- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,936
- Reaction score
- 5,315
- Location
- Near the gargoyles
- Website
- www.alessandrakelley.com
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/...risks-unmentioned/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-19/news/48334892_1_uterine-cancer-hysterectomy-leiomyosarcoma
(The original article about this was in today's "Wall Street Journal," but they have an online paywall.)
Apparently hysterectomies, the surgical removal of a woman's uterus, were made vastly simpler a couple or three decades ago by the invention of a tool called a morcellator, a sort of electric gun-vacuum with a grinding tip which could be inserted into a small incision to grind the uterus up a bit at a time and vacuum out the flesh in minimally invasive surgery.
Many surgeons prefer to encase the flesh in a protective bag before morcellating, but gynecologists performing hysterectomies usually do not bother, as the industry standard does not call for it and it can cause complications.
As it turns out, though, scattered bits of flesh can be left inside women's bodies, and if any of them are unsuspected cancers, things go very bad very fast.
One study found women who had had the procedure had a 9x higher rate of unexpected sarcomas than doctors had been led to believe -- and told their patients -- might happen.
The cancer risk seems to be between 1 in 400 and 1 in 1000. Almost half a million hysterectomies are performed in the US alone every year, which means hundreds, maybe up to a thousand rapidly-spreading cancers spawned by this procedure, many of them fatal, have hit women every year.
The story has come to light because the widower of a woman who died of suddenly appearing metastatic cancer after a morcellation hysterectomy has sued the hospital to find out who manufactured the morcellator and to have the devices banned.
The FDA does not require that medical devices, which are not tested as stringently as drugs, be further tested for safety or effectiveness once something like them has already been approved for market. The first morcellator was brought to market in the 1990s and was adjudged not different enough to need testing.
http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-19/news/48334892_1_uterine-cancer-hysterectomy-leiomyosarcoma
(The original article about this was in today's "Wall Street Journal," but they have an online paywall.)
Apparently hysterectomies, the surgical removal of a woman's uterus, were made vastly simpler a couple or three decades ago by the invention of a tool called a morcellator, a sort of electric gun-vacuum with a grinding tip which could be inserted into a small incision to grind the uterus up a bit at a time and vacuum out the flesh in minimally invasive surgery.
Many surgeons prefer to encase the flesh in a protective bag before morcellating, but gynecologists performing hysterectomies usually do not bother, as the industry standard does not call for it and it can cause complications.
As it turns out, though, scattered bits of flesh can be left inside women's bodies, and if any of them are unsuspected cancers, things go very bad very fast.
One study found women who had had the procedure had a 9x higher rate of unexpected sarcomas than doctors had been led to believe -- and told their patients -- might happen.
The cancer risk seems to be between 1 in 400 and 1 in 1000. Almost half a million hysterectomies are performed in the US alone every year, which means hundreds, maybe up to a thousand rapidly-spreading cancers spawned by this procedure, many of them fatal, have hit women every year.
The story has come to light because the widower of a woman who died of suddenly appearing metastatic cancer after a morcellation hysterectomy has sued the hospital to find out who manufactured the morcellator and to have the devices banned.
The FDA does not require that medical devices, which are not tested as stringently as drugs, be further tested for safety or effectiveness once something like them has already been approved for market. The first morcellator was brought to market in the 1990s and was adjudged not different enough to need testing.
Last edited:
