OBG Management

CASE Cost-conscious benign laparoscopic hysterectomy

A 43-year-old woman undergoes laparoscopic hysterectomy for treatment of presumed benign uterine fibroids and menorrhagia. Once she is prepped with ChloraPrep with tint, a RUMI II uterine manipulator is placed. Laparoscopic ports include a Kii Balloon Blunt Tip system, a Versaport Plus Pyramidal Bladed Trocar, and 2 Kii Fios First Entry trocars.

The surgeon uses the Harmonic ACE +7 device (a purely ultrasonic device) to perform most of the procedure. The uterus is morcellated and removed using the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved Olympus Contained Tissue Extraction System, and the vaginal cuff is closed using a series of 2-0 PDS II sutures. Skin incisions are closed using Dermabond skin adhesive.

Total cost of the products used in this case: $1,592.40. Could different product choices have reduced this figure?

Health-care costs continue to rise faster than inflation: Total health-care expenditures account for approximately 18% of gross domestic product in the United States. Physicians therefore face increasing pressure to take cost into account in their care of patients.¹ Cost-effectiveness and outcome quality continue to increase in importance as measures in many clinical trials that compare standard and alternative therapies. And women’s health—specifically, minimally invasive gynecologic surgery—invites such comparisons.

Overall, conventional laparoscopic gynecologic procedures tend to cost less than laparotomy, a consequence of shorter hospital stays, faster recovery, and fewer complications.^2-5 What is not fully appreciated, however, is how choice of laparoscopic instrumentation and associated products affects surgical costs. In this article, which revisits and updates a 2013 OBG Management examination of cost-consciousness in the selection of equipment and supplies for minimally invasive gynecologic surgery,⁶ we review these costs in 2018. Our goal is to raise awareness of the role of cost in care among minimally invasive gynecologic surgeons.

In the sections that follow, we highlight several aspects of laparoscopic gynecologic surgery that can affect your selection of instruments and products, describing differences in cost as well as some distinctive characteristics of products. Note that our comparisons focus solely on cost—not on ease of utility, effectiveness, surgical technique, risk of complications, or any other assessment. Note also that numerous other instruments and devices are commercially available besides those we list. 

Importantly, 2013 and 2018 costs are included in TABLE 1. Unless otherwise noted, costs are per unit. Changes in manufacturers and material costs and technologic advances have contributed to some, but not all, of the changes in cost between 2013 and 2018. 

Continue to: Variables to keep in mind

Even when taking cost into consideration, tailor your selection of instruments and supplies to your capabilities and comfort, as well as to the particular characteristics of the patient and the planned procedure. Also, remember that your institution might have arrangements with companies that supply minimally invasive instruments, and that such arrangements might limit your options, to some degree. Last, be aware that reprocessed ports and instruments are now available at a reduced cost. In short, we believe that it is crucial for surgeons to be cognizant of all products available to them prior to attending a surgical case.

Skin preparation and other preop considerations

Multiple preoperative skin preparations are available (TABLE 1). Traditionally, a povidone–iodine topical antiseptic, such as Betadine, has been used for skin and vaginal preparation prior to gynecologic surgery. Hibiclens and ChloraPrep are different combinations of chlorhexidine gluconate and isopropyl alcohol that act as broad-spectrum antiseptics. 

ChloraPrep is applied with a wand-like applicator and contains a much higher concentration of isopropyl alcohol than Hibiclens (70% and 4%, respectively), rendering it more flammable. It also requires longer drying time before surgery can be started. Clear and tinted ChloraPrep formulations are available.

Continue to: Uterine manipulators

Cannulation of the cervical canal allows for uterine manipulation, increasing intraoperative traction and exposure as well as visualization of the adnexae and peritoneal surfaces.

The Hulka-Kenwick is a reusable uterine manipulator that is fairly standard and easy to apply. Specialized, single-use manipulators also are available, including the Advincula Delineator and VCare Plus uterine manipulator/elevator. The VCare Plus manipulator consists of 2 opposing cups: one cup (available in 4 sizes, small to extra-large) fits around the cervix and defines the site for colpotomy; the other helps maintain pneumoperitoneum once a colpotomy is created. 

The ZUMI (Zinnanti Uterine Manipulator Injector) is a rigid, curved shaft with an intrauterine balloon to help prevent expulsion. It also has an integrated injection channel to allow for intraoperative chromotubation.

The RUMI II System fits individual patient anatomy with various tip lengths and colpotomy cup sizes. The Advincula Arch Uterine Manipulator Handle is a reusable alternative to the articulating RUMI II and works with the RUMI II System Disposable Tip (TABLE 1).

Continue to: Entry style and ports

The peritoneal cavity can be entered using either a closed (Veress needle) or open (Hasson) technique.^7,8 Closed entry might allow for quicker access to the peritoneal cavity. A 2015 Cochrane review of 46 randomized, controlled trials of 7,389 patients undergoing laparoscopy compared outcomes between laparoscopic entry techniques and found no difference in major vascular or visceral injury between closed and open techniques at the umbilicus.⁹ However, open entry was associated with a greater likelihood of successful entry into the peritoneal cavity.⁹

Left upper-quadrant (Palmer’s point) entry is another option when adhesions are anticipated or abnormal anatomy is encountered at the umbilicus.

In general, complications related to laparoscopic entry are rare in gynecologic surgery, ranging from 0.18% to 0.5% of cases in studies.^8,10,11 A minimally invasive surgeon might prefer one entry technique over another but should be able to perform both methods competently and recognize when a particular technique is warranted.

--

Choosing a port

Laparoscopic ports usually range from 5 mm to 12 mm and can be fixed or variable in size. 

The primary port, usually placed through the umbilicus, can be a standard, blunt, 10-mm (Bluntport Plus Hasson) port, or it can be specialized to ease entry of the port or stabilize the port once it is introduced through the skin incision.

Optical trocars have a transparent tip that allows the surgeon to visualize the abdominal wall entry layer by layer using a 0° laparoscope, sometimes after pneumoperitoneum is created with a Veress needle. Other specialized ports include those that have balloons or foam collars, or both, to secure the port without traditional stay sutures on the fascia and to minimize leakage of pneumoperitoneum.

Continue to: Accessory ports

When choosing an accessory port type and size, it is important to anticipate which instruments and devices, such as an Endo Catch bag, suture, or needle, will need to pass through it. Also, know whether 5-mm and 10-mm laparoscopes are available, and anticipate whether a second port with insufflation capabilities will be required.

The Pediport Locking Trocar is a user-friendly, 5-mm bladed port that deploys a mushroom-shaped stabilizer to prevent dislodgement. The Versaport bladed trocar has a spring-loaded entry shield, which slides over the blade to protect it once the peritoneal cavity is entered.

VersaStep Bladeless Trocars are introduced after a Step Insufflation Needle has been inserted. These trocars create a smaller fascial defect than conventional bladed trocars for an equivalent cannula size (TABLE 1).

Cutting and coagulating

Both monopolar and bipolar electrosurgical techniques are commonly employed in gynecologic laparoscopy. A wide variety of disposable and reusable instruments are available for monopolar energy, such as scissors, a hook, and a spatula.

Bipolar devices also can be disposable or reusable. Although bipolar electrosurgery minimizes injury to surrounding tissues by containing the current within the jaws of the forceps, it cannot cut or seal large vessels. As a result, several advanced bipolar devices with sealing and transecting capabilities have emerged (the LigaSure line of devices, Enseal). Ultrasonic devices, such as the Harmonic ACE, also can coagulate and cut at lower temperatures by converting electrical energy to mechanical energy (TABLE 1).

Continue to: Suture material

Aspects of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery that require the use of suture include, but are not limited to, closure of the vaginal cuff, oophoropexy, and reapproximation of the ovarian cortex after cystectomy. Synthetic and delayed absorbable sutures, such as PDS II, are used frequently. The barbed suture also has gained popularity because it anchors to tissue without the need for intracorporeal or extracorporeal knots (TABLE 1).

Tissue removal

Adnexae and pathologic tissue, such as dermoid cysts, can be removed intact from the peritoneal cavity using an Endo Catch Single Use Specimen Pouch, a polyurethane sac. Careful use, with placement of the ovary with the cyst into the pouch prior to cystectomy, can contain or prevent spillage outside the bag.

A large uterus that cannot be extracted through a colpotomy can be manually morcellated. Appropriate candidates can undergo power morcellation using an FDA-approved device. (TABLE 1), allowing for the removal of smaller pieces through a small laparoscopic incision or the colpotomy.

Issues surrounding morcellation continue to require that gynecologic surgeons understand FDA recommendations. In 2014, the FDA issued a safety communication that morcellation is “contraindicated in gynecologic surgery if tissue is known or suspected to be malignant; it is contraindicated for uterine tissue removal with presumed benign fibroids in perimenopausal women.”¹² A black-box warning was issued that uterine tissue might contain unsuspected cancer.

A task force created by AAGL addressed key issues in this controversy. 

AAGL then provided guidelines related to morcellation¹³:

• Do not use morcellate in the setting of known malignancy.
• Provide appropriate preoperative evaluation with up-to-date Pap smear screening and image analysis.
• Increasing age significantly increases the risk of leiomyosarcoma, especially in a postmenopausal woman.
• Fibroid growth is not a reliable sign of malignancy.
• Do not use a morcellator if the patient is at high risk for malignancy.
• If leiomyosarcoma is the presumed pathology, await the final pathology report before proceeding with hysterectomy.
• Concomitant use of a bag might mitigate the risk of tissue spread.
• Obtain informed consent before proceeding with morcellation.

Continue to: Skin closure

Final subcuticular closure can be accomplished using sutures or skin adhesive. Sutures can be synthetic, absorbable monofilament (Caprosyn), or synthetic, absorbable, braided multifilament (Polysorb).

Skin adhesive closes incisions quickly, avoids inflammation related to foreign bodies, and can ease patients’ concerns that sometimes arise when absorbable suture persists postoperatively (TABLE 1).

The impact of physician experience

Physician experience has been shown to reduce cost while maintaining quality of care.¹⁴ That was the conclusion of researchers who undertook a retrospective study, addressing cost and clinical outcomes, of senior and junior attending physicians who performed laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy on 120 patients. Studies such as these often lead to clinical pathways to facilitate cost-effective quality care. 

--

CASE Same outcome at lower cost

The hypothetical 43-year-old patient in the opening case undergoes laparoscopic hysterectomy for treatment of uterine fibroids and menorrhagia. In this scenario, however, the surgeon makes the following product choices:

• The patient is prepped with Hibiclens.
• A VCare Plus uterine manipulator is placed.
• Laparoscopic ports include a VersaStep Plus Bladeless Trocar with Step Insufflation Needle; Versaport Plus Pyramidal Bladed Trocar; and 2 VersaOne Bladed trocars.
• The surgeon uses the PKS LYONS Dissecting Forceps and reprocessed Endo Shears to perform the hysterectomy.
• The uterus is enclosed in an Endo Catch bag and removed through the minilaparotomy site.
• The vaginal cuff is closed using 2-0 V-Loc barbed suture. Skin incisions are closed with 4-0 Polysorb, a polyglycolic acid absorbable suture.

The cost of this set of products? $360.44 or, roughly, $1,231.96 less than the set-up described in the case at the beginning of this article (TABLE 2).

Continue to: Summing up

Here are key points to take away from this analysis and discussion:

• As third-party payers and hospitals continue to evaluate surgeons individually and compare procedures from surgeon to surgeon, reimbursement might be stratified—thereby favoring physicians who demonstrate both quality outcomes and cost containment.
• There are many ways a minimally invasive surgeon can implement cost-conscious choices that have little or no impact on the quality of outcome.
• Surgeons who are familiar with surgical instruments and models available at their institution are better prepared to make wise cost-conscious decisions. (See “Caregivers should keep cost in mind: Here’s why,” in the Web version of this article at https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn.)
• Cost is not the only indicator of value: The surgeon must know how to apply tools correctly and be familiar with their limitations, and should choose instruments and products for their safety and ease of use. More often than not, a surgeon’s training and personal experience define—and sometimes restrict—the choice of devices.
• Last, it makes sense to have instruments and devices readily available in the operating room at the start of a case, to avoid unnecessary surgical delays. However, we recommend that you refrain from opening these tools until they are required intraoperatively. It is possible that the case will require conversion to laparotomy or that, after direct visualization of the pathology, different ports or instruments are required.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Meredith Snook, MD, who was coauthor of the original 2013 article⁶ and Kathleen Riordan, BSN, RN, for assistance in gathering specific cost-related information for this article. 

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

CASE Cost-conscious benign laparoscopic hysterectomy

A 43-year-old woman undergoes laparoscopic hysterectomy for treatment of presumed benign uterine fibroids and menorrhagia. Once she is prepped with ChloraPrep with tint, a RUMI II uterine manipulator is placed. Laparoscopic ports include a Kii Balloon Blunt Tip system, a Versaport Plus Pyramidal Bladed Trocar, and 2 Kii Fios First Entry trocars.

The surgeon uses the Harmonic ACE +7 device (a purely ultrasonic device) to perform most of the procedure. The uterus is morcellated and removed using the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved Olympus Contained Tissue Extraction System, and the vaginal cuff is closed using a series of 2-0 PDS II sutures. Skin incisions are closed using Dermabond skin adhesive.

Total cost of the products used in this case: $1,592.40. Could different product choices have reduced this figure?

Health-care costs continue to rise faster than inflation: Total health-care expenditures account for approximately 18% of gross domestic product in the United States. Physicians therefore face increasing pressure to take cost into account in their care of patients.¹ Cost-effectiveness and outcome quality continue to increase in importance as measures in many clinical trials that compare standard and alternative therapies. And women’s health—specifically, minimally invasive gynecologic surgery—invites such comparisons.

Overall, conventional laparoscopic gynecologic procedures tend to cost less than laparotomy, a consequence of shorter hospital stays, faster recovery, and fewer complications.^2-5 What is not fully appreciated, however, is how choice of laparoscopic instrumentation and associated products affects surgical costs. In this article, which revisits and updates a 2013 OBG Management examination of cost-consciousness in the selection of equipment and supplies for minimally invasive gynecologic surgery,⁶ we review these costs in 2018. Our goal is to raise awareness of the role of cost in care among minimally invasive gynecologic surgeons.

In the sections that follow, we highlight several aspects of laparoscopic gynecologic surgery that can affect your selection of instruments and products, describing differences in cost as well as some distinctive characteristics of products. Note that our comparisons focus solely on cost—not on ease of utility, effectiveness, surgical technique, risk of complications, or any other assessment. Note also that numerous other instruments and devices are commercially available besides those we list. 

Importantly, 2013 and 2018 costs are included in TABLE 1. Unless otherwise noted, costs are per unit. Changes in manufacturers and material costs and technologic advances have contributed to some, but not all, of the changes in cost between 2013 and 2018. 

Continue to: Variables to keep in mind

Even when taking cost into consideration, tailor your selection of instruments and supplies to your capabilities and comfort, as well as to the particular characteristics of the patient and the planned procedure. Also, remember that your institution might have arrangements with companies that supply minimally invasive instruments, and that such arrangements might limit your options, to some degree. Last, be aware that reprocessed ports and instruments are now available at a reduced cost. In short, we believe that it is crucial for surgeons to be cognizant of all products available to them prior to attending a surgical case.

Skin preparation and other preop considerations

Multiple preoperative skin preparations are available (TABLE 1). Traditionally, a povidone–iodine topical antiseptic, such as Betadine, has been used for skin and vaginal preparation prior to gynecologic surgery. Hibiclens and ChloraPrep are different combinations of chlorhexidine gluconate and isopropyl alcohol that act as broad-spectrum antiseptics. 

ChloraPrep is applied with a wand-like applicator and contains a much higher concentration of isopropyl alcohol than Hibiclens (70% and 4%, respectively), rendering it more flammable. It also requires longer drying time before surgery can be started. Clear and tinted ChloraPrep formulations are available.

Continue to: Uterine manipulators

Cannulation of the cervical canal allows for uterine manipulation, increasing intraoperative traction and exposure as well as visualization of the adnexae and peritoneal surfaces.

The Hulka-Kenwick is a reusable uterine manipulator that is fairly standard and easy to apply. Specialized, single-use manipulators also are available, including the Advincula Delineator and VCare Plus uterine manipulator/elevator. The VCare Plus manipulator consists of 2 opposing cups: one cup (available in 4 sizes, small to extra-large) fits around the cervix and defines the site for colpotomy; the other helps maintain pneumoperitoneum once a colpotomy is created. 

The ZUMI (Zinnanti Uterine Manipulator Injector) is a rigid, curved shaft with an intrauterine balloon to help prevent expulsion. It also has an integrated injection channel to allow for intraoperative chromotubation.

The RUMI II System fits individual patient anatomy with various tip lengths and colpotomy cup sizes. The Advincula Arch Uterine Manipulator Handle is a reusable alternative to the articulating RUMI II and works with the RUMI II System Disposable Tip (TABLE 1).

Continue to: Entry style and ports

The peritoneal cavity can be entered using either a closed (Veress needle) or open (Hasson) technique.^7,8 Closed entry might allow for quicker access to the peritoneal cavity. A 2015 Cochrane review of 46 randomized, controlled trials of 7,389 patients undergoing laparoscopy compared outcomes between laparoscopic entry techniques and found no difference in major vascular or visceral injury between closed and open techniques at the umbilicus.⁹ However, open entry was associated with a greater likelihood of successful entry into the peritoneal cavity.⁹

Left upper-quadrant (Palmer’s point) entry is another option when adhesions are anticipated or abnormal anatomy is encountered at the umbilicus.

In general, complications related to laparoscopic entry are rare in gynecologic surgery, ranging from 0.18% to 0.5% of cases in studies.^8,10,11 A minimally invasive surgeon might prefer one entry technique over another but should be able to perform both methods competently and recognize when a particular technique is warranted.

--

Choosing a port

Laparoscopic ports usually range from 5 mm to 12 mm and can be fixed or variable in size. 

The primary port, usually placed through the umbilicus, can be a standard, blunt, 10-mm (Bluntport Plus Hasson) port, or it can be specialized to ease entry of the port or stabilize the port once it is introduced through the skin incision.

Optical trocars have a transparent tip that allows the surgeon to visualize the abdominal wall entry layer by layer using a 0° laparoscope, sometimes after pneumoperitoneum is created with a Veress needle. Other specialized ports include those that have balloons or foam collars, or both, to secure the port without traditional stay sutures on the fascia and to minimize leakage of pneumoperitoneum.

Continue to: Accessory ports

When choosing an accessory port type and size, it is important to anticipate which instruments and devices, such as an Endo Catch bag, suture, or needle, will need to pass through it. Also, know whether 5-mm and 10-mm laparoscopes are available, and anticipate whether a second port with insufflation capabilities will be required.

The Pediport Locking Trocar is a user-friendly, 5-mm bladed port that deploys a mushroom-shaped stabilizer to prevent dislodgement. The Versaport bladed trocar has a spring-loaded entry shield, which slides over the blade to protect it once the peritoneal cavity is entered.

VersaStep Bladeless Trocars are introduced after a Step Insufflation Needle has been inserted. These trocars create a smaller fascial defect than conventional bladed trocars for an equivalent cannula size (TABLE 1).

Cutting and coagulating

Both monopolar and bipolar electrosurgical techniques are commonly employed in gynecologic laparoscopy. A wide variety of disposable and reusable instruments are available for monopolar energy, such as scissors, a hook, and a spatula.

Bipolar devices also can be disposable or reusable. Although bipolar electrosurgery minimizes injury to surrounding tissues by containing the current within the jaws of the forceps, it cannot cut or seal large vessels. As a result, several advanced bipolar devices with sealing and transecting capabilities have emerged (the LigaSure line of devices, Enseal). Ultrasonic devices, such as the Harmonic ACE, also can coagulate and cut at lower temperatures by converting electrical energy to mechanical energy (TABLE 1).

Continue to: Suture material

Aspects of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery that require the use of suture include, but are not limited to, closure of the vaginal cuff, oophoropexy, and reapproximation of the ovarian cortex after cystectomy. Synthetic and delayed absorbable sutures, such as PDS II, are used frequently. The barbed suture also has gained popularity because it anchors to tissue without the need for intracorporeal or extracorporeal knots (TABLE 1).

Tissue removal

Adnexae and pathologic tissue, such as dermoid cysts, can be removed intact from the peritoneal cavity using an Endo Catch Single Use Specimen Pouch, a polyurethane sac. Careful use, with placement of the ovary with the cyst into the pouch prior to cystectomy, can contain or prevent spillage outside the bag.

A large uterus that cannot be extracted through a colpotomy can be manually morcellated. Appropriate candidates can undergo power morcellation using an FDA-approved device. (TABLE 1), allowing for the removal of smaller pieces through a small laparoscopic incision or the colpotomy.

Issues surrounding morcellation continue to require that gynecologic surgeons understand FDA recommendations. In 2014, the FDA issued a safety communication that morcellation is “contraindicated in gynecologic surgery if tissue is known or suspected to be malignant; it is contraindicated for uterine tissue removal with presumed benign fibroids in perimenopausal women.”¹² A black-box warning was issued that uterine tissue might contain unsuspected cancer.

A task force created by AAGL addressed key issues in this controversy. 

AAGL then provided guidelines related to morcellation¹³:

• Do not use morcellate in the setting of known malignancy.
• Provide appropriate preoperative evaluation with up-to-date Pap smear screening and image analysis.
• Increasing age significantly increases the risk of leiomyosarcoma, especially in a postmenopausal woman.
• Fibroid growth is not a reliable sign of malignancy.
• Do not use a morcellator if the patient is at high risk for malignancy.
• If leiomyosarcoma is the presumed pathology, await the final pathology report before proceeding with hysterectomy.
• Concomitant use of a bag might mitigate the risk of tissue spread.
• Obtain informed consent before proceeding with morcellation.

Continue to: Skin closure

Final subcuticular closure can be accomplished using sutures or skin adhesive. Sutures can be synthetic, absorbable monofilament (Caprosyn), or synthetic, absorbable, braided multifilament (Polysorb).

Skin adhesive closes incisions quickly, avoids inflammation related to foreign bodies, and can ease patients’ concerns that sometimes arise when absorbable suture persists postoperatively (TABLE 1).

The impact of physician experience

Physician experience has been shown to reduce cost while maintaining quality of care.¹⁴ That was the conclusion of researchers who undertook a retrospective study, addressing cost and clinical outcomes, of senior and junior attending physicians who performed laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy on 120 patients. Studies such as these often lead to clinical pathways to facilitate cost-effective quality care. 

--

CASE Same outcome at lower cost

The hypothetical 43-year-old patient in the opening case undergoes laparoscopic hysterectomy for treatment of uterine fibroids and menorrhagia. In this scenario, however, the surgeon makes the following product choices:

• The patient is prepped with Hibiclens.
• A VCare Plus uterine manipulator is placed.
• Laparoscopic ports include a VersaStep Plus Bladeless Trocar with Step Insufflation Needle; Versaport Plus Pyramidal Bladed Trocar; and 2 VersaOne Bladed trocars.
• The surgeon uses the PKS LYONS Dissecting Forceps and reprocessed Endo Shears to perform the hysterectomy.
• The uterus is enclosed in an Endo Catch bag and removed through the minilaparotomy site.
• The vaginal cuff is closed using 2-0 V-Loc barbed suture. Skin incisions are closed with 4-0 Polysorb, a polyglycolic acid absorbable suture.

