OBG Management

Yes, we have been here before. Another day, another delay in implementing International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM). But, do not expect another postponement. If you are already conducting training sessions to move to the new system come next October, continue to do so. If you have not yet started, now is the time to start. ICD-10-CM is coming to your practice, and it will change everything.

“Why the switch?” you ask?
This change in our diagnostic coding system is required to allow coding for increased specificity in the reporting of diseases and recently recognized conditions as well as to maintain our status with respect to the rest of the world (which has been using ICD-10 for years). It also will be essential to use this coding system with the electronic medical record (EMR), so that meaningful use can be demonstrated more easily. Keep in mind that failure to show meaningful use will lead to penalties in the future. This new system offers improvements over ICD-9-CM in coding primary care encounters, external causes of injury, mental disorders, neoplasms, obstetric complications, and preventive health. It also allows physicians to demonstrate severity of illness in a way that is not possible with ICD-9-CM.

There will be 65,000 more codes than currently exist in ICD-9-CM. No physician will be able to keep all of these code numbers handy, but by making changes to clinician documentation and applying diagnostic coding guidelines correctly within the framework of the new system, the transition will not be onerous. And consider that, while the number of new codes is great, the number of codes used in the typical ObGyn practice will be a fraction of that number.

Related article: As ICD-10 conversion nears, keep these factors in mind to ensure proper reimbursements in 2014. Barbara S. Levy, MD (Audiocast, January 2014)

For ICD-10, documentation is paramount
The most important issue when considering overall coding and practice changes will be recognizing that clinician documentation will be the key to coding the highest level of specificity—and this high level of specificity may be required by most payers when ­deciding to reimburse for treatments rendered. Complete documentation sets the stage for the severity of illness and should in fact result in fewer denials for medical necessity.

For the new process to work efficiently, however, without a lot of delays due to coders and billers having to get more information from clinician offices before sending out claims, your understanding of and “buy-in” to the more clinically specific documentation will be essential.

To explain, under ICD-9-CM coding, simply documenting amenorrhea was acceptable. But when we switch to ICD-10-CM, documentation will need to specify whether the amenorrhea was primary or secondary. This more specific diagnostic coding will make a difference in the health statistics we collect. These data are used for research and to make decisions about allocation of resources—all essential components to excellent quality patient care.

The codes themselves will look different, which may be why some are resisting the change. Instead of the up to five digits required in ICD-9-CM, ICD-10-CM will require up to seven characters. All of the ICD-10-CM codes begin with a letter, may require a placeholder code of “x” as part of the code number, and the seventh character can be either a number or a letter. For instance, with some ICD-10-CM diagnoses reported by ObGyns, a seventh character might require documentation of the encounter as being initial, subsequent, or a sequel; in other cases, that seventh character will be used to identify which fetus has the problem identified by the diagnostic code.

Related article: The economics of surgical gynecology: How we can not only survive, but thrive, in the 21st Century. Q&A with Barbara S. Levy, MD (Practice Management; February 2013)

Your understanding, although not a necessity, is best for all involved
In truth, most clinicians are not familiar with code formats and code numbers within our current ICD-9-CM code set. The expectation that you will suddenly become fluent in ICD-10-CM “code speak” is not realistic. But an understanding of the new codes in relation to documentation expectations will go a long way to making this transition as smooth as possible. For instance, when a patient currently presents reporting vaginal pain that is found to be due to erosion of a previously placed mesh, the code 628.31 (Erosion of implanted vaginal mesh and other prosthetic materials to surrounding organ or tissue) is  reported. But in ICD-10-CM, the documentation would need to include whether this was an initial encounter and the code would become T83.711A (Erosion of implanted vaginal mesh and other prosthetic materials to surrounding organ or tissue, initial encounter).

Smart search. The good news is that most EMR products will have a “smart search” program available for clinicians to pick the correct code based on the search criteria. The bad news is that you will have to be a bit more exact in the search terms you use to make the process easy. For instance, the patient has pelvic pain but you search only on the term “pain.” That term by itself will result in about 100 codes to select from, and the order of the codes may mean that the correct code for pelvic pain is 25 codes down the list. However, if you instead search on the term “pelvic pain,” the one and only code for this condition will be listed and you can simply select it and move on.

Develop cheat sheets. Health-care professionals who are not using an EMR or some sort of computerized code search program will have a harder time, but the use of multiple paper “cheat sheets” for general gynecology, family planning, surgical cases, urology, infertility, obstetrics, etc., will ease that burden. Practice management staff can develop these forms, built on the codes that are currently being reported by the clinician. Place all of the options to replace the older code on the sheet so the correct selection can be made.

For instance, if the provider previously had reported vaginitis with one code, when we move to ICD-10-CM the code would expand to four code selections based on documentation of acute vaginitis, subacute and chronic vaginitis, acute vulvitis, or subacute and chronic vulvitis. If you only had documented vaginitis in the medical record, this gives you the opportunity to refine the documentation to something more specific that supports selection of the correct code and supports the medical need for management options.

Related article: Dos, don’ts, and dollars: Making the switch to an HER. Neil H. Baum, MD; Paul Kepper, MS. (Practice Management; November 2013)

Take advantage of the extra time
Now that we have a delay in the rollout, take this time to critically examine your documentation styles, and practice selecting ICD-10-CM codes before it counts toward payment or nonpayment of a claim. When the time comes, your practice will be fluent in the new system and there will be no delays in getting claims out the door or payment due to incorrect diagnostic coding. In other words, practice makes perfect.

In fact, some ObGyn practices that were ready for the new system have decided to switch to ICD-10-CM coding as of October 1, 2014. They will code each encounter by reporting both the ICD-9-CM code and the ICD-10-CM code on the revised CMS claim form or electronic billing format that permits dual diagnostic coding. This type of experience will ensure that all physicians and other health-care professionals in the practice have ample opportunity to improve their documentation and make any adjustments before the 2015 deadline.

Related article: The 2014 CPT and Medicare code changes affecting ObGyn practice. Melanie Witt, RN, CPC, COBGC, MA (Reimbursement Adviser; January 2014)

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!
Drop us a line and let us know what you think about current articles, which topics you'd like to see covered in future issues, and what challenges you face in daily practice. Tell us what you think by emailing us at: [email protected]

Yes, we have been here before. Another day, another delay in implementing International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM). But, do not expect another postponement. If you are already conducting training sessions to move to the new system come next October, continue to do so. If you have not yet started, now is the time to start. ICD-10-CM is coming to your practice, and it will change everything.

“Why the switch?” you ask?
This change in our diagnostic coding system is required to allow coding for increased specificity in the reporting of diseases and recently recognized conditions as well as to maintain our status with respect to the rest of the world (which has been using ICD-10 for years). It also will be essential to use this coding system with the electronic medical record (EMR), so that meaningful use can be demonstrated more easily. Keep in mind that failure to show meaningful use will lead to penalties in the future. This new system offers improvements over ICD-9-CM in coding primary care encounters, external causes of injury, mental disorders, neoplasms, obstetric complications, and preventive health. It also allows physicians to demonstrate severity of illness in a way that is not possible with ICD-9-CM.

There will be 65,000 more codes than currently exist in ICD-9-CM. No physician will be able to keep all of these code numbers handy, but by making changes to clinician documentation and applying diagnostic coding guidelines correctly within the framework of the new system, the transition will not be onerous. And consider that, while the number of new codes is great, the number of codes used in the typical ObGyn practice will be a fraction of that number.

Related article: As ICD-10 conversion nears, keep these factors in mind to ensure proper reimbursements in 2014. Barbara S. Levy, MD (Audiocast, January 2014)

For ICD-10, documentation is paramount
The most important issue when considering overall coding and practice changes will be recognizing that clinician documentation will be the key to coding the highest level of specificity—and this high level of specificity may be required by most payers when ­deciding to reimburse for treatments rendered. Complete documentation sets the stage for the severity of illness and should in fact result in fewer denials for medical necessity.

For the new process to work efficiently, however, without a lot of delays due to coders and billers having to get more information from clinician offices before sending out claims, your understanding of and “buy-in” to the more clinically specific documentation will be essential.

To explain, under ICD-9-CM coding, simply documenting amenorrhea was acceptable. But when we switch to ICD-10-CM, documentation will need to specify whether the amenorrhea was primary or secondary. This more specific diagnostic coding will make a difference in the health statistics we collect. These data are used for research and to make decisions about allocation of resources—all essential components to excellent quality patient care.

The codes themselves will look different, which may be why some are resisting the change. Instead of the up to five digits required in ICD-9-CM, ICD-10-CM will require up to seven characters. All of the ICD-10-CM codes begin with a letter, may require a placeholder code of “x” as part of the code number, and the seventh character can be either a number or a letter. For instance, with some ICD-10-CM diagnoses reported by ObGyns, a seventh character might require documentation of the encounter as being initial, subsequent, or a sequel; in other cases, that seventh character will be used to identify which fetus has the problem identified by the diagnostic code.

