Journal Article

[Guest guest]

Okay. I didn't want to do this, but y'all are making me.

Two more paragraphs from the journal abstract that raised my eyebrows:

" Six patients underwent hysterectomy after UAE. One (described above) was for severe postembolization syndrome and three were for failure of UAE to relieve bulk-related symptoms. The remaining two women had the surgery performed by local gynecologists when they aborted submucosal fibroids 3 and 5 months after UAE. Had they been treated in our practice, we believe that these patients would probably not have resorted to hysterectomy. "

Okay. Setting aside all of the audacious presumptuousness contained in the last sentence above, just why weren't they treated in their practice? Why didn't they return to them for care? Women who so diligently seek out an alternative treatment like UAE are not, in my mind, women prone to jumping fast forward into a hysterectomy without good cause.

Next paragraph -- this one contained in the concluding paragraph of the Discussion:

" The high degree of therapeutic success coupled with the paucity of complications in this series suggests that we may be at a major turning point not only for management of leiomyomata but for gynecology as a whole, since this diagnosis is such a major part of gynecologic practice. Partially palliative procedures such as myoma coagulation as stand-alone operations, for example, are made unnecessary by UAE. Myomectomy and hysterectomy may be dramatically reduced in favor of this low-risk, highly effective treatment, especially when future childbearing is not an issue. "

I bet this went over REALLY well with the gynecologic laparoscopists who receive this journal!

Carla Dionnemailto:cdionne@...http://www.uterinefibroids.commember, /list/uterinefibroids