Anderson law firm in Raleigh, N.C. He is president of Value Health Partners, LLC, a health care strategic consulting company. He has years of experience assisting physicians form integrated delivery systems. He has spoken and written nationally to primary care physicians on the strategies and practicalities of forming or joining ACOs. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected] or 919-821-6612.

By now, most of us have heard of accountable care organizations and bundled payment. But for many of you, the shift to value-based population health management or compensation based on performance hasn’t affected your practice.

You still get paid fee for service. You’ve seen “the next big thing” in health care come and go; you don’t have the capital or spare intellectual bandwidth to make the transformation to value-based care – and as many of you have told me, at the end of the day, you just want to see patients.

There are a lot of reasons to sit on the sidelines a while longer. I get it. But that indecision could result in the biggest decision of your career. But it won’t be your decision – it will be defaulted to others. Why?

Welcome to MACRA – the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act. On April 16, 2015, President Obama signed sweeping legislation irrevocably moving the American health care system to value-based payment. The United States Senate and House – Republicans and Democrats – came together to replace the Sustainable Growth Rate formula (SGR) with MACRA.

MACRA represents the end of a long history of perpetually delayed Medicare physician fee schedule cuts that were to be automatically triggered under the punitive SGR formula absent Congress’ annual postponement ritual. After providing for a series of annual physician payment increases, MACRA’s reimbursement methodology transitions to a value-based model that includes two pathways: 1) the Alternative Payment Model (APM), and 2) the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS).

APMs include organizations that are focused on providing high-quality and cost-effective care, while also taking on significant financial risk (for example, an ACO).

MACRA highly incentivizes provider participation in APMs. For example, APM participants will receive 5% bonus payments from 2019 to 2024, if they receive a certain percentage of their Medicare revenue through APMs. In addition, providers qualifying as APM participants are excluded from participating in the MIPS model and are subject only to their own quality standards.

Under the MIPS model, provider performance will be evaluated according to established performance standards and used to calculate an adjustment factor that will then determine a provider’s payment for the year.

The performance standards will include the following weighted categories: 1. quality, 2. resource use, 3. clinical practice improvement activities, and 4. meaningful use. Depending on their performance in these categories, providers will receive either a positive adjustment, no adjustment, or a negative adjustment.

In 2022, these adjustments will range from a 9% negative adjustment to a similar positive adjustment. MIPS will apply to all Medicare services and items provided on or after Jan. 1, 2019.

What does this mean to you?

You are going to be reimbursed as if you have embraced value-based population health management, whether you really do or not. The MIPS formula could deny you north of 9% of your payments. Conversely, if you decide to get into an ACO or something similar, you not only don’t get dinged, you receive a 5% bump in fee-for-service compensation and the chance for additional savings payments. Of course, you have to decide to actually engage and lead this care improvement from your medical home. A fake ACO that lets costs rise will be responsible for those increases.

Readers of this column know that the statistics are bearing out the fact that primary care–led ACOs are the best model. The whole premise has changed. Instead of paying for volume and expensive procedures for very sick people, it rewards value – that is the highest quality at the lowest costs – through things in primary care’s wheelhouse: prevention, wellness, care coordination, complex patient management, and medical home care transition management.

In fact, CMS has recognized this by making primary care subspecialties the only ones required to be in the Medicare ACO program and the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP), and recently with its ACO Investment Model, which prioritized ACO advanced infrastructure payments to physician- or small hospital-led ACOs in rural areas.

There are more physician-owned ACOs today than any other kind. If you are part of another type of ACO, such as one driven by a health system or multispecialty practice, don’t despair. They can work, too. But you need to step up and make sure they do.

The price of passivity

MACRA’s shifting of the annual flow of $3 trillion from rewarding volume to rewarding value will, in this author’s estimation, have MACRA easily eclipse the Affordable Care Act in significance. Indecision will not stop your placement in the value-based payment system. Why not control your destiny to achieve your professional and financial goals as leaders of health care? Through indecision, you will be both unprepared and defaulted into the quality and efficiency compensation measurements of MIPS.

MACRA has changed everything. You’ve been asked to lead American health care and get paid to do it. This is not a hard question. Please feel free to contact me directly with questions or comments on how to prepare.

Mr. Bobbitt is a head of the Health Law Group at the Smith Anderson law firm in Raleigh, N.C. He is president of Value Health Partners, LLC, a health care strategic consulting company. He has years of experience assisting physicians form integrated delivery systems. He has spoken and written nationally to primary care physicians on the strategies and practicalities of forming or joining ACOs. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected] or 919-821-6612.

By now, most of us have heard of accountable care organizations and bundled payment. But for many of you, the shift to value-based population health management or compensation based on performance hasn’t affected your practice.

You still get paid fee for service. You’ve seen “the next big thing” in health care come and go; you don’t have the capital or spare intellectual bandwidth to make the transformation to value-based care – and as many of you have told me, at the end of the day, you just want to see patients.

There are a lot of reasons to sit on the sidelines a while longer. I get it. But that indecision could result in the biggest decision of your career. But it won’t be your decision – it will be defaulted to others. Why?

Welcome to MACRA – the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act. On April 16, 2015, President Obama signed sweeping legislation irrevocably moving the American health care system to value-based payment. The United States Senate and House – Republicans and Democrats – came together to replace the Sustainable Growth Rate formula (SGR) with MACRA.

MACRA represents the end of a long history of perpetually delayed Medicare physician fee schedule cuts that were to be automatically triggered under the punitive SGR formula absent Congress’ annual postponement ritual. After providing for a series of annual physician payment increases, MACRA’s reimbursement methodology transitions to a value-based model that includes two pathways: 1) the Alternative Payment Model (APM), and 2) the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS).

APMs include organizations that are focused on providing high-quality and cost-effective care, while also taking on significant financial risk (for example, an ACO).

MACRA highly incentivizes provider participation in APMs. For example, APM participants will receive 5% bonus payments from 2019 to 2024, if they receive a certain percentage of their Medicare revenue through APMs. In addition, providers qualifying as APM participants are excluded from participating in the MIPS model and are subject only to their own quality standards.

Under the MIPS model, provider performance will be evaluated according to established performance standards and used to calculate an adjustment factor that will then determine a provider’s payment for the year.

The performance standards will include the following weighted categories: 1. quality, 2. resource use, 3. clinical practice improvement activities, and 4. meaningful use. Depending on their performance in these categories, providers will receive either a positive adjustment, no adjustment, or a negative adjustment.

In 2022, these adjustments will range from a 9% negative adjustment to a similar positive adjustment. MIPS will apply to all Medicare services and items provided on or after Jan. 1, 2019.

What does this mean to you?

You are going to be reimbursed as if you have embraced value-based population health management, whether you really do or not. The MIPS formula could deny you north of 9% of your payments. Conversely, if you decide to get into an ACO or something similar, you not only don’t get dinged, you receive a 5% bump in fee-for-service compensation and the chance for additional savings payments. Of course, you have to decide to actually engage and lead this care improvement from your medical home. A fake ACO that lets costs rise will be responsible for those increases.

Readers of this column know that the statistics are bearing out the fact that primary care–led ACOs are the best model. The whole premise has changed. Instead of paying for volume and expensive procedures for very sick people, it rewards value – that is the highest quality at the lowest costs – through things in primary care’s wheelhouse: prevention, wellness, care coordination, complex patient management, and medical home care transition management.

In fact, CMS has recognized this by making primary care subspecialties the only ones required to be in the Medicare ACO program and the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP), and recently with its ACO Investment Model, which prioritized ACO advanced infrastructure payments to physician- or small hospital-led ACOs in rural areas.

There are more physician-owned ACOs today than any other kind. If you are part of another type of ACO, such as one driven by a health system or multispecialty practice, don’t despair. They can work, too. But you need to step up and make sure they do.

The price of passivity

MACRA’s shifting of the annual flow of $3 trillion from rewarding volume to rewarding value will, in this author’s estimation, have MACRA easily eclipse the Affordable Care Act in significance. Indecision will not stop your placement in the value-based payment system. Why not control your destiny to achieve your professional and financial goals as leaders of health care? Through indecision, you will be both unprepared and defaulted into the quality and efficiency compensation measurements of MIPS.

MACRA has changed everything. You’ve been asked to lead American health care and get paid to do it. This is not a hard question. Please feel free to contact me directly with questions or comments on how to prepare.

Mr. Bobbitt is a head of the Health Law Group at the Smith Anderson law firm in Raleigh, N.C. He is president of Value Health Partners, LLC, a health care strategic consulting company. He has years of experience assisting physicians form integrated delivery systems. He has spoken and written nationally to primary care physicians on the strategies and practicalities of forming or joining ACOs. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected] or 919-821-6612.

Dr. Gloria E. Sarto was one of just six women in her medical school graduating class of 76 in 1958 – a time when many medical schools, she recalled, had quota systems for women and minorities. Later, she became the first female ob.gyn. resident at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

“When I was interviewing for a residency position, the department chair told me ‘I’m going to treat you like one of the boys,’” the 86-year-old professor emeritus said. “And I said, ‘If you do that, it will be just fine.’”

Courtesy of the University of Wisconsin, Madison

Yet she still had to lobby sometimes for equal treatment – convincing the department chief in one instance that sleeping on a delivery table during hospital duty because there weren’t any rooms for women was not being treated “like one of the boys.” And she was often bothered by her observation that, in general, “the women [residents] weren’t noticed... they weren’t being recognized.”