Related article: The economics of surgical gynecology: How we can not only survive, but thrive, in the 21st Century. Q&A with Barbara S. Levy, MD (Practice Management; February 2013)

Your understanding, although not a necessity, is best for all involved
In truth, most clinicians are not familiar with code formats and code numbers within our current ICD-9-CM code set. The expectation that you will suddenly become fluent in ICD-10-CM “code speak” is not realistic. But an understanding of the new codes in relation to documentation expectations will go a long way to making this transition as smooth as possible. For instance, when a patient currently presents reporting vaginal pain that is found to be due to erosion of a previously placed mesh, the code 628.31 (Erosion of implanted vaginal mesh and other prosthetic materials to surrounding organ or tissue) is  reported. But in ICD-10-CM, the documentation would need to include whether this was an initial encounter and the code would become T83.711A (Erosion of implanted vaginal mesh and other prosthetic materials to surrounding organ or tissue, initial encounter).

Smart search. The good news is that most EMR products will have a “smart search” program available for clinicians to pick the correct code based on the search criteria. The bad news is that you will have to be a bit more exact in the search terms you use to make the process easy. For instance, the patient has pelvic pain but you search only on the term “pain.” That term by itself will result in about 100 codes to select from, and the order of the codes may mean that the correct code for pelvic pain is 25 codes down the list. However, if you instead search on the term “pelvic pain,” the one and only code for this condition will be listed and you can simply select it and move on.

Develop cheat sheets. Health-care professionals who are not using an EMR or some sort of computerized code search program will have a harder time, but the use of multiple paper “cheat sheets” for general gynecology, family planning, surgical cases, urology, infertility, obstetrics, etc., will ease that burden. Practice management staff can develop these forms, built on the codes that are currently being reported by the clinician. Place all of the options to replace the older code on the sheet so the correct selection can be made.

For instance, if the provider previously had reported vaginitis with one code, when we move to ICD-10-CM the code would expand to four code selections based on documentation of acute vaginitis, subacute and chronic vaginitis, acute vulvitis, or subacute and chronic vulvitis. If you only had documented vaginitis in the medical record, this gives you the opportunity to refine the documentation to something more specific that supports selection of the correct code and supports the medical need for management options.

Related article: Dos, don’ts, and dollars: Making the switch to an HER. Neil H. Baum, MD; Paul Kepper, MS. (Practice Management; November 2013)

Take advantage of the extra time
Now that we have a delay in the rollout, take this time to critically examine your documentation styles, and practice selecting ICD-10-CM codes before it counts toward payment or nonpayment of a claim. When the time comes, your practice will be fluent in the new system and there will be no delays in getting claims out the door or payment due to incorrect diagnostic coding. In other words, practice makes perfect.

In fact, some ObGyn practices that were ready for the new system have decided to switch to ICD-10-CM coding as of October 1, 2014. They will code each encounter by reporting both the ICD-9-CM code and the ICD-10-CM code on the revised CMS claim form or electronic billing format that permits dual diagnostic coding. This type of experience will ensure that all physicians and other health-care professionals in the practice have ample opportunity to improve their documentation and make any adjustments before the 2015 deadline.

Related article: The 2014 CPT and Medicare code changes affecting ObGyn practice. Melanie Witt, RN, CPC, COBGC, MA (Reimbursement Adviser; January 2014)

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!
Drop us a line and let us know what you think about current articles, which topics you'd like to see covered in future issues, and what challenges you face in daily practice. Tell us what you think by emailing us at: [email protected]

Yes, we have been here before. Another day, another delay in implementing International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM). But, do not expect another postponement. If you are already conducting training sessions to move to the new system come next October, continue to do so. If you have not yet started, now is the time to start. ICD-10-CM is coming to your practice, and it will change everything.

“Why the switch?” you ask?
This change in our diagnostic coding system is required to allow coding for increased specificity in the reporting of diseases and recently recognized conditions as well as to maintain our status with respect to the rest of the world (which has been using ICD-10 for years). It also will be essential to use this coding system with the electronic medical record (EMR), so that meaningful use can be demonstrated more easily. Keep in mind that failure to show meaningful use will lead to penalties in the future. This new system offers improvements over ICD-9-CM in coding primary care encounters, external causes of injury, mental disorders, neoplasms, obstetric complications, and preventive health. It also allows physicians to demonstrate severity of illness in a way that is not possible with ICD-9-CM.

There will be 65,000 more codes than currently exist in ICD-9-CM. No physician will be able to keep all of these code numbers handy, but by making changes to clinician documentation and applying diagnostic coding guidelines correctly within the framework of the new system, the transition will not be onerous. And consider that, while the number of new codes is great, the number of codes used in the typical ObGyn practice will be a fraction of that number.

Related article: As ICD-10 conversion nears, keep these factors in mind to ensure proper reimbursements in 2014. Barbara S. Levy, MD (Audiocast, January 2014)

For ICD-10, documentation is paramount
The most important issue when considering overall coding and practice changes will be recognizing that clinician documentation will be the key to coding the highest level of specificity—and this high level of specificity may be required by most payers when ­deciding to reimburse for treatments rendered. Complete documentation sets the stage for the severity of illness and should in fact result in fewer denials for medical necessity.

For the new process to work efficiently, however, without a lot of delays due to coders and billers having to get more information from clinician offices before sending out claims, your understanding of and “buy-in” to the more clinically specific documentation will be essential.

To explain, under ICD-9-CM coding, simply documenting amenorrhea was acceptable. But when we switch to ICD-10-CM, documentation will need to specify whether the amenorrhea was primary or secondary. This more specific diagnostic coding will make a difference in the health statistics we collect. These data are used for research and to make decisions about allocation of resources—all essential components to excellent quality patient care.

The codes themselves will look different, which may be why some are resisting the change. Instead of the up to five digits required in ICD-9-CM, ICD-10-CM will require up to seven characters. All of the ICD-10-CM codes begin with a letter, may require a placeholder code of “x” as part of the code number, and the seventh character can be either a number or a letter. For instance, with some ICD-10-CM diagnoses reported by ObGyns, a seventh character might require documentation of the encounter as being initial, subsequent, or a sequel; in other cases, that seventh character will be used to identify which fetus has the problem identified by the diagnostic code.

Related article: The economics of surgical gynecology: How we can not only survive, but thrive, in the 21st Century. Q&A with Barbara S. Levy, MD (Practice Management; February 2013)

Your understanding, although not a necessity, is best for all involved
In truth, most clinicians are not familiar with code formats and code numbers within our current ICD-9-CM code set. The expectation that you will suddenly become fluent in ICD-10-CM “code speak” is not realistic. But an understanding of the new codes in relation to documentation expectations will go a long way to making this transition as smooth as possible. For instance, when a patient currently presents reporting vaginal pain that is found to be due to erosion of a previously placed mesh, the code 628.31 (Erosion of implanted vaginal mesh and other prosthetic materials to surrounding organ or tissue) is  reported. But in ICD-10-CM, the documentation would need to include whether this was an initial encounter and the code would become T83.711A (Erosion of implanted vaginal mesh and other prosthetic materials to surrounding organ or tissue, initial encounter).

Smart search. The good news is that most EMR products will have a “smart search” program available for clinicians to pick the correct code based on the search criteria. The bad news is that you will have to be a bit more exact in the search terms you use to make the process easy. For instance, the patient has pelvic pain but you search only on the term “pain.” That term by itself will result in about 100 codes to select from, and the order of the codes may mean that the correct code for pelvic pain is 25 codes down the list. However, if you instead search on the term “pelvic pain,” the one and only code for this condition will be listed and you can simply select it and move on.

Develop cheat sheets. Health-care professionals who are not using an EMR or some sort of computerized code search program will have a harder time, but the use of multiple paper “cheat sheets” for general gynecology, family planning, surgical cases, urology, infertility, obstetrics, etc., will ease that burden. Practice management staff can develop these forms, built on the codes that are currently being reported by the clinician. Place all of the options to replace the older code on the sheet so the correct selection can be made.

For instance, if the provider previously had reported vaginitis with one code, when we move to ICD-10-CM the code would expand to four code selections based on documentation of acute vaginitis, subacute and chronic vaginitis, acute vulvitis, or subacute and chronic vulvitis. If you only had documented vaginitis in the medical record, this gives you the opportunity to refine the documentation to something more specific that supports selection of the correct code and supports the medical need for management options.

Related article: Dos, don’ts, and dollars: Making the switch to an HER. Neil H. Baum, MD; Paul Kepper, MS. (Practice Management; November 2013)

Take advantage of the extra time
Now that we have a delay in the rollout, take this time to critically examine your documentation styles, and practice selecting ICD-10-CM codes before it counts toward payment or nonpayment of a claim. When the time comes, your practice will be fluent in the new system and there will be no delays in getting claims out the door or payment due to incorrect diagnostic coding. In other words, practice makes perfect.