The cost of this set of products? $360.44 or, roughly, $1,231.96 less than the set-up described in the case at the beginning of this article (TABLE 2).

Continue to: Summing up

Here are key points to take away from this analysis and discussion:

• As third-party payers and hospitals continue to evaluate surgeons individually and compare procedures from surgeon to surgeon, reimbursement might be stratified—thereby favoring physicians who demonstrate both quality outcomes and cost containment.
• There are many ways a minimally invasive surgeon can implement cost-conscious choices that have little or no impact on the quality of outcome.
• Surgeons who are familiar with surgical instruments and models available at their institution are better prepared to make wise cost-conscious decisions. (See “Caregivers should keep cost in mind: Here’s why,” in the Web version of this article at https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn.)
• Cost is not the only indicator of value: The surgeon must know how to apply tools correctly and be familiar with their limitations, and should choose instruments and products for their safety and ease of use. More often than not, a surgeon’s training and personal experience define—and sometimes restrict—the choice of devices.
• Last, it makes sense to have instruments and devices readily available in the operating room at the start of a case, to avoid unnecessary surgical delays. However, we recommend that you refrain from opening these tools until they are required intraoperatively. It is possible that the case will require conversion to laparotomy or that, after direct visualization of the pathology, different ports or instruments are required.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Meredith Snook, MD, who was coauthor of the original 2013 article⁶ and Kathleen Riordan, BSN, RN, for assistance in gathering specific cost-related information for this article. 

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

CASE Cost-conscious benign laparoscopic hysterectomy

A 43-year-old woman undergoes laparoscopic hysterectomy for treatment of presumed benign uterine fibroids and menorrhagia. Once she is prepped with ChloraPrep with tint, a RUMI II uterine manipulator is placed. Laparoscopic ports include a Kii Balloon Blunt Tip system, a Versaport Plus Pyramidal Bladed Trocar, and 2 Kii Fios First Entry trocars.

The surgeon uses the Harmonic ACE +7 device (a purely ultrasonic device) to perform most of the procedure. The uterus is morcellated and removed using the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved Olympus Contained Tissue Extraction System, and the vaginal cuff is closed using a series of 2-0 PDS II sutures. Skin incisions are closed using Dermabond skin adhesive.

Total cost of the products used in this case: $1,592.40. Could different product choices have reduced this figure?

Health-care costs continue to rise faster than inflation: Total health-care expenditures account for approximately 18% of gross domestic product in the United States. Physicians therefore face increasing pressure to take cost into account in their care of patients.¹ Cost-effectiveness and outcome quality continue to increase in importance as measures in many clinical trials that compare standard and alternative therapies. And women’s health—specifically, minimally invasive gynecologic surgery—invites such comparisons.

Overall, conventional laparoscopic gynecologic procedures tend to cost less than laparotomy, a consequence of shorter hospital stays, faster recovery, and fewer complications.^2-5 What is not fully appreciated, however, is how choice of laparoscopic instrumentation and associated products affects surgical costs. In this article, which revisits and updates a 2013 OBG Management examination of cost-consciousness in the selection of equipment and supplies for minimally invasive gynecologic surgery,⁶ we review these costs in 2018. Our goal is to raise awareness of the role of cost in care among minimally invasive gynecologic surgeons.

In the sections that follow, we highlight several aspects of laparoscopic gynecologic surgery that can affect your selection of instruments and products, describing differences in cost as well as some distinctive characteristics of products. Note that our comparisons focus solely on cost—not on ease of utility, effectiveness, surgical technique, risk of complications, or any other assessment. Note also that numerous other instruments and devices are commercially available besides those we list. 

Importantly, 2013 and 2018 costs are included in TABLE 1. Unless otherwise noted, costs are per unit. Changes in manufacturers and material costs and technologic advances have contributed to some, but not all, of the changes in cost between 2013 and 2018. 

Continue to: Variables to keep in mind

Even when taking cost into consideration, tailor your selection of instruments and supplies to your capabilities and comfort, as well as to the particular characteristics of the patient and the planned procedure. Also, remember that your institution might have arrangements with companies that supply minimally invasive instruments, and that such arrangements might limit your options, to some degree. Last, be aware that reprocessed ports and instruments are now available at a reduced cost. In short, we believe that it is crucial for surgeons to be cognizant of all products available to them prior to attending a surgical case.

Skin preparation and other preop considerations

Multiple preoperative skin preparations are available (TABLE 1). Traditionally, a povidone–iodine topical antiseptic, such as Betadine, has been used for skin and vaginal preparation prior to gynecologic surgery. Hibiclens and ChloraPrep are different combinations of chlorhexidine gluconate and isopropyl alcohol that act as broad-spectrum antiseptics. 

ChloraPrep is applied with a wand-like applicator and contains a much higher concentration of isopropyl alcohol than Hibiclens (70% and 4%, respectively), rendering it more flammable. It also requires longer drying time before surgery can be started. Clear and tinted ChloraPrep formulations are available.

Continue to: Uterine manipulators

Cannulation of the cervical canal allows for uterine manipulation, increasing intraoperative traction and exposure as well as visualization of the adnexae and peritoneal surfaces.

The Hulka-Kenwick is a reusable uterine manipulator that is fairly standard and easy to apply. Specialized, single-use manipulators also are available, including the Advincula Delineator and VCare Plus uterine manipulator/elevator. The VCare Plus manipulator consists of 2 opposing cups: one cup (available in 4 sizes, small to extra-large) fits around the cervix and defines the site for colpotomy; the other helps maintain pneumoperitoneum once a colpotomy is created. 

The ZUMI (Zinnanti Uterine Manipulator Injector) is a rigid, curved shaft with an intrauterine balloon to help prevent expulsion. It also has an integrated injection channel to allow for intraoperative chromotubation.

The RUMI II System fits individual patient anatomy with various tip lengths and colpotomy cup sizes. The Advincula Arch Uterine Manipulator Handle is a reusable alternative to the articulating RUMI II and works with the RUMI II System Disposable Tip (TABLE 1).

Continue to: Entry style and ports

The peritoneal cavity can be entered using either a closed (Veress needle) or open (Hasson) technique.^7,8 Closed entry might allow for quicker access to the peritoneal cavity. A 2015 Cochrane review of 46 randomized, controlled trials of 7,389 patients undergoing laparoscopy compared outcomes between laparoscopic entry techniques and found no difference in major vascular or visceral injury between closed and open techniques at the umbilicus.⁹ However, open entry was associated with a greater likelihood of successful entry into the peritoneal cavity.⁹

Left upper-quadrant (Palmer’s point) entry is another option when adhesions are anticipated or abnormal anatomy is encountered at the umbilicus.

In general, complications related to laparoscopic entry are rare in gynecologic surgery, ranging from 0.18% to 0.5% of cases in studies.^8,10,11 A minimally invasive surgeon might prefer one entry technique over another but should be able to perform both methods competently and recognize when a particular technique is warranted.

--

Choosing a port

Laparoscopic ports usually range from 5 mm to 12 mm and can be fixed or variable in size. 

The primary port, usually placed through the umbilicus, can be a standard, blunt, 10-mm (Bluntport Plus Hasson) port, or it can be specialized to ease entry of the port or stabilize the port once it is introduced through the skin incision.

Optical trocars have a transparent tip that allows the surgeon to visualize the abdominal wall entry layer by layer using a 0° laparoscope, sometimes after pneumoperitoneum is created with a Veress needle. Other specialized ports include those that have balloons or foam collars, or both, to secure the port without traditional stay sutures on the fascia and to minimize leakage of pneumoperitoneum.

Continue to: Accessory ports

When choosing an accessory port type and size, it is important to anticipate which instruments and devices, such as an Endo Catch bag, suture, or needle, will need to pass through it. Also, know whether 5-mm and 10-mm laparoscopes are available, and anticipate whether a second port with insufflation capabilities will be required.

The Pediport Locking Trocar is a user-friendly, 5-mm bladed port that deploys a mushroom-shaped stabilizer to prevent dislodgement. The Versaport bladed trocar has a spring-loaded entry shield, which slides over the blade to protect it once the peritoneal cavity is entered.

VersaStep Bladeless Trocars are introduced after a Step Insufflation Needle has been inserted. These trocars create a smaller fascial defect than conventional bladed trocars for an equivalent cannula size (TABLE 1).

Cutting and coagulating

Both monopolar and bipolar electrosurgical techniques are commonly employed in gynecologic laparoscopy. A wide variety of disposable and reusable instruments are available for monopolar energy, such as scissors, a hook, and a spatula.

Bipolar devices also can be disposable or reusable. Although bipolar electrosurgery minimizes injury to surrounding tissues by containing the current within the jaws of the forceps, it cannot cut or seal large vessels. As a result, several advanced bipolar devices with sealing and transecting capabilities have emerged (the LigaSure line of devices, Enseal). Ultrasonic devices, such as the Harmonic ACE, also can coagulate and cut at lower temperatures by converting electrical energy to mechanical energy (TABLE 1).

Continue to: Suture material

Aspects of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery that require the use of suture include, but are not limited to, closure of the vaginal cuff, oophoropexy, and reapproximation of the ovarian cortex after cystectomy. Synthetic and delayed absorbable sutures, such as PDS II, are used frequently. The barbed suture also has gained popularity because it anchors to tissue without the need for intracorporeal or extracorporeal knots (TABLE 1).

Tissue removal

Adnexae and pathologic tissue, such as dermoid cysts, can be removed intact from the peritoneal cavity using an Endo Catch Single Use Specimen Pouch, a polyurethane sac. Careful use, with placement of the ovary with the cyst into the pouch prior to cystectomy, can contain or prevent spillage outside the bag.

A large uterus that cannot be extracted through a colpotomy can be manually morcellated. Appropriate candidates can undergo power morcellation using an FDA-approved device. (TABLE 1), allowing for the removal of smaller pieces through a small laparoscopic incision or the colpotomy.

Issues surrounding morcellation continue to require that gynecologic surgeons understand FDA recommendations. In 2014, the FDA issued a safety communication that morcellation is “contraindicated in gynecologic surgery if tissue is known or suspected to be malignant; it is contraindicated for uterine tissue removal with presumed benign fibroids in perimenopausal women.”¹² A black-box warning was issued that uterine tissue might contain unsuspected cancer.

A task force created by AAGL addressed key issues in this controversy. 

AAGL then provided guidelines related to morcellation¹³:

• Do not use morcellate in the setting of known malignancy.
• Provide appropriate preoperative evaluation with up-to-date Pap smear screening and image analysis.
• Increasing age significantly increases the risk of leiomyosarcoma, especially in a postmenopausal woman.
• Fibroid growth is not a reliable sign of malignancy.
• Do not use a morcellator if the patient is at high risk for malignancy.
• If leiomyosarcoma is the presumed pathology, await the final pathology report before proceeding with hysterectomy.
• Concomitant use of a bag might mitigate the risk of tissue spread.
• Obtain informed consent before proceeding with morcellation.

Continue to: Skin closure

Final subcuticular closure can be accomplished using sutures or skin adhesive. Sutures can be synthetic, absorbable monofilament (Caprosyn), or synthetic, absorbable, braided multifilament (Polysorb).

Skin adhesive closes incisions quickly, avoids inflammation related to foreign bodies, and can ease patients’ concerns that sometimes arise when absorbable suture persists postoperatively (TABLE 1).

The impact of physician experience

Physician experience has been shown to reduce cost while maintaining quality of care.¹⁴ That was the conclusion of researchers who undertook a retrospective study, addressing cost and clinical outcomes, of senior and junior attending physicians who performed laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy on 120 patients. Studies such as these often lead to clinical pathways to facilitate cost-effective quality care. 

--

CASE Same outcome at lower cost

The hypothetical 43-year-old patient in the opening case undergoes laparoscopic hysterectomy for treatment of uterine fibroids and menorrhagia. In this scenario, however, the surgeon makes the following product choices:

• The patient is prepped with Hibiclens.
• A VCare Plus uterine manipulator is placed.
• Laparoscopic ports include a VersaStep Plus Bladeless Trocar with Step Insufflation Needle; Versaport Plus Pyramidal Bladed Trocar; and 2 VersaOne Bladed trocars.
• The surgeon uses the PKS LYONS Dissecting Forceps and reprocessed Endo Shears to perform the hysterectomy.
• The uterus is enclosed in an Endo Catch bag and removed through the minilaparotomy site.
• The vaginal cuff is closed using 2-0 V-Loc barbed suture. Skin incisions are closed with 4-0 Polysorb, a polyglycolic acid absorbable suture.

The cost of this set of products? $360.44 or, roughly, $1,231.96 less than the set-up described in the case at the beginning of this article (TABLE 2).

Continue to: Summing up

Here are key points to take away from this analysis and discussion:

• As third-party payers and hospitals continue to evaluate surgeons individually and compare procedures from surgeon to surgeon, reimbursement might be stratified—thereby favoring physicians who demonstrate both quality outcomes and cost containment.
• There are many ways a minimally invasive surgeon can implement cost-conscious choices that have little or no impact on the quality of outcome.
• Surgeons who are familiar with surgical instruments and models available at their institution are better prepared to make wise cost-conscious decisions. (See “Caregivers should keep cost in mind: Here’s why,” in the Web version of this article at https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn.)
• Cost is not the only indicator of value: The surgeon must know how to apply tools correctly and be familiar with their limitations, and should choose instruments and products for their safety and ease of use. More often than not, a surgeon’s training and personal experience define—and sometimes restrict—the choice of devices.
• Last, it makes sense to have instruments and devices readily available in the operating room at the start of a case, to avoid unnecessary surgical delays. However, we recommend that you refrain from opening these tools until they are required intraoperatively. It is possible that the case will require conversion to laparotomy or that, after direct visualization of the pathology, different ports or instruments are required.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Meredith Snook, MD, who was coauthor of the original 2013 article⁶ and Kathleen Riordan, BSN, RN, for assistance in gathering specific cost-related information for this article. 

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Dienogest as an option for endometriosis pain

For treatment of endometriosis-related pain, what about the drug dienogest and the cyclic oral contraceptive Qlaira, which contains dienogest?

Chow Kah Kiong, MBBS
Singapore

-- 

--

Norethindrone’s conversion to ethinyl estradiol

Dr. Barbieri’s editorial on the medical treatment of endometriosis is excellent! Does norethindrone acetate metabolize to ethinyl estradiol in a higher percentage when the dose is higher, or is it still 1%? We were taught that at doses of greater than 15 mg daily, norethindrone can contribute significant amounts of estrogen.

Lauren Barnes, MD
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Endometriosis is a surgical, not a medical, disease

I read with some dismay Dr. Barbieri’s editorial on medical treatment of endometriosis. As a long-time disciple of the eminent Dr. David Redwine, I have dedicated my practice focus over the past 28 years to minimally invasive curative solutions to many gynecologic problems. The data on the histology, qualitative hormonal differences, and inconsistent and poor long-term response of endometriosis to traditional hormonal suppressive therapies falls strongly in favor of complete and thorough laparoscopic excision—not “biopsy”—as the only truly curative treatment, certainly not medical therapy. Endometriosis is a surgical disease. The experience of the dedicated few in our field who have taken the time and effort to become experts in excision (not ablation) of endometriosis bears this out.

The tragedy is that the only Current Procedural Terminology code that is usable for reimbursement is 58662. Sadly, this code was assigned a resource-based relative value scale “value” many years ago, when the operation consisted of putting a scope in the abdomen and taking a sampling biopsy (which took all of 10 minutes). Of course, we know that a prolonged, delicate procedure requiring retroperitoneal dissection, ureterolysis, excision of deeply infiltrating rectovaginal septum endometriosis, and discoid or segmental bowel resection requires the kind of surgical expertise developed only by those who put in the time and effort to get good at this type of surgery. The majority of ObGyns who have a full obstetric practice and low surgical volumes simply are not going to struggle in the operating room over the many cases that it takes to become good, and safe, at this procedure only to receive an insulting reimbursement.

It is emblematic of this travesty that many of the best minimally invasive surgery practitioners do not accept insurance or other thirdparty payment such as Medicaid as they would otherwise not cover their overhead.

Putting premenopausal women into a severely hypoestrogenic state with medication is cruel and, even worse, does not cure the disease.

Balanced information on surgical management should have been presented in the article. And physicians who are not capable of proper laparoscopic excision should refer the patient.

Hugo Ribot, MD
Cartersville, Georgia

Continue to: Dr. Barbieri responds

I thank Drs. Chow, Barnes, and Ribot for their interest in my recent editorial on the medical treatment of endometriosis. I agree with Dr. Chow that dienogest, a synthetic progestin, is effective in the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. In one observational study, norethindrone acetate 2.5 mg daily and dienogest 2 mg daily had similar efficacy in the treatment of pelvic pain. Dienogest treatment was associated with fewer side effects but was much more expensive than norethindrone acetate.¹ The US Food and Drug Administration has approved a combination estradiol- progestin pill (Natazia, Qlaira) as a contraceptive, and I have occasionally used this medication in my practice for women with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. Dienogest monotherapy is not available in the United States.

Dr. Barnes reminds us that norethindrone is a substrate for the aromatase enzyme system and can be converted to ethinyl estradiol.² The conversion occurs at a very low rate, likely less than 0.4%.³ At a norethindrone acetate dose of 5 mg daily, aromatization would result in the production of less than 2 μg of ethinyl estradiol daily.

Dr. Ribot advocates for surgery as the primary treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. I agree with Dr. Ribot that, for severe pain caused by deep infiltrating endometriosis, surgery is an optimal approach. However, for women with pelvic pain and Stage I endometriosis, hormonal treatment after initial surgical diagnosis and treatment reduces pain recurrence and repetitive surgical procedures.⁴

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Dienogest as an option for endometriosis pain

For treatment of endometriosis-related pain, what about the drug dienogest and the cyclic oral contraceptive Qlaira, which contains dienogest?

Chow Kah Kiong, MBBS
Singapore

-- 

--

Norethindrone’s conversion to ethinyl estradiol

Dr. Barbieri’s editorial on the medical treatment of endometriosis is excellent! Does norethindrone acetate metabolize to ethinyl estradiol in a higher percentage when the dose is higher, or is it still 1%? We were taught that at doses of greater than 15 mg daily, norethindrone can contribute significant amounts of estrogen.

Lauren Barnes, MD
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Endometriosis is a surgical, not a medical, disease

I read with some dismay Dr. Barbieri’s editorial on medical treatment of endometriosis. As a long-time disciple of the eminent Dr. David Redwine, I have dedicated my practice focus over the past 28 years to minimally invasive curative solutions to many gynecologic problems. The data on the histology, qualitative hormonal differences, and inconsistent and poor long-term response of endometriosis to traditional hormonal suppressive therapies falls strongly in favor of complete and thorough laparoscopic excision—not “biopsy”—as the only truly curative treatment, certainly not medical therapy. Endometriosis is a surgical disease. The experience of the dedicated few in our field who have taken the time and effort to become experts in excision (not ablation) of endometriosis bears this out.

The tragedy is that the only Current Procedural Terminology code that is usable for reimbursement is 58662. Sadly, this code was assigned a resource-based relative value scale “value” many years ago, when the operation consisted of putting a scope in the abdomen and taking a sampling biopsy (which took all of 10 minutes). Of course, we know that a prolonged, delicate procedure requiring retroperitoneal dissection, ureterolysis, excision of deeply infiltrating rectovaginal septum endometriosis, and discoid or segmental bowel resection requires the kind of surgical expertise developed only by those who put in the time and effort to get good at this type of surgery. The majority of ObGyns who have a full obstetric practice and low surgical volumes simply are not going to struggle in the operating room over the many cases that it takes to become good, and safe, at this procedure only to receive an insulting reimbursement.

It is emblematic of this travesty that many of the best minimally invasive surgery practitioners do not accept insurance or other thirdparty payment such as Medicaid as they would otherwise not cover their overhead.

Putting premenopausal women into a severely hypoestrogenic state with medication is cruel and, even worse, does not cure the disease.

Balanced information on surgical management should have been presented in the article. And physicians who are not capable of proper laparoscopic excision should refer the patient.

Hugo Ribot, MD
Cartersville, Georgia

Continue to: Dr. Barbieri responds

I thank Drs. Chow, Barnes, and Ribot for their interest in my recent editorial on the medical treatment of endometriosis. I agree with Dr. Chow that dienogest, a synthetic progestin, is effective in the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. In one observational study, norethindrone acetate 2.5 mg daily and dienogest 2 mg daily had similar efficacy in the treatment of pelvic pain. Dienogest treatment was associated with fewer side effects but was much more expensive than norethindrone acetate.¹ The US Food and Drug Administration has approved a combination estradiol- progestin pill (Natazia, Qlaira) as a contraceptive, and I have occasionally used this medication in my practice for women with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. Dienogest monotherapy is not available in the United States.

Dr. Barnes reminds us that norethindrone is a substrate for the aromatase enzyme system and can be converted to ethinyl estradiol.² The conversion occurs at a very low rate, likely less than 0.4%.³ At a norethindrone acetate dose of 5 mg daily, aromatization would result in the production of less than 2 μg of ethinyl estradiol daily.

Dr. Ribot advocates for surgery as the primary treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. I agree with Dr. Ribot that, for severe pain caused by deep infiltrating endometriosis, surgery is an optimal approach. However, for women with pelvic pain and Stage I endometriosis, hormonal treatment after initial surgical diagnosis and treatment reduces pain recurrence and repetitive surgical procedures.⁴

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Dienogest as an option for endometriosis pain

For treatment of endometriosis-related pain, what about the drug dienogest and the cyclic oral contraceptive Qlaira, which contains dienogest?

Chow Kah Kiong, MBBS
Singapore

-- 

--

Norethindrone’s conversion to ethinyl estradiol

Dr. Barbieri’s editorial on the medical treatment of endometriosis is excellent! Does norethindrone acetate metabolize to ethinyl estradiol in a higher percentage when the dose is higher, or is it still 1%? We were taught that at doses of greater than 15 mg daily, norethindrone can contribute significant amounts of estrogen.

Lauren Barnes, MD
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Endometriosis is a surgical, not a medical, disease

I read with some dismay Dr. Barbieri’s editorial on medical treatment of endometriosis. As a long-time disciple of the eminent Dr. David Redwine, I have dedicated my practice focus over the past 28 years to minimally invasive curative solutions to many gynecologic problems. The data on the histology, qualitative hormonal differences, and inconsistent and poor long-term response of endometriosis to traditional hormonal suppressive therapies falls strongly in favor of complete and thorough laparoscopic excision—not “biopsy”—as the only truly curative treatment, certainly not medical therapy. Endometriosis is a surgical disease. The experience of the dedicated few in our field who have taken the time and effort to become experts in excision (not ablation) of endometriosis bears this out.

The tragedy is that the only Current Procedural Terminology code that is usable for reimbursement is 58662. Sadly, this code was assigned a resource-based relative value scale “value” many years ago, when the operation consisted of putting a scope in the abdomen and taking a sampling biopsy (which took all of 10 minutes). Of course, we know that a prolonged, delicate procedure requiring retroperitoneal dissection, ureterolysis, excision of deeply infiltrating rectovaginal septum endometriosis, and discoid or segmental bowel resection requires the kind of surgical expertise developed only by those who put in the time and effort to get good at this type of surgery. The majority of ObGyns who have a full obstetric practice and low surgical volumes simply are not going to struggle in the operating room over the many cases that it takes to become good, and safe, at this procedure only to receive an insulting reimbursement.

It is emblematic of this travesty that many of the best minimally invasive surgery practitioners do not accept insurance or other thirdparty payment such as Medicaid as they would otherwise not cover their overhead.

Putting premenopausal women into a severely hypoestrogenic state with medication is cruel and, even worse, does not cure the disease.

Balanced information on surgical management should have been presented in the article. And physicians who are not capable of proper laparoscopic excision should refer the patient.

Hugo Ribot, MD
Cartersville, Georgia

Continue to: Dr. Barbieri responds

I thank Drs. Chow, Barnes, and Ribot for their interest in my recent editorial on the medical treatment of endometriosis. I agree with Dr. Chow that dienogest, a synthetic progestin, is effective in the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. In one observational study, norethindrone acetate 2.5 mg daily and dienogest 2 mg daily had similar efficacy in the treatment of pelvic pain. Dienogest treatment was associated with fewer side effects but was much more expensive than norethindrone acetate.¹ The US Food and Drug Administration has approved a combination estradiol- progestin pill (Natazia, Qlaira) as a contraceptive, and I have occasionally used this medication in my practice for women with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. Dienogest monotherapy is not available in the United States.

Dr. Barnes reminds us that norethindrone is a substrate for the aromatase enzyme system and can be converted to ethinyl estradiol.² The conversion occurs at a very low rate, likely less than 0.4%.³ At a norethindrone acetate dose of 5 mg daily, aromatization would result in the production of less than 2 μg of ethinyl estradiol daily.

Dr. Ribot advocates for surgery as the primary treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. I agree with Dr. Ribot that, for severe pain caused by deep infiltrating endometriosis, surgery is an optimal approach. However, for women with pelvic pain and Stage I endometriosis, hormonal treatment after initial surgical diagnosis and treatment reduces pain recurrence and repetitive surgical procedures.⁴

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

In the past decade, breastfeeding rates have increased substantially. Between 2000 and 2015, the proportion of infants who continued to breastfeed at 12 months increased from 16% to 36%. The proportion of infants who had any breastfeeding increased from 71% to 83%.¹ While the infant health benefits of breastfeeding are widely recognized, the maternal health benefits of breastfeeding are many and likely underappreciated.

Infant health benefits of breastfeeding

There are no large-scale, randomized studies of the long-term health benefits of breastfeeding versus formula feeding. The evidence supporting the health benefits of breastfeeding is derived from case-control and cohort studies. Breastfeeding directly benefits newborn and infant nutrition, gastrointestinal function, host defense, and psychological well-being. Compared with formula-fed newborns, breastfed infants have a reduced risk of infectious diseases including otitis media, gastroenteritis, respiratory infections, sudden infant death syndrome, and metabolic disease. These benefits alone strongly support the public health benefit of breastfeeding.² In addition, breastfeeding greatly benefits maternal health.

Maternal health benefits of breastfeeding

Breastfeeding reduces a woman’s risk for type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, as well as breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer. There are few exposures that have such a multitude of positive health benefits.

filler 

Type 2 diabetes

In a prospective cohort study of 1,238 women without diabetes in 1985–1986, 182 women developed type 2 diabetes after 30 years of follow-up. Compared with never breastfeeding, breastfeeding for 0 to 6 months, >6 months to <12 months, or ≥12 months reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes by 25%, 48%, and 69% respectively.³ In the prospective Nurses’ Health Study, among parous women, each additional year of breastfeeding decreased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 15% compared with women who did not breastfeed.⁴

Hypertension

In the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study of postmenopausal women, a lifetime history of breastfeeding for 12 months or more was associated with a 12% decrease in the risk of hypertension.⁵ For parous women, the prevalence of hypertension among breastfeeding (≥12 months) and never breastfeeding women was estimated to be 38.6% versus 42.1%.⁵ Similar results were observed in the Nurses’ Health Study II.⁶

Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease

In the prospective Nurses’ Health Study, during 1,350,965 person-years of follow-up, 2,540 women had a myocardial infarction (MI). Women who had breastfed for ≥ 2 years had a 37% decreased risk of MI compared with women who never breastfed. After adjustment for family history, lifestyle factors, and adiposity, the observed reduction in risk was 23%.⁷ In the WHI (observational study plus controlled trial), women with a single live birth who breastfed for 7 to 12 months had a lower risk of cardiovascular disease than women with a single live birth who did not breastfeed (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53–97).⁵

Breast cancer

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 100 publications, breastfeeding >12 months reduced the risk of breast cancer by 26%.⁸ In a systematic review of 47 studies, the relative risk of breast cancer decreased by 4.7% for every 12 months of breastfeeding.⁹ In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 3 studies, ever breastfeeding was associated with a 28% reduced risk for triple-negative (ER-, PR-, HER2-) breast cancer among parous women.¹⁰ Triple-negative breast cancer generally has a poorer prognosis than receptor-positive breast cancers.

Continue to: Ovarian Cancer

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 40 publications, ever breastfeeding was associated with a 37% reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer.⁸ In a prospective study of 1.1 million women in the United Kingdom, 8,719 developed ovarian cancer. Among parous women, ovarian cancer risk was reduced by 10% for every 12 months of breastfeeding.¹¹

Endometrial cancer

In a meta-analysis of 17 publications, including 8,981 cases and 17,241 controls, ever breastfeeding was associated with an 11% reduction in breast cancer risk.¹² In a meta-analysis of 15 publications with 6,704 cases, breastfeeding was associated with a 26% reduction in endometrial cancer. After controlling for hormone use and body mass index, the reduced risk was in the range of 35%. A linear relationship between breastfeeding and reduced risk of endometrial cancer was observed, with 1 month of breastfeeding being associated with a 1.2% reduction in the risk of endometrial cancer.¹³

Let’s support our patients’ health by encouraging successful breastfeeding

Obstetrician-gynecologists play an important role in helping women make informed decisions about breastfeeding. Most professional organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life, with continued breastfeeding and introduction of complementary food from 6 to 12 months.^14,15 Birth practices that help to increase successful breastfeeding include:

• inform all pregnant women about the newborn and maternal health benefits and management of breastfeeding
• initiate skin-to-skin contact at birth
• encourage the initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth
• ensure that breastfeeding newborns do not receive any food or drink other than breast milk, unless medically indicated
• encourage breastfeeding women to not use pacifiers or artificial nipples.¹⁵

When women are discharged from the maternity center, providing information about community-based lactation support is helpful in ensuring continuation of successful breastfeeding.¹⁶

Most patients know that exercise and maintaining a healthy weight can reduce the risk of developing many prevalent diseases. However, far fewer patients know that breastfeeding can reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease, as well as breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancers. Educating our patients about these health benefits may help them to more fully commit to breastfeeding.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

In the past decade, breastfeeding rates have increased substantially. Between 2000 and 2015, the proportion of infants who continued to breastfeed at 12 months increased from 16% to 36%. The proportion of infants who had any breastfeeding increased from 71% to 83%.¹ While the infant health benefits of breastfeeding are widely recognized, the maternal health benefits of breastfeeding are many and likely underappreciated.