Dr. Sarto has since chaired two ob.gyn. departments and was the first woman president of the American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society. Today, however, as she continues mentoring junior faculty and works to ensure the smooth succession of programs she founded, she sees a much different field – one in which women not only command more respect but where they make up a majority of ob.gyns.

Impact on women’s health

In 2014, 62% of all ob.gyns. were women (Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;127[1]:148-52). The majority has been years in the making; more women than men have been entering the specialty since 1993. And if current trends continue, the percentage of women active in the specialty will only increase further. In 2010, women comprised more than 80% of all ob.gyn. residents/fellows, more than any other specialty, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Such numerical strength is significant, but for Dr. Sarto and other leaders in the specialty who spoke about their experiences as female ob.gyns., it’s the impact that women physicians have had on women’s health that’s most important.

Dr. Sarto helped to start Lamaze classes in a hospital basement amidst widespread opposition from the male-dominated leadership and staff who felt that women didn’t need such help with labor. She also takes pride in her collaboration with Dr. Florence Haseltine, Phyllis Greenberger, and several other women to address biases in biomedical research. Their work with Congress led to a federal audit of National Institutes of Health policies and practices.

“We knew that when that report came out [in 1990], it would hit every newspaper in the country,” Dr. Sarto said. It just about did, and soon after that, the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health was established to ensure that women were included in clinical trials and that gaps in knowledge of women’s health were addressed.

Dr. Barbara Levy, who left a private practice and two medical directorships in 2012 to become Vice President for Health Policy at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, recalls feeling early in her career that women’s health needed to be approached much more holistically.

“What I was seeing and experiencing didn’t match the textbooks,” she said. “The connection, for instance, between chronic pelvic pain and women who’d been victims of sexual abuse – there wasn’t anything in the literature. I’d see women with the same kinds of physical characteristics on their exams... and patients were willing to share with me things that they wouldn’t have been willing to share with my colleagues.”

Dr. Levy graduated from Princeton University in 1974 with the second class of admitted women, and after a year off, went west for medical school. She graduated in 1979 from the University of California, San Diego, with nine other women in a class of 110.

Her desire to care for the “whole patient” had her leaning toward family medicine until a beloved mentor, Dr. Donna Brooks, “reminded me that there were so few women to take care of women... and that as an ob.gyn. I could follow women through pregnancy, delivery, surgeries, hormone issues, and so many [other facets of their health].”

Dr. Levy, who served as president of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists in 1995, recalls a world “that was very tolerant of sexual harassment” and remembers the energy she needed to expend to be taken seriously and to correct unconscious bias.

When she applied for fellowship in the American College of Surgeons in the late 1980s, the committee members who conducted an interview “told me right away that I couldn’t expect to be a fellow if I hadn’t done my duty [serving on hospital committees],” Dr. Levy said.

“I told them I had volunteered for more than three committees every single year I’d been on staff, and had never been asked to serve,” she said. “They had no idea. Their assumption was that I had children at home and I wasn’t taking the time.”

Entering leadership

When it comes to leadership, a look at academic medicine suggests that women ob.gyns. have made significant strides. In 2013, compared with other major specialties, obstetrics and gynecology had the highest proportion of department leaders who were women. Yet the picture is mixed. According to an analysis published earlier in 2016, women in ob.gyn. and nine other major specialties “were not represented in the proportions in which they entered their fields” (Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Mar;127[3]:442-7).

Women comprised 57% of all faculty in departments of ob.gyn. in 2013. And, according to the analysis, they comprised 62% of ob.gyn. residency program directors, 30% of division directors, and 24% of department chairs.

The high numbers of women serving as residency program directors raises concern because such positions “do not result in advancement in the same way,” said Dr. Levy, adding that women have excelled in such positions and may desire them, but should be mentored early on about what tracks have the potential for upper-level leadership roles.

Courtesy Women & Infants Hospital

Dr. Maureen Phipps, who in 2013 was appointed as chair of ob.gyn. and assistant dean in the Warren Albert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, said she carries with her the fact that women are not yet proportionally represented at the upper levels. “I know that my being in this position and in other positions I’ve held is important for women to see,” she said.

Dr. Phipps graduated from the University of Vermont’s College of Medicine in 1994 as a part of a class in which men and women were fairly evenly represented. In addition to her role as department chair and assistant dean, she is also now chief of ob.gyn. at Women & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, where she did her residency, and executive chief of ob.gyn for the Care New England Health System.

“I’ve had amazing male leaders and mentors in my career – the people who’ve gone to bat for me have been men,” said Dr. Phipps. Yet, “it’s important to have women in leadership... It’s known that we think differently and approach things differently. Having balance and a variety of different lenses will allow us to [further] grow the field.”

Gender pay gap

Both in academic medicine and in practice, a gender pay gap still reportedly affects women physicians across the board. Various reports and analyses have shown women earning disproportionately less than their male colleagues in similar positions.

Notably, a 2011 analysis in Health Affairs found a nearly $17,000 gap between the starting salaries for men and women physicians. This differential accounted for variables such as patient care hours, practice type, and location. It is possible, the study authors reported, that practices “may now be offering greater flexibility and family-friendly attributes that are more appealing but that come at the price of commensurately lower pay” (Health Aff. 2011:30;193-201).

The American Medical Women’s Association, which promotes advocacy on a gender pay gap, said in a statement about the study, however, that “gender discrimination still exists within the echelons of medicine, and gender stereotyping frequently leads to the devaluation of women physicians.”

From her perspective, Dr. Levy said it’s “complicated” to tease apart and understand all the factors that may be involved.

The challenges of balancing work and family/caregiving and are “still really tough” for women ob.gyns., she said, especially those who want to practice obstetrics. Dr. Levy said she gave up obstetrics when it became apparent that she and her husband would need to hire an additional child care provider.

While the hospitalist-laborist model has been a valuable addition to obstetrics, Dr. Phipps said, “it’s our challenge to continue to think creatively about how we can keep clinicians engaged when they’re in the earlier parts of their careers and challenged by family responsibilities and other commitments.”

Both she and Dr. Levy emphasized their concerns about burnout and their desire to keep career satisfaction high – especially now that women are such a big part of ob.gyn. – and both spoke of the importance of making time for whatever activities help women “recharge.”

“We should be doing what we’re doing because we love it,” Dr. Levy said. “We should focus on that every day. Our patients trust us. We need to remind ourselves of what incredible connections we have.”

Throughout 2016, Ob.Gyn. News will celebrate its 50th anniversary with exclusive articles looking at the evolution of the specialty, including the history of contraception, changes in gynecologic surgery, and the transformation of the well-woman visit. Look for these articles and more special features in the pages of Ob.Gyn. News and online at obgynnews.com.

Dr. Gloria E. Sarto was one of just six women in her medical school graduating class of 76 in 1958 – a time when many medical schools, she recalled, had quota systems for women and minorities. Later, she became the first female ob.gyn. resident at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

“When I was interviewing for a residency position, the department chair told me ‘I’m going to treat you like one of the boys,’” the 86-year-old professor emeritus said. “And I said, ‘If you do that, it will be just fine.’”

Courtesy of the University of Wisconsin, Madison

Yet she still had to lobby sometimes for equal treatment – convincing the department chief in one instance that sleeping on a delivery table during hospital duty because there weren’t any rooms for women was not being treated “like one of the boys.” And she was often bothered by her observation that, in general, “the women [residents] weren’t noticed... they weren’t being recognized.”

Dr. Sarto has since chaired two ob.gyn. departments and was the first woman president of the American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society. Today, however, as she continues mentoring junior faculty and works to ensure the smooth succession of programs she founded, she sees a much different field – one in which women not only command more respect but where they make up a majority of ob.gyns.

Impact on women’s health

In 2014, 62% of all ob.gyns. were women (Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;127[1]:148-52). The majority has been years in the making; more women than men have been entering the specialty since 1993. And if current trends continue, the percentage of women active in the specialty will only increase further. In 2010, women comprised more than 80% of all ob.gyn. residents/fellows, more than any other specialty, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Such numerical strength is significant, but for Dr. Sarto and other leaders in the specialty who spoke about their experiences as female ob.gyns., it’s the impact that women physicians have had on women’s health that’s most important.

Dr. Sarto helped to start Lamaze classes in a hospital basement amidst widespread opposition from the male-dominated leadership and staff who felt that women didn’t need such help with labor. She also takes pride in her collaboration with Dr. Florence Haseltine, Phyllis Greenberger, and several other women to address biases in biomedical research. Their work with Congress led to a federal audit of National Institutes of Health policies and practices.

“We knew that when that report came out [in 1990], it would hit every newspaper in the country,” Dr. Sarto said. It just about did, and soon after that, the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health was established to ensure that women were included in clinical trials and that gaps in knowledge of women’s health were addressed.

Dr. Barbara Levy, who left a private practice and two medical directorships in 2012 to become Vice President for Health Policy at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, recalls feeling early in her career that women’s health needed to be approached much more holistically.

“What I was seeing and experiencing didn’t match the textbooks,” she said. “The connection, for instance, between chronic pelvic pain and women who’d been victims of sexual abuse – there wasn’t anything in the literature. I’d see women with the same kinds of physical characteristics on their exams... and patients were willing to share with me things that they wouldn’t have been willing to share with my colleagues.”