In fact, some ObGyn practices that were ready for the new system have decided to switch to ICD-10-CM coding as of October 1, 2014. They will code each encounter by reporting both the ICD-9-CM code and the ICD-10-CM code on the revised CMS claim form or electronic billing format that permits dual diagnostic coding. This type of experience will ensure that all physicians and other health-care professionals in the practice have ample opportunity to improve their documentation and make any adjustments before the 2015 deadline.

Related article: The 2014 CPT and Medicare code changes affecting ObGyn practice. Melanie Witt, RN, CPC, COBGC, MA (Reimbursement Adviser; January 2014)

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!
Drop us a line and let us know what you think about current articles, which topics you'd like to see covered in future issues, and what challenges you face in daily practice. Tell us what you think by emailing us at: [email protected]

Postdischarge, the patient was febrile and developed abdominal pain and an odorous vaginal discharge. A month later, exploratory surgery revealed a retained blue towel that had been used for bowel retraction. The patient required open healing of the surgical wound and a temporary colostomy. She developed an incisional hernia after colostomy reversal, and hernia repair required resection of a small portion of the bowel.

PATIENT’S CLAIM It was negligent to use a blue towel to retract the bowel. The towel should have been removed from her abdomen before closure.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE The technician claimed that she did not provide the towel, did not see the towel used, and that she was not told that the towel had to be tracked. She noted that its color indicated that it lacked a radiopaque tag, and that hospital policy forbade use of untagged towels in an open wound.

Dr. A claimed that he specifically requested a blue towel because it was absorbent, that the technician provided the towel, and that the towel’s use prevented the patient from bleeding to death.

VERDICT A $7.2 million New York verdict was returned against both gynecologists and the hospital as the technician’s employer.

MISCARRIAGE AFTER D&C
A few days after a woman thought she miscarried, her family practi-tioner (FP) performed a dilation and curettage (D&C). 

The patient was at work 12 days later when she expelled a fully formed 14-week fetus into a toilet. She was taken to the emergency department (ED), where the cord was cut. Later that day, she passed placental tissue; a repeat D&C was performed the next day.

PATIENT'S CLAIM The FP did not properly perform the first D&C. Although the pathology report was available to the FP prior to the patient’s postoperative visit, the FP failed to inform the patient that no fetal parts had been extracted.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Because the FP thought that the fetus had been passed prior to the D&C, she believed the pathology report was appropriate.

The patient had been informed of the possibility of retained products of conception after the D&C. The FP had ordered a blood pregnancy test that would have revealed the presence of retained products of conception, but the patient did not have the test. The patient did not contact the FP to report symptoms that felt like labor pains on the day that she passed the fetus.

VERDICT A bench trial resulted in a $51,000 California verdict.

PREGNANT WOMAN COMPLAINS OF LEG PAIN; DIES OF DVT
A 23-year-old woman went to the ED with pain and swelling in her lower left leg and calf. The symptoms were reported to her ObGyn, who examined and then discharged her within a few hours, with instructions to come for her regularly scheduled prenatal visit.

The patient died 2 weeks later. The cause of death was determined to be a pulmonary embolus from a thrombus of the left popliteal vein.

ESTATE’S CLAIM The ObGyn was negligent in failing to test the patient for thrombosis in her left leg when she was in the ED or several days later at the office, when she continued to report leg pain.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The patient did not have signs of thrombosis at the ED or at the subsequent office visit. The pathologist reported that the clot that caused the embolus appeared fresh. The ObGyn surmised that it had formed after the patient’s last appointment.

VERDICT A Texas defense verdict was returned.

Mother took topiramate; child born with cleft lip and palate: $3M verdict
When a woman learned she was pregnant in December 2007, she was taking topiramate (Topamax) to treat migraine headaches. She discussed tapering off but not discontinuing topiramate usage with her neurologist. The patient’s ObGyn told her that topiramate was safe to take during pregnancy. The child was born with a cleft lip and palate.

PARENTS’ CLAIM Janssen Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of Topamax, failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential risks associated with Topamax until labeling was changed in March 2011. Janssen knew of potential birth defects associated with Topamax use during pregnancy more than a decade before the labeling change; Janssen’s associate director of regulatory affairs had testified in an earlier hearing that there was knowledge of related birth defects as early as 1996.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE There is uncertainty as to whether exposure to Topamax during pregnancy causes birth defects. The neurologist had warned the patient of possible risks associated with taking Topamax during pregnancy, but the patient had refused to discontinue the drug.

VERDICT A $3 million Pennsylvania verdict was returned.

Related articles:
• Is it time to rethink the use of oral contraceptives in premenopausal women with migraine? Anne H. Calhoun, MD (Audiocast; October 2013)
• How to choose a contraceptive for a patient who has headaches. Kristina M. Tocce, MD; Stephanie B. Teal, MD, MPH (February 2011)
• The gynecologist’s role in managing menstrual migraine. Anne H. Calhoun, MD (April 2010)

WAS MOTHER’S HISTORY OF INCOMPETENT CERVIX IGNORED?
Early in her second pregnancy, a woman told her ObGyn that she had previously miscarried due to an incompetent cervix.

At 24 weeks’ gestation, the patient was admitted to the hospital with back and pelvic pain and vaginal bleeding. Shortly after admission, the ObGyn performed a vaginal examination and ordered ultrasonography (US), which showed that the fetus was in the transverse position and the membranes were bulging.

The ObGyn performed an emergency cesarean delivery, but the premature infant died within 2 hours.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The ObGyn should have performed a cervical cerclage because of the mother’s history of an incompetent cervix. The mother should have been placed on bed rest and monitored every 2 weeks for cervical dilation.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The patient underwent regular prenatal evaluations for an incompetent cervix, and the findings were always normal.

VERDICT A Florida defense verdict was returned.

Related article:
A stepwise approach to cervical cerclage. Katrin Karl, MD; Michael Katz, MD (Surgical Technique; June 2012)

ObGyn unresponsive to patient’s postsurgical phone calls
In 2009, a 50-year-old woman reported occasional right lower quadrant pain to her ObGyn. US results were normal. The menopausal patient’s history included three cesarean deliveries, a total abdominal hysterectomy, and a laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy. 

When the patient saw her ObGyn in December 2010, she reported intermittent, progressive right lower quadrant pain that radiated down her right leg. She also reported urine loss with coughing or sneezing, and slight pain on intercourse. The ObGyn prescribed oxybutynin chloride (Ditropan) to treat the patient’s incontinence.

Three weeks later, the patient reported bilateral lower quadrant pain to her ObGyn, with minor improvement in incontinence.

The ObGyn performed bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in January 2011. Surgery took 3.5 hours due to extensive adhesiolysis.

After discharge, the patient felt ill and vomited. She attempted to reach the ObGyn by phone several times. That evening, the ObGyn prescribed a suppository to treat nausea and vomiting.

The patient went to the ED later that night and was found to have a perforated colon. Emergency surgery to repair the injury included creation of a colostomy, which was repaired 20 months later.

PATIENT’S CLAIM A proper workup of her symptoms was not performed; BSO was unnecessary. The ObGyn was negligent for failing to respond in a timely manner to her post-discharge phone calls, and did not properly evaluate her postoperative symptoms.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE BSO was warranted. Colon injury is a known complication of the procedure.

VERDICT A $716,976 California verdict was returned, but was reduced to $591,967 under the state cap.

Who delayed delivery? $32.8M verdict for child with CP
An 18-year-old woman at 38 weeks’ gestation went to the hospital in labor. After 3.5 hours, the fetal heart rate dropped to 60 bpm. A nurse repositioned the patient, administered oxygen, and increased intravenous fluids. When the nurse rang the emergency call bell, a second nurse responded. Eighteen minutes after the fetal heart rate first dropped, a nurse rang the call bell again and the on-call ObGyn appeared.

The ObGyn performed a vaginal examination and repositioned the patient. She noted that the fetal heart-rate monitor was not working correctly, and called for an emergency cesarean delivery. The baby was born 42 minutes after the fetal heart rate initially dropped.

The child received a diagnosis of spastic-quadriplegia cerebral palsy (CP). She requires a wheelchair and has severe speech deficits and developmental delays.

PARENT’S CLAIM Cesarean delivery was not performed in a timely manner; the delivery delay was responsible for the injury that caused CP. The ObGyn was negligent in not responding to the initial emergency call. The nurses should have summoned the ObGyn earlier.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE The hospital argued that the nurses followed proper protocol. Furthermore, the hospital noted that the ObGyn did not respond to the first call, and did not request a cesarean delivery for 17 minutes.

The ObGyn claimed that she made the decision to perform cesarean delivery within 5 minutes of her arrival, but it took another 15 minutes to gather the surgical team.

VERDICT A $32,882,860 Pennsylvania verdict was returned against the hospital. The ObGyn was vindicated. 

DIFFICULT DELIVERY: ZAVANELLI MANEUVER
At 38 5/7 weeks’ gestation, a woman went to the hospital for induction of labor. Twenty-four hours later, she began to push. After an hour of pushing, the mother was exhausted and had a low-grade fever, and the fetal heart rate was slowing. Her ObGyn, Dr. A, attempted vacuum extraction and performed a midline episiotomy. Shoulder dystocia was encountered and maneuvers were used, but without success. Another ObGyn, Dr. B, arrived to assist and also attempted the maneuvers.

The physicians agreed to try the Zavanelli maneuver, which involves pushing the baby’s head back inside the vagina and performing a cesarean delivery.

The baby was sent to the neonatal intensive care unit, where her breathing quickly normalized without supplemental oxygen. The child has a brachial plexus injury.

PARENTS’ CLAIM Dr. A should have performed an earlier cesarean delivery. Excessive traction was used when shoulder dystocia maneuvers were attempted.

PHYSICIANS’ DEFENSE The ObGyns’ actions saved the baby’s life and prevented serious injury to both mother and baby. 

VERDICT An Alabama defense verdict was returned.

Related article:
You are the second responder to a shoulder dystocia emergency. What do you do first? Robert L. Barbieri, MD (Editorial; May 2013)

PLACENTA PREVIA FOUND EARLY, BUT FETUS DIES
A woman's first pregnancy was complicated by complete placenta previa. A cesarean delivery was scheduled at 36 weeks’ gestation. However, before that date, the mother developed vaginal bleeding and was taken to the ED. The covering ObGyn was notified of the mother’s arrival within 15 minutes, but did not come to the hospital for 2.5 hours. After examining her, the ObGyn ordered US evaluation and transferred the mother to the obstetric floor. Nursing notes indicate that the fetal heart rate was 120 bpm at that time.

There are no notes from the ObGyn between 5:30 am and mid-afternoon. There is no record of the fetal heart rate when the mother was taken for US in the afternoon, which revealed fetal demise and a large extraovular hematoma. A cesarean delivery was performed. It was determined that the fetus died from placental abruption.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The mother was not adequately evaluated and monitored, which led to fetal demise. Delivery could have proceeded while the fetus was still alive.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The case was settled during the trial.

VERDICT A $495,000 Massachusetts settlement was reached.

Related articles:
• What is the optimal time to deliver a woman who has placenta previa? John T. Repke, MD (Examining the Evidence; April 2011)
• Act fast when confronted by a coagulopathy postpartum. Robert L. Barbieri, MD (Editorial; March 2012)

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Drop us a line and let us know what you think about this or other current articles, which topics you'd like to see covered in future issues, and what challenges you face in daily practice. Tell us what you think by emailing us at: [email protected] Please include your name, city and state. Stay in touch! Your feedback is important to us!

Postdischarge, the patient was febrile and developed abdominal pain and an odorous vaginal discharge. A month later, exploratory surgery revealed a retained blue towel that had been used for bowel retraction. The patient required open healing of the surgical wound and a temporary colostomy. She developed an incisional hernia after colostomy reversal, and hernia repair required resection of a small portion of the bowel.

PATIENT’S CLAIM It was negligent to use a blue towel to retract the bowel. The towel should have been removed from her abdomen before closure.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE The technician claimed that she did not provide the towel, did not see the towel used, and that she was not told that the towel had to be tracked. She noted that its color indicated that it lacked a radiopaque tag, and that hospital policy forbade use of untagged towels in an open wound.

Dr. A claimed that he specifically requested a blue towel because it was absorbent, that the technician provided the towel, and that the towel’s use prevented the patient from bleeding to death.

VERDICT A $7.2 million New York verdict was returned against both gynecologists and the hospital as the technician’s employer.

MISCARRIAGE AFTER D&C
A few days after a woman thought she miscarried, her family practi-tioner (FP) performed a dilation and curettage (D&C). 

The patient was at work 12 days later when she expelled a fully formed 14-week fetus into a toilet. She was taken to the emergency department (ED), where the cord was cut. Later that day, she passed placental tissue; a repeat D&C was performed the next day.

PATIENT'S CLAIM The FP did not properly perform the first D&C. Although the pathology report was available to the FP prior to the patient’s postoperative visit, the FP failed to inform the patient that no fetal parts had been extracted.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Because the FP thought that the fetus had been passed prior to the D&C, she believed the pathology report was appropriate.

The patient had been informed of the possibility of retained products of conception after the D&C. The FP had ordered a blood pregnancy test that would have revealed the presence of retained products of conception, but the patient did not have the test. The patient did not contact the FP to report symptoms that felt like labor pains on the day that she passed the fetus.

VERDICT A bench trial resulted in a $51,000 California verdict.

PREGNANT WOMAN COMPLAINS OF LEG PAIN; DIES OF DVT
A 23-year-old woman went to the ED with pain and swelling in her lower left leg and calf. The symptoms were reported to her ObGyn, who examined and then discharged her within a few hours, with instructions to come for her regularly scheduled prenatal visit.

The patient died 2 weeks later. The cause of death was determined to be a pulmonary embolus from a thrombus of the left popliteal vein.

ESTATE’S CLAIM The ObGyn was negligent in failing to test the patient for thrombosis in her left leg when she was in the ED or several days later at the office, when she continued to report leg pain.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The patient did not have signs of thrombosis at the ED or at the subsequent office visit. The pathologist reported that the clot that caused the embolus appeared fresh. The ObGyn surmised that it had formed after the patient’s last appointment.

VERDICT A Texas defense verdict was returned.

Mother took topiramate; child born with cleft lip and palate: $3M verdict
When a woman learned she was pregnant in December 2007, she was taking topiramate (Topamax) to treat migraine headaches. She discussed tapering off but not discontinuing topiramate usage with her neurologist. The patient’s ObGyn told her that topiramate was safe to take during pregnancy. The child was born with a cleft lip and palate.

PARENTS’ CLAIM Janssen Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of Topamax, failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential risks associated with Topamax until labeling was changed in March 2011. Janssen knew of potential birth defects associated with Topamax use during pregnancy more than a decade before the labeling change; Janssen’s associate director of regulatory affairs had testified in an earlier hearing that there was knowledge of related birth defects as early as 1996.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE There is uncertainty as to whether exposure to Topamax during pregnancy causes birth defects. The neurologist had warned the patient of possible risks associated with taking Topamax during pregnancy, but the patient had refused to discontinue the drug.

VERDICT A $3 million Pennsylvania verdict was returned.

Related articles:
• Is it time to rethink the use of oral contraceptives in premenopausal women with migraine? Anne H. Calhoun, MD (Audiocast; October 2013)
• How to choose a contraceptive for a patient who has headaches. Kristina M. Tocce, MD; Stephanie B. Teal, MD, MPH (February 2011)
• The gynecologist’s role in managing menstrual migraine. Anne H. Calhoun, MD (April 2010)

WAS MOTHER’S HISTORY OF INCOMPETENT CERVIX IGNORED?
Early in her second pregnancy, a woman told her ObGyn that she had previously miscarried due to an incompetent cervix.

At 24 weeks’ gestation, the patient was admitted to the hospital with back and pelvic pain and vaginal bleeding. Shortly after admission, the ObGyn performed a vaginal examination and ordered ultrasonography (US), which showed that the fetus was in the transverse position and the membranes were bulging.

The ObGyn performed an emergency cesarean delivery, but the premature infant died within 2 hours.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The ObGyn should have performed a cervical cerclage because of the mother’s history of an incompetent cervix. The mother should have been placed on bed rest and monitored every 2 weeks for cervical dilation.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The patient underwent regular prenatal evaluations for an incompetent cervix, and the findings were always normal.

VERDICT A Florida defense verdict was returned.

Related article:
A stepwise approach to cervical cerclage. Katrin Karl, MD; Michael Katz, MD (Surgical Technique; June 2012)

ObGyn unresponsive to patient’s postsurgical phone calls
In 2009, a 50-year-old woman reported occasional right lower quadrant pain to her ObGyn. US results were normal. The menopausal patient’s history included three cesarean deliveries, a total abdominal hysterectomy, and a laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy. 

When the patient saw her ObGyn in December 2010, she reported intermittent, progressive right lower quadrant pain that radiated down her right leg. She also reported urine loss with coughing or sneezing, and slight pain on intercourse. The ObGyn prescribed oxybutynin chloride (Ditropan) to treat the patient’s incontinence.

Three weeks later, the patient reported bilateral lower quadrant pain to her ObGyn, with minor improvement in incontinence.

The ObGyn performed bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in January 2011. Surgery took 3.5 hours due to extensive adhesiolysis.

After discharge, the patient felt ill and vomited. She attempted to reach the ObGyn by phone several times. That evening, the ObGyn prescribed a suppository to treat nausea and vomiting.

The patient went to the ED later that night and was found to have a perforated colon. Emergency surgery to repair the injury included creation of a colostomy, which was repaired 20 months later.

PATIENT’S CLAIM A proper workup of her symptoms was not performed; BSO was unnecessary. The ObGyn was negligent for failing to respond in a timely manner to her post-discharge phone calls, and did not properly evaluate her postoperative symptoms.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE BSO was warranted. Colon injury is a known complication of the procedure.

VERDICT A $716,976 California verdict was returned, but was reduced to $591,967 under the state cap.

