I remember when I first heard about that equipment, how cool it sounded that you could remove large pieces of material through a tiny hole, effectively with a tiny hand mixer and a hose.
The smaller the holes the simpler the recovery, but clearly the consequences are a lot more dire than they lead on. I was under the impression that the material was extracted at the point of removal, not through a separate mechanism. Sounds like there's some significant contact time and loss of material.
Which makes one wonder what kind of surgery one of these would be useful for. Precancerous cells? Nope. Infection? Same problems.
Plenty of examples available in the Journal of Minimal Access Surgery:
Pavlidis TE, Pavlidis ET, Sakantamis AK. The role of laparoscopic surgery in gastric cancer. J Min Access Surg 2012;8:35-8
Pai A, Melich G, Marecik SJ, Park JJ, Prasad LM. Current status of robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A bird's eye view. J Min Access Surg 2015;11:29-34
'I feel that my cancer was aggravated for medical negligence and laparoscopy' is a fair and very good question, but must be studied and answered correctly.
This case after the use of a morcellator is interesting
"Uterine myomas are the most common female genital tumour and occur in ~25% of reproductive-aged women"
"Parasitic myoma after laparoscopic surgery is very rare condition, there are almost 35 cases in the literature"
Temizkan O, Erenel H, Arici B, Asicioglu O. A case of parasitic myoma 4 years after laparoscopic myomectomy . J Min Access Surg 2014;10:202-3
Here we have a first measure of what "risky medical procedure" means in this case. Less than 0.07%. It seems that those are extremely rare cases, not justifying returning to old procedures that involve more pain and more health risk for 50.000 women. More invasive procedures equal to more people dying in operating theathers or in post-operative phase by the risks of surgery. Cancer is a drama of course, but this looks like a "lets kill thousands to save tens". More research is needed.
I am sorry to say that your reasoning is simplistic. The mortality risk implied by a potentially longer excision is not that trivial. Actually, this is exactly why the morcellator made it to widespread use. If that wasn't the case, you would be saying things on the order of "why use such primitive techniques when you can do it through less risky incisions? Whoever thought this was a good idea should be disqualified"
Benefit versus risk of the use of a morcellator remains to be established. Which is why the FDA did not ban it altogether. But in an overly legalized society such as the US, manufacturers will often find beneficial to push the complication risk back onto the practioner by discontinuing their product in hope of avoiding trial.
You are not alone. I had terrible trouble parsing the end of the title because I've literally just finished watching yesterday's episode of Doctor Who.
To eliminate the ambiguity, Ill suggest to change the title to "M.D. Red, who..."
The idea is that surgery with a probe trough small holes (that allow a much faster recovering and produce much less scars in patiens) could spread the cancer cells and should not be used in this special cases.
I wonder if this is an idea or a confirmed fact. Some machines could suck the remains in the same time and be safer than other, and quimiotherapy treament following after the operation (killing the possible non vascularised remains left behind) is often rutinary to deal with this risk.
Is a risky procedure, but the other option is opening directly the uterus with a scalp, that should atract other problems, could lead to bleeding, and is not lacking a fair amount of risk also, both in the present and in case of future pregnancies for the mother.
On one hand we have some probability X of that removing a benign tumor spreads a hidden cancer, very bad of course
But to avoid that risk, should we condemn ten thousands of women to cesarean sections and "having a third son is too risky because your uterus wall is weakened and could burst by the previous suture that we did to remove you a small benign tumor"?.
> Only then were Dr. Reed and her husband told that her surgeon had used a power morcellator to slice up her uterus.
This is a strange aseveration. First, because normally your surgeon explains you the procedure in detail and its risks, and give you a document that you need to read and sign in advance. Moreover, her workplace was operating theaters, and the absence of a big scar after the procedure should not be passed unnoticed for this experienced woman
While you seem to have some elements of clinical medicine, you miss the point in my opinion. Anyone working in a hospital daily know that most operations are explained rather succinctly to the patient, and that such a detail (as it was perceived at the time) as the use of a morcellator would be missing in 90% of cases. This women realized the problem only after she was diagnosed with cancer, which is why she did not complain immediately. Moreover, withholding the use of a morcellator in my opinion does not reduce one to obligated uterotomy.
The smaller the holes the simpler the recovery, but clearly the consequences are a lot more dire than they lead on. I was under the impression that the material was extracted at the point of removal, not through a separate mechanism. Sounds like there's some significant contact time and loss of material.
Which makes one wonder what kind of surgery one of these would be useful for. Precancerous cells? Nope. Infection? Same problems.