Dr. Levy graduated from Princeton University in 1974 with the second class of admitted women, and after a year off, went west for medical school. She graduated in 1979 from the University of California, San Diego, with nine other women in a class of 110.

Her desire to care for the “whole patient” had her leaning toward family medicine until a beloved mentor, Dr. Donna Brooks, “reminded me that there were so few women to take care of women... and that as an ob.gyn. I could follow women through pregnancy, delivery, surgeries, hormone issues, and so many [other facets of their health].”

Dr. Levy, who served as president of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists in 1995, recalls a world “that was very tolerant of sexual harassment” and remembers the energy she needed to expend to be taken seriously and to correct unconscious bias.

When she applied for fellowship in the American College of Surgeons in the late 1980s, the committee members who conducted an interview “told me right away that I couldn’t expect to be a fellow if I hadn’t done my duty [serving on hospital committees],” Dr. Levy said.

“I told them I had volunteered for more than three committees every single year I’d been on staff, and had never been asked to serve,” she said. “They had no idea. Their assumption was that I had children at home and I wasn’t taking the time.”

Entering leadership

When it comes to leadership, a look at academic medicine suggests that women ob.gyns. have made significant strides. In 2013, compared with other major specialties, obstetrics and gynecology had the highest proportion of department leaders who were women. Yet the picture is mixed. According to an analysis published earlier in 2016, women in ob.gyn. and nine other major specialties “were not represented in the proportions in which they entered their fields” (Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Mar;127[3]:442-7).

Women comprised 57% of all faculty in departments of ob.gyn. in 2013. And, according to the analysis, they comprised 62% of ob.gyn. residency program directors, 30% of division directors, and 24% of department chairs.

The high numbers of women serving as residency program directors raises concern because such positions “do not result in advancement in the same way,” said Dr. Levy, adding that women have excelled in such positions and may desire them, but should be mentored early on about what tracks have the potential for upper-level leadership roles.

Courtesy Women & Infants Hospital

Dr. Maureen Phipps, who in 2013 was appointed as chair of ob.gyn. and assistant dean in the Warren Albert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, said she carries with her the fact that women are not yet proportionally represented at the upper levels. “I know that my being in this position and in other positions I’ve held is important for women to see,” she said.

Dr. Phipps graduated from the University of Vermont’s College of Medicine in 1994 as a part of a class in which men and women were fairly evenly represented. In addition to her role as department chair and assistant dean, she is also now chief of ob.gyn. at Women & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, where she did her residency, and executive chief of ob.gyn for the Care New England Health System.

“I’ve had amazing male leaders and mentors in my career – the people who’ve gone to bat for me have been men,” said Dr. Phipps. Yet, “it’s important to have women in leadership... It’s known that we think differently and approach things differently. Having balance and a variety of different lenses will allow us to [further] grow the field.”

Gender pay gap

Both in academic medicine and in practice, a gender pay gap still reportedly affects women physicians across the board. Various reports and analyses have shown women earning disproportionately less than their male colleagues in similar positions.

Notably, a 2011 analysis in Health Affairs found a nearly $17,000 gap between the starting salaries for men and women physicians. This differential accounted for variables such as patient care hours, practice type, and location. It is possible, the study authors reported, that practices “may now be offering greater flexibility and family-friendly attributes that are more appealing but that come at the price of commensurately lower pay” (Health Aff. 2011:30;193-201).

The American Medical Women’s Association, which promotes advocacy on a gender pay gap, said in a statement about the study, however, that “gender discrimination still exists within the echelons of medicine, and gender stereotyping frequently leads to the devaluation of women physicians.”

From her perspective, Dr. Levy said it’s “complicated” to tease apart and understand all the factors that may be involved.

The challenges of balancing work and family/caregiving and are “still really tough” for women ob.gyns., she said, especially those who want to practice obstetrics. Dr. Levy said she gave up obstetrics when it became apparent that she and her husband would need to hire an additional child care provider.

While the hospitalist-laborist model has been a valuable addition to obstetrics, Dr. Phipps said, “it’s our challenge to continue to think creatively about how we can keep clinicians engaged when they’re in the earlier parts of their careers and challenged by family responsibilities and other commitments.”

Both she and Dr. Levy emphasized their concerns about burnout and their desire to keep career satisfaction high – especially now that women are such a big part of ob.gyn. – and both spoke of the importance of making time for whatever activities help women “recharge.”

“We should be doing what we’re doing because we love it,” Dr. Levy said. “We should focus on that every day. Our patients trust us. We need to remind ourselves of what incredible connections we have.”

Throughout 2016, Ob.Gyn. News will celebrate its 50th anniversary with exclusive articles looking at the evolution of the specialty, including the history of contraception, changes in gynecologic surgery, and the transformation of the well-woman visit. Look for these articles and more special features in the pages of Ob.Gyn. News and online at obgynnews.com.

Dr. Gloria E. Sarto was one of just six women in her medical school graduating class of 76 in 1958 – a time when many medical schools, she recalled, had quota systems for women and minorities. Later, she became the first female ob.gyn. resident at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

“When I was interviewing for a residency position, the department chair told me ‘I’m going to treat you like one of the boys,’” the 86-year-old professor emeritus said. “And I said, ‘If you do that, it will be just fine.’”

Courtesy of the University of Wisconsin, Madison

Yet she still had to lobby sometimes for equal treatment – convincing the department chief in one instance that sleeping on a delivery table during hospital duty because there weren’t any rooms for women was not being treated “like one of the boys.” And she was often bothered by her observation that, in general, “the women [residents] weren’t noticed... they weren’t being recognized.”

Dr. Sarto has since chaired two ob.gyn. departments and was the first woman president of the American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society. Today, however, as she continues mentoring junior faculty and works to ensure the smooth succession of programs she founded, she sees a much different field – one in which women not only command more respect but where they make up a majority of ob.gyns.

Impact on women’s health

In 2014, 62% of all ob.gyns. were women (Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;127[1]:148-52). The majority has been years in the making; more women than men have been entering the specialty since 1993. And if current trends continue, the percentage of women active in the specialty will only increase further. In 2010, women comprised more than 80% of all ob.gyn. residents/fellows, more than any other specialty, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Such numerical strength is significant, but for Dr. Sarto and other leaders in the specialty who spoke about their experiences as female ob.gyns., it’s the impact that women physicians have had on women’s health that’s most important.

Dr. Sarto helped to start Lamaze classes in a hospital basement amidst widespread opposition from the male-dominated leadership and staff who felt that women didn’t need such help with labor. She also takes pride in her collaboration with Dr. Florence Haseltine, Phyllis Greenberger, and several other women to address biases in biomedical research. Their work with Congress led to a federal audit of National Institutes of Health policies and practices.

“We knew that when that report came out [in 1990], it would hit every newspaper in the country,” Dr. Sarto said. It just about did, and soon after that, the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health was established to ensure that women were included in clinical trials and that gaps in knowledge of women’s health were addressed.

Dr. Barbara Levy, who left a private practice and two medical directorships in 2012 to become Vice President for Health Policy at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, recalls feeling early in her career that women’s health needed to be approached much more holistically.

“What I was seeing and experiencing didn’t match the textbooks,” she said. “The connection, for instance, between chronic pelvic pain and women who’d been victims of sexual abuse – there wasn’t anything in the literature. I’d see women with the same kinds of physical characteristics on their exams... and patients were willing to share with me things that they wouldn’t have been willing to share with my colleagues.”

Dr. Levy graduated from Princeton University in 1974 with the second class of admitted women, and after a year off, went west for medical school. She graduated in 1979 from the University of California, San Diego, with nine other women in a class of 110.

Her desire to care for the “whole patient” had her leaning toward family medicine until a beloved mentor, Dr. Donna Brooks, “reminded me that there were so few women to take care of women... and that as an ob.gyn. I could follow women through pregnancy, delivery, surgeries, hormone issues, and so many [other facets of their health].”

Dr. Levy, who served as president of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists in 1995, recalls a world “that was very tolerant of sexual harassment” and remembers the energy she needed to expend to be taken seriously and to correct unconscious bias.

When she applied for fellowship in the American College of Surgeons in the late 1980s, the committee members who conducted an interview “told me right away that I couldn’t expect to be a fellow if I hadn’t done my duty [serving on hospital committees],” Dr. Levy said.

“I told them I had volunteered for more than three committees every single year I’d been on staff, and had never been asked to serve,” she said. “They had no idea. Their assumption was that I had children at home and I wasn’t taking the time.”

Entering leadership

When it comes to leadership, a look at academic medicine suggests that women ob.gyns. have made significant strides. In 2013, compared with other major specialties, obstetrics and gynecology had the highest proportion of department leaders who were women. Yet the picture is mixed. According to an analysis published earlier in 2016, women in ob.gyn. and nine other major specialties “were not represented in the proportions in which they entered their fields” (Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Mar;127[3]:442-7).

Women comprised 57% of all faculty in departments of ob.gyn. in 2013. And, according to the analysis, they comprised 62% of ob.gyn. residency program directors, 30% of division directors, and 24% of department chairs.

The high numbers of women serving as residency program directors raises concern because such positions “do not result in advancement in the same way,” said Dr. Levy, adding that women have excelled in such positions and may desire them, but should be mentored early on about what tracks have the potential for upper-level leadership roles.