Who delayed delivery? $32.8M verdict for child with CP
An 18-year-old woman at 38 weeks’ gestation went to the hospital in labor. After 3.5 hours, the fetal heart rate dropped to 60 bpm. A nurse repositioned the patient, administered oxygen, and increased intravenous fluids. When the nurse rang the emergency call bell, a second nurse responded. Eighteen minutes after the fetal heart rate first dropped, a nurse rang the call bell again and the on-call ObGyn appeared.

The ObGyn performed a vaginal examination and repositioned the patient. She noted that the fetal heart-rate monitor was not working correctly, and called for an emergency cesarean delivery. The baby was born 42 minutes after the fetal heart rate initially dropped.

The child received a diagnosis of spastic-quadriplegia cerebral palsy (CP). She requires a wheelchair and has severe speech deficits and developmental delays.

PARENT’S CLAIM Cesarean delivery was not performed in a timely manner; the delivery delay was responsible for the injury that caused CP. The ObGyn was negligent in not responding to the initial emergency call. The nurses should have summoned the ObGyn earlier.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE The hospital argued that the nurses followed proper protocol. Furthermore, the hospital noted that the ObGyn did not respond to the first call, and did not request a cesarean delivery for 17 minutes.

The ObGyn claimed that she made the decision to perform cesarean delivery within 5 minutes of her arrival, but it took another 15 minutes to gather the surgical team.

VERDICT A $32,882,860 Pennsylvania verdict was returned against the hospital. The ObGyn was vindicated. 

DIFFICULT DELIVERY: ZAVANELLI MANEUVER
At 38 5/7 weeks’ gestation, a woman went to the hospital for induction of labor. Twenty-four hours later, she began to push. After an hour of pushing, the mother was exhausted and had a low-grade fever, and the fetal heart rate was slowing. Her ObGyn, Dr. A, attempted vacuum extraction and performed a midline episiotomy. Shoulder dystocia was encountered and maneuvers were used, but without success. Another ObGyn, Dr. B, arrived to assist and also attempted the maneuvers.

The physicians agreed to try the Zavanelli maneuver, which involves pushing the baby’s head back inside the vagina and performing a cesarean delivery.

The baby was sent to the neonatal intensive care unit, where her breathing quickly normalized without supplemental oxygen. The child has a brachial plexus injury.

PARENTS’ CLAIM Dr. A should have performed an earlier cesarean delivery. Excessive traction was used when shoulder dystocia maneuvers were attempted.

PHYSICIANS’ DEFENSE The ObGyns’ actions saved the baby’s life and prevented serious injury to both mother and baby. 

VERDICT An Alabama defense verdict was returned.

Related article:
You are the second responder to a shoulder dystocia emergency. What do you do first? Robert L. Barbieri, MD (Editorial; May 2013)

PLACENTA PREVIA FOUND EARLY, BUT FETUS DIES
A woman's first pregnancy was complicated by complete placenta previa. A cesarean delivery was scheduled at 36 weeks’ gestation. However, before that date, the mother developed vaginal bleeding and was taken to the ED. The covering ObGyn was notified of the mother’s arrival within 15 minutes, but did not come to the hospital for 2.5 hours. After examining her, the ObGyn ordered US evaluation and transferred the mother to the obstetric floor. Nursing notes indicate that the fetal heart rate was 120 bpm at that time.

There are no notes from the ObGyn between 5:30 am and mid-afternoon. There is no record of the fetal heart rate when the mother was taken for US in the afternoon, which revealed fetal demise and a large extraovular hematoma. A cesarean delivery was performed. It was determined that the fetus died from placental abruption.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The mother was not adequately evaluated and monitored, which led to fetal demise. Delivery could have proceeded while the fetus was still alive.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The case was settled during the trial.

VERDICT A $495,000 Massachusetts settlement was reached.

Related articles:
• What is the optimal time to deliver a woman who has placenta previa? John T. Repke, MD (Examining the Evidence; April 2011)
• Act fast when confronted by a coagulopathy postpartum. Robert L. Barbieri, MD (Editorial; March 2012)

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Drop us a line and let us know what you think about this or other current articles, which topics you'd like to see covered in future issues, and what challenges you face in daily practice. Tell us what you think by emailing us at: [email protected] Please include your name, city and state. Stay in touch! Your feedback is important to us!

Postdischarge, the patient was febrile and developed abdominal pain and an odorous vaginal discharge. A month later, exploratory surgery revealed a retained blue towel that had been used for bowel retraction. The patient required open healing of the surgical wound and a temporary colostomy. She developed an incisional hernia after colostomy reversal, and hernia repair required resection of a small portion of the bowel.

PATIENT’S CLAIM It was negligent to use a blue towel to retract the bowel. The towel should have been removed from her abdomen before closure.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE The technician claimed that she did not provide the towel, did not see the towel used, and that she was not told that the towel had to be tracked. She noted that its color indicated that it lacked a radiopaque tag, and that hospital policy forbade use of untagged towels in an open wound.

Dr. A claimed that he specifically requested a blue towel because it was absorbent, that the technician provided the towel, and that the towel’s use prevented the patient from bleeding to death.

VERDICT A $7.2 million New York verdict was returned against both gynecologists and the hospital as the technician’s employer.

MISCARRIAGE AFTER D&C
A few days after a woman thought she miscarried, her family practi-tioner (FP) performed a dilation and curettage (D&C). 

The patient was at work 12 days later when she expelled a fully formed 14-week fetus into a toilet. She was taken to the emergency department (ED), where the cord was cut. Later that day, she passed placental tissue; a repeat D&C was performed the next day.

PATIENT'S CLAIM The FP did not properly perform the first D&C. Although the pathology report was available to the FP prior to the patient’s postoperative visit, the FP failed to inform the patient that no fetal parts had been extracted.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Because the FP thought that the fetus had been passed prior to the D&C, she believed the pathology report was appropriate.

The patient had been informed of the possibility of retained products of conception after the D&C. The FP had ordered a blood pregnancy test that would have revealed the presence of retained products of conception, but the patient did not have the test. The patient did not contact the FP to report symptoms that felt like labor pains on the day that she passed the fetus.

VERDICT A bench trial resulted in a $51,000 California verdict.

PREGNANT WOMAN COMPLAINS OF LEG PAIN; DIES OF DVT
A 23-year-old woman went to the ED with pain and swelling in her lower left leg and calf. The symptoms were reported to her ObGyn, who examined and then discharged her within a few hours, with instructions to come for her regularly scheduled prenatal visit.

The patient died 2 weeks later. The cause of death was determined to be a pulmonary embolus from a thrombus of the left popliteal vein.

ESTATE’S CLAIM The ObGyn was negligent in failing to test the patient for thrombosis in her left leg when she was in the ED or several days later at the office, when she continued to report leg pain.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The patient did not have signs of thrombosis at the ED or at the subsequent office visit. The pathologist reported that the clot that caused the embolus appeared fresh. The ObGyn surmised that it had formed after the patient’s last appointment.

VERDICT A Texas defense verdict was returned.

Mother took topiramate; child born with cleft lip and palate: $3M verdict
When a woman learned she was pregnant in December 2007, she was taking topiramate (Topamax) to treat migraine headaches. She discussed tapering off but not discontinuing topiramate usage with her neurologist. The patient’s ObGyn told her that topiramate was safe to take during pregnancy. The child was born with a cleft lip and palate.

PARENTS’ CLAIM Janssen Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of Topamax, failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential risks associated with Topamax until labeling was changed in March 2011. Janssen knew of potential birth defects associated with Topamax use during pregnancy more than a decade before the labeling change; Janssen’s associate director of regulatory affairs had testified in an earlier hearing that there was knowledge of related birth defects as early as 1996.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE There is uncertainty as to whether exposure to Topamax during pregnancy causes birth defects. The neurologist had warned the patient of possible risks associated with taking Topamax during pregnancy, but the patient had refused to discontinue the drug.

VERDICT A $3 million Pennsylvania verdict was returned.

Related articles:
• Is it time to rethink the use of oral contraceptives in premenopausal women with migraine? Anne H. Calhoun, MD (Audiocast; October 2013)
• How to choose a contraceptive for a patient who has headaches. Kristina M. Tocce, MD; Stephanie B. Teal, MD, MPH (February 2011)
• The gynecologist’s role in managing menstrual migraine. Anne H. Calhoun, MD (April 2010)

WAS MOTHER’S HISTORY OF INCOMPETENT CERVIX IGNORED?
Early in her second pregnancy, a woman told her ObGyn that she had previously miscarried due to an incompetent cervix.

At 24 weeks’ gestation, the patient was admitted to the hospital with back and pelvic pain and vaginal bleeding. Shortly after admission, the ObGyn performed a vaginal examination and ordered ultrasonography (US), which showed that the fetus was in the transverse position and the membranes were bulging.

The ObGyn performed an emergency cesarean delivery, but the premature infant died within 2 hours.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The ObGyn should have performed a cervical cerclage because of the mother’s history of an incompetent cervix. The mother should have been placed on bed rest and monitored every 2 weeks for cervical dilation.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The patient underwent regular prenatal evaluations for an incompetent cervix, and the findings were always normal.

VERDICT A Florida defense verdict was returned.

Related article:
A stepwise approach to cervical cerclage. Katrin Karl, MD; Michael Katz, MD (Surgical Technique; June 2012)

ObGyn unresponsive to patient’s postsurgical phone calls
In 2009, a 50-year-old woman reported occasional right lower quadrant pain to her ObGyn. US results were normal. The menopausal patient’s history included three cesarean deliveries, a total abdominal hysterectomy, and a laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy. 

When the patient saw her ObGyn in December 2010, she reported intermittent, progressive right lower quadrant pain that radiated down her right leg. She also reported urine loss with coughing or sneezing, and slight pain on intercourse. The ObGyn prescribed oxybutynin chloride (Ditropan) to treat the patient’s incontinence.

Three weeks later, the patient reported bilateral lower quadrant pain to her ObGyn, with minor improvement in incontinence.

The ObGyn performed bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in January 2011. Surgery took 3.5 hours due to extensive adhesiolysis.

After discharge, the patient felt ill and vomited. She attempted to reach the ObGyn by phone several times. That evening, the ObGyn prescribed a suppository to treat nausea and vomiting.

The patient went to the ED later that night and was found to have a perforated colon. Emergency surgery to repair the injury included creation of a colostomy, which was repaired 20 months later.

PATIENT’S CLAIM A proper workup of her symptoms was not performed; BSO was unnecessary. The ObGyn was negligent for failing to respond in a timely manner to her post-discharge phone calls, and did not properly evaluate her postoperative symptoms.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE BSO was warranted. Colon injury is a known complication of the procedure.

VERDICT A $716,976 California verdict was returned, but was reduced to $591,967 under the state cap.

Who delayed delivery? $32.8M verdict for child with CP
An 18-year-old woman at 38 weeks’ gestation went to the hospital in labor. After 3.5 hours, the fetal heart rate dropped to 60 bpm. A nurse repositioned the patient, administered oxygen, and increased intravenous fluids. When the nurse rang the emergency call bell, a second nurse responded. Eighteen minutes after the fetal heart rate first dropped, a nurse rang the call bell again and the on-call ObGyn appeared.

The ObGyn performed a vaginal examination and repositioned the patient. She noted that the fetal heart-rate monitor was not working correctly, and called for an emergency cesarean delivery. The baby was born 42 minutes after the fetal heart rate initially dropped.

The child received a diagnosis of spastic-quadriplegia cerebral palsy (CP). She requires a wheelchair and has severe speech deficits and developmental delays.

PARENT’S CLAIM Cesarean delivery was not performed in a timely manner; the delivery delay was responsible for the injury that caused CP. The ObGyn was negligent in not responding to the initial emergency call. The nurses should have summoned the ObGyn earlier.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE The hospital argued that the nurses followed proper protocol. Furthermore, the hospital noted that the ObGyn did not respond to the first call, and did not request a cesarean delivery for 17 minutes.

The ObGyn claimed that she made the decision to perform cesarean delivery within 5 minutes of her arrival, but it took another 15 minutes to gather the surgical team.

VERDICT A $32,882,860 Pennsylvania verdict was returned against the hospital. The ObGyn was vindicated. 

DIFFICULT DELIVERY: ZAVANELLI MANEUVER
At 38 5/7 weeks’ gestation, a woman went to the hospital for induction of labor. Twenty-four hours later, she began to push. After an hour of pushing, the mother was exhausted and had a low-grade fever, and the fetal heart rate was slowing. Her ObGyn, Dr. A, attempted vacuum extraction and performed a midline episiotomy. Shoulder dystocia was encountered and maneuvers were used, but without success. Another ObGyn, Dr. B, arrived to assist and also attempted the maneuvers.

The physicians agreed to try the Zavanelli maneuver, which involves pushing the baby’s head back inside the vagina and performing a cesarean delivery.

The baby was sent to the neonatal intensive care unit, where her breathing quickly normalized without supplemental oxygen. The child has a brachial plexus injury.

PARENTS’ CLAIM Dr. A should have performed an earlier cesarean delivery. Excessive traction was used when shoulder dystocia maneuvers were attempted.

PHYSICIANS’ DEFENSE The ObGyns’ actions saved the baby’s life and prevented serious injury to both mother and baby. 

VERDICT An Alabama defense verdict was returned.

Related article:
You are the second responder to a shoulder dystocia emergency. What do you do first? Robert L. Barbieri, MD (Editorial; May 2013)

PLACENTA PREVIA FOUND EARLY, BUT FETUS DIES
A woman's first pregnancy was complicated by complete placenta previa. A cesarean delivery was scheduled at 36 weeks’ gestation. However, before that date, the mother developed vaginal bleeding and was taken to the ED. The covering ObGyn was notified of the mother’s arrival within 15 minutes, but did not come to the hospital for 2.5 hours. After examining her, the ObGyn ordered US evaluation and transferred the mother to the obstetric floor. Nursing notes indicate that the fetal heart rate was 120 bpm at that time.

There are no notes from the ObGyn between 5:30 am and mid-afternoon. There is no record of the fetal heart rate when the mother was taken for US in the afternoon, which revealed fetal demise and a large extraovular hematoma. A cesarean delivery was performed. It was determined that the fetus died from placental abruption.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The mother was not adequately evaluated and monitored, which led to fetal demise. Delivery could have proceeded while the fetus was still alive.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The case was settled during the trial.

VERDICT A $495,000 Massachusetts settlement was reached.

Related articles:
• What is the optimal time to deliver a woman who has placenta previa? John T. Repke, MD (Examining the Evidence; April 2011)
• Act fast when confronted by a coagulopathy postpartum. Robert L. Barbieri, MD (Editorial; March 2012)

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Drop us a line and let us know what you think about this or other current articles, which topics you'd like to see covered in future issues, and what challenges you face in daily practice. Tell us what you think by emailing us at: [email protected] Please include your name, city and state. Stay in touch! Your feedback is important to us!

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved paroxetine mesylate 7.5 mg (Brisdelle) for the treatment of moderate to severe menopausal vasomotor symptoms (VMS). Paroxetine, formerly known as low-dose mesylate salt of paroxetine (LDMP), is a nonhormonal agent, which makes it an alternative hot flash therapy for menopausal women who cannot or do not want to use hormones. Paroxetine mesylate (Pexeva, Brisdelle) and paroxetine hydrochloride (Paxil, and generics) are two salts of the same active compound (paroxetine). They may have somewhat different metabolism.

The efficacy and safety of paroxetine mesylate, a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), were evaluated individually in three Phase 2 or 3 multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, published by James Simon, MD, from George Washington University School of Medicine, and colleagues,¹ and Joffe and colleagues.² Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the individual studies were mild or moderate in severity, with minimal acute discontinuation symptoms reported on treatment cessation.

In a study³ presented April 29, at the 2014 Annual Clinical Meeting of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in Chicago, Illinois, Simon and colleagues further reported on the overall tolerability and safety profile of paroxetine mesylate 7.5 mg using pooled data from the three randomized trials. In their post-hoc analyses, they specifically examined the emergence of adverse events linked to the use of SSRIs when prescribed for psychiatric disorders at therapeutically higher doses than 7.5 mg. The adverse events focused on included weight gain, decreased libido, and sleep disturbance, as well as suicidality, abnormal bleeding, and bone fracture.

Study details. A total of 1,276 postmenopausal women (approximately 70% white) aged 40 years or older (median age, 54 years) with moderate to severe VMS (7−8 hot flashes/day; 50−60 hot flashes/wk) received either paroxetine mesylate or placebo at bedtime for 8 (Phase 2), 12 (Phase 3), or 24 (Phase 3) weeks. The study was sponsored by Noven Therapeutics, LLC.

Treatment-emergent adverse events and discontinuation
About half (50.4%) of the 635 women in the paroxetine group and 47.0% of the 641 women in the placebo group reported at least one TEAE. Most commonly reported TEAEs in the paroxetine group (reported in ≥2% of patients and with a twofold or higher frequency than in the placebo group) were nausea, fatigue, and dizziness.

TEAEs that were determined to be related to the study drug were reported in 19.5% in the paroxetine group and in 17.6% in the placebo group. These most frequent TEAEs were fatigue, nausea, dizziness, and diarrhea.

Severe AEs were reported in 3.9% and 3.6% of women in the paroxetine and placebo groups, respectively, although the investigator determined that less than 1% were related to paroxetine treatment.

TEAEs that led to discontinuation occurred in 4.7% of paroxetine-treated women and in 3.7% of placebo-treated women, although the incidence of study drug interruptions from TEAEs was similar (0.9%) between treatments. The most frequent adverse reactions leading to discontinuation in the paroxetine arm were abdominal pain (0.3%), attention disturbances (0.3%), headache (0.3%), and suicidal ideation (0.3%).