Courtesy Women & Infants Hospital

Dr. Maureen Phipps, who in 2013 was appointed as chair of ob.gyn. and assistant dean in the Warren Albert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, said she carries with her the fact that women are not yet proportionally represented at the upper levels. “I know that my being in this position and in other positions I’ve held is important for women to see,” she said.

Dr. Phipps graduated from the University of Vermont’s College of Medicine in 1994 as a part of a class in which men and women were fairly evenly represented. In addition to her role as department chair and assistant dean, she is also now chief of ob.gyn. at Women & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, where she did her residency, and executive chief of ob.gyn for the Care New England Health System.

“I’ve had amazing male leaders and mentors in my career – the people who’ve gone to bat for me have been men,” said Dr. Phipps. Yet, “it’s important to have women in leadership... It’s known that we think differently and approach things differently. Having balance and a variety of different lenses will allow us to [further] grow the field.”

Gender pay gap

Both in academic medicine and in practice, a gender pay gap still reportedly affects women physicians across the board. Various reports and analyses have shown women earning disproportionately less than their male colleagues in similar positions.

Notably, a 2011 analysis in Health Affairs found a nearly $17,000 gap between the starting salaries for men and women physicians. This differential accounted for variables such as patient care hours, practice type, and location. It is possible, the study authors reported, that practices “may now be offering greater flexibility and family-friendly attributes that are more appealing but that come at the price of commensurately lower pay” (Health Aff. 2011:30;193-201).

The American Medical Women’s Association, which promotes advocacy on a gender pay gap, said in a statement about the study, however, that “gender discrimination still exists within the echelons of medicine, and gender stereotyping frequently leads to the devaluation of women physicians.”

From her perspective, Dr. Levy said it’s “complicated” to tease apart and understand all the factors that may be involved.

The challenges of balancing work and family/caregiving and are “still really tough” for women ob.gyns., she said, especially those who want to practice obstetrics. Dr. Levy said she gave up obstetrics when it became apparent that she and her husband would need to hire an additional child care provider.

While the hospitalist-laborist model has been a valuable addition to obstetrics, Dr. Phipps said, “it’s our challenge to continue to think creatively about how we can keep clinicians engaged when they’re in the earlier parts of their careers and challenged by family responsibilities and other commitments.”

Both she and Dr. Levy emphasized their concerns about burnout and their desire to keep career satisfaction high – especially now that women are such a big part of ob.gyn. – and both spoke of the importance of making time for whatever activities help women “recharge.”

“We should be doing what we’re doing because we love it,” Dr. Levy said. “We should focus on that every day. Our patients trust us. We need to remind ourselves of what incredible connections we have.”

Throughout 2016, Ob.Gyn. News will celebrate its 50th anniversary with exclusive articles looking at the evolution of the specialty, including the history of contraception, changes in gynecologic surgery, and the transformation of the well-woman visit. Look for these articles and more special features in the pages of Ob.Gyn. News and online at obgynnews.com.

One of the determinants of a successful surgical outcome is the perception, on the part of the patient, of the cosmesis of a scar. The use of Z-plasty is an accepted means by which to break a scar up into smaller geometric segments. In some instances, a Z-plasty is used for scar revision to elongate a scar that may be pulling. However, a study published online in JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery on April 7 mentions the lack of studies measuring the perception of these scars among the normal population after surgery.

Ratnarathorn et al designed a prospective Internet-based survey with a goal of 580 responses to give a power of 90%. The survey was distributed to a diverse sample of the US population. Using editing software, Ratnarathorn et al superimposed a mature linear scar and a mature zigzag scar onto the faces of standardized headshots from 4 individuals (2 males, 2 females). Each individual had 1 image of the linear scar and 1 image of the zigzag scars superimposed onto each of 3 anatomical areas—forehead (flat surface), cheek (convex surface), and temple (concave surface)—yielding 24 images for the respondents to assess.

A 24.5% (n=876) response rate was achieved with 3575 surveys distributed. Of the 876 respondents, 810 (92.5%) completed the survey (46.1% male, 53.9% female). Respondents were asked to rate the scars on a scale of 1 to 10 (1=normal skin; 10=worst scar imaginable).

Results were statistically significantly lower (better) for the linear scars compared to the zigzag scars in all 3 anatomic areas and across both male and female groups with a mean score of 2.9 versus 4.5 (P<.001). A multivariable regression model of respondent age, sex, educational level, and income showed no statistically significant effect on the rating of the scars.

What’s the issue?

This study highlights some interesting points. Coming from an academic practice, we oftentimes find ourselves teaching residents a variety of skin closure techniques to deal with defects from skin cancer excisions. It is both challenging and fun to design complex closures; however, we must keep in mind what is in the best interest of the patient. One of the points I try to emphasize is that we must understand that there are no true straight lines on the face. In fact, when scars from procedures appear as geometric shapes on the face, our eyes tend to be drawn to them. For this reason, it often is best to use curvilinear lines wherever possible. Ratnarathorn et al highlights that point exactly. More studies of this nature are needed to assess what is perceived as a successful outcome, by both physicians and patients.

As you follow your patients for the long-term, have you noticed that you perform more or fewer zigzag scars?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

One of the determinants of a successful surgical outcome is the perception, on the part of the patient, of the cosmesis of a scar. The use of Z-plasty is an accepted means by which to break a scar up into smaller geometric segments. In some instances, a Z-plasty is used for scar revision to elongate a scar that may be pulling. However, a study published online in JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery on April 7 mentions the lack of studies measuring the perception of these scars among the normal population after surgery.

Ratnarathorn et al designed a prospective Internet-based survey with a goal of 580 responses to give a power of 90%. The survey was distributed to a diverse sample of the US population. Using editing software, Ratnarathorn et al superimposed a mature linear scar and a mature zigzag scar onto the faces of standardized headshots from 4 individuals (2 males, 2 females). Each individual had 1 image of the linear scar and 1 image of the zigzag scars superimposed onto each of 3 anatomical areas—forehead (flat surface), cheek (convex surface), and temple (concave surface)—yielding 24 images for the respondents to assess.

A 24.5% (n=876) response rate was achieved with 3575 surveys distributed. Of the 876 respondents, 810 (92.5%) completed the survey (46.1% male, 53.9% female). Respondents were asked to rate the scars on a scale of 1 to 10 (1=normal skin; 10=worst scar imaginable).

Results were statistically significantly lower (better) for the linear scars compared to the zigzag scars in all 3 anatomic areas and across both male and female groups with a mean score of 2.9 versus 4.5 (P<.001). A multivariable regression model of respondent age, sex, educational level, and income showed no statistically significant effect on the rating of the scars.

What’s the issue?

This study highlights some interesting points. Coming from an academic practice, we oftentimes find ourselves teaching residents a variety of skin closure techniques to deal with defects from skin cancer excisions. It is both challenging and fun to design complex closures; however, we must keep in mind what is in the best interest of the patient. One of the points I try to emphasize is that we must understand that there are no true straight lines on the face. In fact, when scars from procedures appear as geometric shapes on the face, our eyes tend to be drawn to them. For this reason, it often is best to use curvilinear lines wherever possible. Ratnarathorn et al highlights that point exactly. More studies of this nature are needed to assess what is perceived as a successful outcome, by both physicians and patients.

As you follow your patients for the long-term, have you noticed that you perform more or fewer zigzag scars?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

One of the determinants of a successful surgical outcome is the perception, on the part of the patient, of the cosmesis of a scar. The use of Z-plasty is an accepted means by which to break a scar up into smaller geometric segments. In some instances, a Z-plasty is used for scar revision to elongate a scar that may be pulling. However, a study published online in JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery on April 7 mentions the lack of studies measuring the perception of these scars among the normal population after surgery.

Ratnarathorn et al designed a prospective Internet-based survey with a goal of 580 responses to give a power of 90%. The survey was distributed to a diverse sample of the US population. Using editing software, Ratnarathorn et al superimposed a mature linear scar and a mature zigzag scar onto the faces of standardized headshots from 4 individuals (2 males, 2 females). Each individual had 1 image of the linear scar and 1 image of the zigzag scars superimposed onto each of 3 anatomical areas—forehead (flat surface), cheek (convex surface), and temple (concave surface)—yielding 24 images for the respondents to assess.

A 24.5% (n=876) response rate was achieved with 3575 surveys distributed. Of the 876 respondents, 810 (92.5%) completed the survey (46.1% male, 53.9% female). Respondents were asked to rate the scars on a scale of 1 to 10 (1=normal skin; 10=worst scar imaginable).

Results were statistically significantly lower (better) for the linear scars compared to the zigzag scars in all 3 anatomic areas and across both male and female groups with a mean score of 2.9 versus 4.5 (P<.001). A multivariable regression model of respondent age, sex, educational level, and income showed no statistically significant effect on the rating of the scars.

What’s the issue?

This study highlights some interesting points. Coming from an academic practice, we oftentimes find ourselves teaching residents a variety of skin closure techniques to deal with defects from skin cancer excisions. It is both challenging and fun to design complex closures; however, we must keep in mind what is in the best interest of the patient. One of the points I try to emphasize is that we must understand that there are no true straight lines on the face. In fact, when scars from procedures appear as geometric shapes on the face, our eyes tend to be drawn to them. For this reason, it often is best to use curvilinear lines wherever possible. Ratnarathorn et al highlights that point exactly. More studies of this nature are needed to assess what is perceived as a successful outcome, by both physicians and patients.

As you follow your patients for the long-term, have you noticed that you perform more or fewer zigzag scars?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.