Of the most common AEs, nausea occurred mainly within the first 4 weeks of treatment; fatigue occurred primarily within the first week of treatment and decreased in frequency with continued therapy. Incidences and types of AEs that began after 12 weeks were similar to those that began during the first 12 weeks of treatment.

AEs related to SSRIs not found to be problematic
No differences were found between groups with regard to TEAEs related to weight, libido, or sleep. No clinically meaningful changes in laboratory values, vital signs, or ECGs were observed with either group. No clinically important findings on abnormal bleeding, bone fracture, or suicidality were evident in the paroxetine arm.

In the Phase 3 studies:

• One suicide attempt was reported in the paroxetine group in the 24-week study, but was determined by investigators to be unrelated to treatment

• Incidence rates of gastrointestinal and other bleeding events were similar between groups

• Five bone fractures were reported: One in the paroxetine group and four among three participants in the placebo group.

One death occurred in the 12-week Phase 3 study due to acute respiratory failure with evidence of hypertension-mediated pulmonary edema and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. The investigator did not consider the death to be related to the study drug.

Study conclusion
The authors concluded that paroxetine 7.5 mg had favorable tolerability in menopausal women with moderate to severe VMS.

“Paroxetine 7.5 mg offers a nonhormonal treatment option for women who seek treatment for moderate to severe hot flashes associated with menopause,” said Dr. Simon.³ 

Tell us what you think! Send your Letter to the Editor: [email protected]

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved paroxetine mesylate 7.5 mg (Brisdelle) for the treatment of moderate to severe menopausal vasomotor symptoms (VMS). Paroxetine, formerly known as low-dose mesylate salt of paroxetine (LDMP), is a nonhormonal agent, which makes it an alternative hot flash therapy for menopausal women who cannot or do not want to use hormones. Paroxetine mesylate (Pexeva, Brisdelle) and paroxetine hydrochloride (Paxil, and generics) are two salts of the same active compound (paroxetine). They may have somewhat different metabolism.

The efficacy and safety of paroxetine mesylate, a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), were evaluated individually in three Phase 2 or 3 multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, published by James Simon, MD, from George Washington University School of Medicine, and colleagues,¹ and Joffe and colleagues.² Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the individual studies were mild or moderate in severity, with minimal acute discontinuation symptoms reported on treatment cessation.

In a study³ presented April 29, at the 2014 Annual Clinical Meeting of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in Chicago, Illinois, Simon and colleagues further reported on the overall tolerability and safety profile of paroxetine mesylate 7.5 mg using pooled data from the three randomized trials. In their post-hoc analyses, they specifically examined the emergence of adverse events linked to the use of SSRIs when prescribed for psychiatric disorders at therapeutically higher doses than 7.5 mg. The adverse events focused on included weight gain, decreased libido, and sleep disturbance, as well as suicidality, abnormal bleeding, and bone fracture.

Study details. A total of 1,276 postmenopausal women (approximately 70% white) aged 40 years or older (median age, 54 years) with moderate to severe VMS (7−8 hot flashes/day; 50−60 hot flashes/wk) received either paroxetine mesylate or placebo at bedtime for 8 (Phase 2), 12 (Phase 3), or 24 (Phase 3) weeks. The study was sponsored by Noven Therapeutics, LLC.

Treatment-emergent adverse events and discontinuation
About half (50.4%) of the 635 women in the paroxetine group and 47.0% of the 641 women in the placebo group reported at least one TEAE. Most commonly reported TEAEs in the paroxetine group (reported in ≥2% of patients and with a twofold or higher frequency than in the placebo group) were nausea, fatigue, and dizziness.

TEAEs that were determined to be related to the study drug were reported in 19.5% in the paroxetine group and in 17.6% in the placebo group. These most frequent TEAEs were fatigue, nausea, dizziness, and diarrhea.

Severe AEs were reported in 3.9% and 3.6% of women in the paroxetine and placebo groups, respectively, although the investigator determined that less than 1% were related to paroxetine treatment.

TEAEs that led to discontinuation occurred in 4.7% of paroxetine-treated women and in 3.7% of placebo-treated women, although the incidence of study drug interruptions from TEAEs was similar (0.9%) between treatments. The most frequent adverse reactions leading to discontinuation in the paroxetine arm were abdominal pain (0.3%), attention disturbances (0.3%), headache (0.3%), and suicidal ideation (0.3%).

Of the most common AEs, nausea occurred mainly within the first 4 weeks of treatment; fatigue occurred primarily within the first week of treatment and decreased in frequency with continued therapy. Incidences and types of AEs that began after 12 weeks were similar to those that began during the first 12 weeks of treatment.

AEs related to SSRIs not found to be problematic
No differences were found between groups with regard to TEAEs related to weight, libido, or sleep. No clinically meaningful changes in laboratory values, vital signs, or ECGs were observed with either group. No clinically important findings on abnormal bleeding, bone fracture, or suicidality were evident in the paroxetine arm.

In the Phase 3 studies:

• One suicide attempt was reported in the paroxetine group in the 24-week study, but was determined by investigators to be unrelated to treatment

• Incidence rates of gastrointestinal and other bleeding events were similar between groups

• Five bone fractures were reported: One in the paroxetine group and four among three participants in the placebo group.

One death occurred in the 12-week Phase 3 study due to acute respiratory failure with evidence of hypertension-mediated pulmonary edema and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. The investigator did not consider the death to be related to the study drug.

Study conclusion
The authors concluded that paroxetine 7.5 mg had favorable tolerability in menopausal women with moderate to severe VMS.

“Paroxetine 7.5 mg offers a nonhormonal treatment option for women who seek treatment for moderate to severe hot flashes associated with menopause,” said Dr. Simon.³ 

Tell us what you think! Send your Letter to the Editor: [email protected]

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved paroxetine mesylate 7.5 mg (Brisdelle) for the treatment of moderate to severe menopausal vasomotor symptoms (VMS). Paroxetine, formerly known as low-dose mesylate salt of paroxetine (LDMP), is a nonhormonal agent, which makes it an alternative hot flash therapy for menopausal women who cannot or do not want to use hormones. Paroxetine mesylate (Pexeva, Brisdelle) and paroxetine hydrochloride (Paxil, and generics) are two salts of the same active compound (paroxetine). They may have somewhat different metabolism.

The efficacy and safety of paroxetine mesylate, a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), were evaluated individually in three Phase 2 or 3 multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, published by James Simon, MD, from George Washington University School of Medicine, and colleagues,¹ and Joffe and colleagues.² Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the individual studies were mild or moderate in severity, with minimal acute discontinuation symptoms reported on treatment cessation.

In a study³ presented April 29, at the 2014 Annual Clinical Meeting of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in Chicago, Illinois, Simon and colleagues further reported on the overall tolerability and safety profile of paroxetine mesylate 7.5 mg using pooled data from the three randomized trials. In their post-hoc analyses, they specifically examined the emergence of adverse events linked to the use of SSRIs when prescribed for psychiatric disorders at therapeutically higher doses than 7.5 mg. The adverse events focused on included weight gain, decreased libido, and sleep disturbance, as well as suicidality, abnormal bleeding, and bone fracture.

Study details. A total of 1,276 postmenopausal women (approximately 70% white) aged 40 years or older (median age, 54 years) with moderate to severe VMS (7−8 hot flashes/day; 50−60 hot flashes/wk) received either paroxetine mesylate or placebo at bedtime for 8 (Phase 2), 12 (Phase 3), or 24 (Phase 3) weeks. The study was sponsored by Noven Therapeutics, LLC.

Treatment-emergent adverse events and discontinuation
About half (50.4%) of the 635 women in the paroxetine group and 47.0% of the 641 women in the placebo group reported at least one TEAE. Most commonly reported TEAEs in the paroxetine group (reported in ≥2% of patients and with a twofold or higher frequency than in the placebo group) were nausea, fatigue, and dizziness.

TEAEs that were determined to be related to the study drug were reported in 19.5% in the paroxetine group and in 17.6% in the placebo group. These most frequent TEAEs were fatigue, nausea, dizziness, and diarrhea.

Severe AEs were reported in 3.9% and 3.6% of women in the paroxetine and placebo groups, respectively, although the investigator determined that less than 1% were related to paroxetine treatment.

TEAEs that led to discontinuation occurred in 4.7% of paroxetine-treated women and in 3.7% of placebo-treated women, although the incidence of study drug interruptions from TEAEs was similar (0.9%) between treatments. The most frequent adverse reactions leading to discontinuation in the paroxetine arm were abdominal pain (0.3%), attention disturbances (0.3%), headache (0.3%), and suicidal ideation (0.3%).

Of the most common AEs, nausea occurred mainly within the first 4 weeks of treatment; fatigue occurred primarily within the first week of treatment and decreased in frequency with continued therapy. Incidences and types of AEs that began after 12 weeks were similar to those that began during the first 12 weeks of treatment.

AEs related to SSRIs not found to be problematic
No differences were found between groups with regard to TEAEs related to weight, libido, or sleep. No clinically meaningful changes in laboratory values, vital signs, or ECGs were observed with either group. No clinically important findings on abnormal bleeding, bone fracture, or suicidality were evident in the paroxetine arm.

In the Phase 3 studies:

• One suicide attempt was reported in the paroxetine group in the 24-week study, but was determined by investigators to be unrelated to treatment

• Incidence rates of gastrointestinal and other bleeding events were similar between groups

• Five bone fractures were reported: One in the paroxetine group and four among three participants in the placebo group.

One death occurred in the 12-week Phase 3 study due to acute respiratory failure with evidence of hypertension-mediated pulmonary edema and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. The investigator did not consider the death to be related to the study drug.

Study conclusion
The authors concluded that paroxetine 7.5 mg had favorable tolerability in menopausal women with moderate to severe VMS.

“Paroxetine 7.5 mg offers a nonhormonal treatment option for women who seek treatment for moderate to severe hot flashes associated with menopause,” said Dr. Simon.³ 

Tell us what you think! Send your Letter to the Editor: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

Steven R. Goldstein, MD, CCD, NCMP
Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine; Director, Gynecologic Ultrasound; and Co-Director, Bone Densitometry, New York University Medical Center, New York

In this month’s installment of Images in GYN Ultrasound, Drs. Stalnaker and Kaunitz have done an excellent job of describing what adenomyosis will look like on transvaginal ultrasound

In my first book, entitled Endovaginal Ultrasound,¹ I coined the phrase “sonomicoscopy.” I maintain that we are seeing things with transvaginal ultrasound that you could not see with your naked eye if you could hold the structure at arms length and squint at it.

Adenomyosis is defined as endometrial glands and stroma embedded within the myometrium. Literature has shown that if you do three sections on a routine hysterectomy specimen the incidence of adenomyosis is 31%; with six sections the incidence is 61%! In other words, it is a very prevalent occurrence.

There is no question that adenomyosis CAN be a source of uterine enlargement, pain, and bleeding. But it is such a prevalent finding that the real question is: What percent of women, especially parous women, will have sonographic evidence of adenomyosis but be totally asymptomatic? Such women represent the denominator while the symptomatic ones represent the numerator. I worry about labeling asymptomatic patients with this entity—when they become perimenopausal and oligo-ovulatory, and may have irregular bleeding—their symptoms can be judged to be FROM adenomyosis and surgical correction is offered.

An important part of successful ultrasound use is being sure that we redefine what is “normal” as we examine patients with this “low power microscope.” So, while transvaginal ultrasound CAN identify glands and stroma within the myometrium, we must be careful not to automatically label this finding as a “disease.”

Reference
1.     Goldstein SR. Endovaginal Ultrasound. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc: Hoboken, NJ; January 1991.

Uterine adenomyosis: Noninvasive diagnosis

Michelle L. Stalnaker, MD
Assistant Professor and Associate Program Director, Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine–Jacksonville

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD
University of Florida Research Foundation Professor and Associate Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine–Jacksonville. Dr. Kaunitz is a member of the OBG Management Board of Editors.

Uterine adenomyosis is a pathologic condition in which endometrial glands and stroma are present in the uterine myometrium. Uterine adenomyosis is common, and may coexist with leiomyomata or endometriosis. When present, it may cause dysmenorrhea and heavy menses. 

Until recently, the best way to establish a diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis was through histologic examination of a hysterectomy specimen. However, transvaginal ultrasound and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging have been shown to be accurate for noninvasive diagnosis.

Signs on imaging include:

• Globular/bulky uterus
• Asymmetric thickening of myometrium
• Loss of clarity of endo-myometrial interface
• Diffuse heterogenous myometrial echogenicity
• Myometrial cysts

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

INTRODUCTION

Steven R. Goldstein, MD, CCD, NCMP
Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine; Director, Gynecologic Ultrasound; and Co-Director, Bone Densitometry, New York University Medical Center, New York

In this month’s installment of Images in GYN Ultrasound, Drs. Stalnaker and Kaunitz have done an excellent job of describing what adenomyosis will look like on transvaginal ultrasound

In my first book, entitled Endovaginal Ultrasound,¹ I coined the phrase “sonomicoscopy.” I maintain that we are seeing things with transvaginal ultrasound that you could not see with your naked eye if you could hold the structure at arms length and squint at it.

Adenomyosis is defined as endometrial glands and stroma embedded within the myometrium. Literature has shown that if you do three sections on a routine hysterectomy specimen the incidence of adenomyosis is 31%; with six sections the incidence is 61%! In other words, it is a very prevalent occurrence.

There is no question that adenomyosis CAN be a source of uterine enlargement, pain, and bleeding. But it is such a prevalent finding that the real question is: What percent of women, especially parous women, will have sonographic evidence of adenomyosis but be totally asymptomatic? Such women represent the denominator while the symptomatic ones represent the numerator. I worry about labeling asymptomatic patients with this entity—when they become perimenopausal and oligo-ovulatory, and may have irregular bleeding—their symptoms can be judged to be FROM adenomyosis and surgical correction is offered.

An important part of successful ultrasound use is being sure that we redefine what is “normal” as we examine patients with this “low power microscope.” So, while transvaginal ultrasound CAN identify glands and stroma within the myometrium, we must be careful not to automatically label this finding as a “disease.”

Reference
1.     Goldstein SR. Endovaginal Ultrasound. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc: Hoboken, NJ; January 1991.

Uterine adenomyosis: Noninvasive diagnosis

Michelle L. Stalnaker, MD
Assistant Professor and Associate Program Director, Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine–Jacksonville

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD
University of Florida Research Foundation Professor and Associate Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine–Jacksonville. Dr. Kaunitz is a member of the OBG Management Board of Editors.

Uterine adenomyosis is a pathologic condition in which endometrial glands and stroma are present in the uterine myometrium. Uterine adenomyosis is common, and may coexist with leiomyomata or endometriosis. When present, it may cause dysmenorrhea and heavy menses. 

Until recently, the best way to establish a diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis was through histologic examination of a hysterectomy specimen. However, transvaginal ultrasound and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging have been shown to be accurate for noninvasive diagnosis.

Signs on imaging include:

• Globular/bulky uterus
• Asymmetric thickening of myometrium
• Loss of clarity of endo-myometrial interface
• Diffuse heterogenous myometrial echogenicity
• Myometrial cysts

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

INTRODUCTION

Steven R. Goldstein, MD, CCD, NCMP
Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine; Director, Gynecologic Ultrasound; and Co-Director, Bone Densitometry, New York University Medical Center, New York

In this month’s installment of Images in GYN Ultrasound, Drs. Stalnaker and Kaunitz have done an excellent job of describing what adenomyosis will look like on transvaginal ultrasound

In my first book, entitled Endovaginal Ultrasound,¹ I coined the phrase “sonomicoscopy.” I maintain that we are seeing things with transvaginal ultrasound that you could not see with your naked eye if you could hold the structure at arms length and squint at it.

Adenomyosis is defined as endometrial glands and stroma embedded within the myometrium. Literature has shown that if you do three sections on a routine hysterectomy specimen the incidence of adenomyosis is 31%; with six sections the incidence is 61%! In other words, it is a very prevalent occurrence.

There is no question that adenomyosis CAN be a source of uterine enlargement, pain, and bleeding. But it is such a prevalent finding that the real question is: What percent of women, especially parous women, will have sonographic evidence of adenomyosis but be totally asymptomatic? Such women represent the denominator while the symptomatic ones represent the numerator. I worry about labeling asymptomatic patients with this entity—when they become perimenopausal and oligo-ovulatory, and may have irregular bleeding—their symptoms can be judged to be FROM adenomyosis and surgical correction is offered.

An important part of successful ultrasound use is being sure that we redefine what is “normal” as we examine patients with this “low power microscope.” So, while transvaginal ultrasound CAN identify glands and stroma within the myometrium, we must be careful not to automatically label this finding as a “disease.”

Reference
1.     Goldstein SR. Endovaginal Ultrasound. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc: Hoboken, NJ; January 1991.

Uterine adenomyosis: Noninvasive diagnosis

Michelle L. Stalnaker, MD
Assistant Professor and Associate Program Director, Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine–Jacksonville

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD
University of Florida Research Foundation Professor and Associate Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine–Jacksonville. Dr. Kaunitz is a member of the OBG Management Board of Editors.

Uterine adenomyosis is a pathologic condition in which endometrial glands and stroma are present in the uterine myometrium. Uterine adenomyosis is common, and may coexist with leiomyomata or endometriosis. When present, it may cause dysmenorrhea and heavy menses. 

Until recently, the best way to establish a diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis was through histologic examination of a hysterectomy specimen. However, transvaginal ultrasound and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging have been shown to be accurate for noninvasive diagnosis.

Signs on imaging include:

• Globular/bulky uterus
• Asymmetric thickening of myometrium
• Loss of clarity of endo-myometrial interface
• Diffuse heterogenous myometrial echogenicity
• Myometrial cysts

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image