Infant health benefits of breastfeeding

There are no large-scale, randomized studies of the long-term health benefits of breastfeeding versus formula feeding. The evidence supporting the health benefits of breastfeeding is derived from case-control and cohort studies. Breastfeeding directly benefits newborn and infant nutrition, gastrointestinal function, host defense, and psychological well-being. Compared with formula-fed newborns, breastfed infants have a reduced risk of infectious diseases including otitis media, gastroenteritis, respiratory infections, sudden infant death syndrome, and metabolic disease. These benefits alone strongly support the public health benefit of breastfeeding.² In addition, breastfeeding greatly benefits maternal health.

Maternal health benefits of breastfeeding

Breastfeeding reduces a woman’s risk for type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, as well as breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer. There are few exposures that have such a multitude of positive health benefits.

filler 

Type 2 diabetes

In a prospective cohort study of 1,238 women without diabetes in 1985–1986, 182 women developed type 2 diabetes after 30 years of follow-up. Compared with never breastfeeding, breastfeeding for 0 to 6 months, >6 months to <12 months, or ≥12 months reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes by 25%, 48%, and 69% respectively.³ In the prospective Nurses’ Health Study, among parous women, each additional year of breastfeeding decreased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 15% compared with women who did not breastfeed.⁴

Hypertension

In the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study of postmenopausal women, a lifetime history of breastfeeding for 12 months or more was associated with a 12% decrease in the risk of hypertension.⁵ For parous women, the prevalence of hypertension among breastfeeding (≥12 months) and never breastfeeding women was estimated to be 38.6% versus 42.1%.⁵ Similar results were observed in the Nurses’ Health Study II.⁶

Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease

In the prospective Nurses’ Health Study, during 1,350,965 person-years of follow-up, 2,540 women had a myocardial infarction (MI). Women who had breastfed for ≥ 2 years had a 37% decreased risk of MI compared with women who never breastfed. After adjustment for family history, lifestyle factors, and adiposity, the observed reduction in risk was 23%.⁷ In the WHI (observational study plus controlled trial), women with a single live birth who breastfed for 7 to 12 months had a lower risk of cardiovascular disease than women with a single live birth who did not breastfeed (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53–97).⁵

Breast cancer

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 100 publications, breastfeeding >12 months reduced the risk of breast cancer by 26%.⁸ In a systematic review of 47 studies, the relative risk of breast cancer decreased by 4.7% for every 12 months of breastfeeding.⁹ In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 3 studies, ever breastfeeding was associated with a 28% reduced risk for triple-negative (ER-, PR-, HER2-) breast cancer among parous women.¹⁰ Triple-negative breast cancer generally has a poorer prognosis than receptor-positive breast cancers.

Continue to: Ovarian Cancer

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 40 publications, ever breastfeeding was associated with a 37% reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer.⁸ In a prospective study of 1.1 million women in the United Kingdom, 8,719 developed ovarian cancer. Among parous women, ovarian cancer risk was reduced by 10% for every 12 months of breastfeeding.¹¹

Endometrial cancer

In a meta-analysis of 17 publications, including 8,981 cases and 17,241 controls, ever breastfeeding was associated with an 11% reduction in breast cancer risk.¹² In a meta-analysis of 15 publications with 6,704 cases, breastfeeding was associated with a 26% reduction in endometrial cancer. After controlling for hormone use and body mass index, the reduced risk was in the range of 35%. A linear relationship between breastfeeding and reduced risk of endometrial cancer was observed, with 1 month of breastfeeding being associated with a 1.2% reduction in the risk of endometrial cancer.¹³

Let’s support our patients’ health by encouraging successful breastfeeding

Obstetrician-gynecologists play an important role in helping women make informed decisions about breastfeeding. Most professional organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life, with continued breastfeeding and introduction of complementary food from 6 to 12 months.^14,15 Birth practices that help to increase successful breastfeeding include:

• inform all pregnant women about the newborn and maternal health benefits and management of breastfeeding
• initiate skin-to-skin contact at birth
• encourage the initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth
• ensure that breastfeeding newborns do not receive any food or drink other than breast milk, unless medically indicated
• encourage breastfeeding women to not use pacifiers or artificial nipples.¹⁵

When women are discharged from the maternity center, providing information about community-based lactation support is helpful in ensuring continuation of successful breastfeeding.¹⁶

Most patients know that exercise and maintaining a healthy weight can reduce the risk of developing many prevalent diseases. However, far fewer patients know that breastfeeding can reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease, as well as breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancers. Educating our patients about these health benefits may help them to more fully commit to breastfeeding.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

In the past decade, breastfeeding rates have increased substantially. Between 2000 and 2015, the proportion of infants who continued to breastfeed at 12 months increased from 16% to 36%. The proportion of infants who had any breastfeeding increased from 71% to 83%.¹ While the infant health benefits of breastfeeding are widely recognized, the maternal health benefits of breastfeeding are many and likely underappreciated.

Infant health benefits of breastfeeding

There are no large-scale, randomized studies of the long-term health benefits of breastfeeding versus formula feeding. The evidence supporting the health benefits of breastfeeding is derived from case-control and cohort studies. Breastfeeding directly benefits newborn and infant nutrition, gastrointestinal function, host defense, and psychological well-being. Compared with formula-fed newborns, breastfed infants have a reduced risk of infectious diseases including otitis media, gastroenteritis, respiratory infections, sudden infant death syndrome, and metabolic disease. These benefits alone strongly support the public health benefit of breastfeeding.² In addition, breastfeeding greatly benefits maternal health.

Maternal health benefits of breastfeeding

Breastfeeding reduces a woman’s risk for type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, as well as breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer. There are few exposures that have such a multitude of positive health benefits.

filler 

Type 2 diabetes

In a prospective cohort study of 1,238 women without diabetes in 1985–1986, 182 women developed type 2 diabetes after 30 years of follow-up. Compared with never breastfeeding, breastfeeding for 0 to 6 months, >6 months to <12 months, or ≥12 months reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes by 25%, 48%, and 69% respectively.³ In the prospective Nurses’ Health Study, among parous women, each additional year of breastfeeding decreased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 15% compared with women who did not breastfeed.⁴

Hypertension

In the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study of postmenopausal women, a lifetime history of breastfeeding for 12 months or more was associated with a 12% decrease in the risk of hypertension.⁵ For parous women, the prevalence of hypertension among breastfeeding (≥12 months) and never breastfeeding women was estimated to be 38.6% versus 42.1%.⁵ Similar results were observed in the Nurses’ Health Study II.⁶

Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease

In the prospective Nurses’ Health Study, during 1,350,965 person-years of follow-up, 2,540 women had a myocardial infarction (MI). Women who had breastfed for ≥ 2 years had a 37% decreased risk of MI compared with women who never breastfed. After adjustment for family history, lifestyle factors, and adiposity, the observed reduction in risk was 23%.⁷ In the WHI (observational study plus controlled trial), women with a single live birth who breastfed for 7 to 12 months had a lower risk of cardiovascular disease than women with a single live birth who did not breastfeed (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53–97).⁵

Breast cancer

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 100 publications, breastfeeding >12 months reduced the risk of breast cancer by 26%.⁸ In a systematic review of 47 studies, the relative risk of breast cancer decreased by 4.7% for every 12 months of breastfeeding.⁹ In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 3 studies, ever breastfeeding was associated with a 28% reduced risk for triple-negative (ER-, PR-, HER2-) breast cancer among parous women.¹⁰ Triple-negative breast cancer generally has a poorer prognosis than receptor-positive breast cancers.

Continue to: Ovarian Cancer

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 40 publications, ever breastfeeding was associated with a 37% reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer.⁸ In a prospective study of 1.1 million women in the United Kingdom, 8,719 developed ovarian cancer. Among parous women, ovarian cancer risk was reduced by 10% for every 12 months of breastfeeding.¹¹

Endometrial cancer

In a meta-analysis of 17 publications, including 8,981 cases and 17,241 controls, ever breastfeeding was associated with an 11% reduction in breast cancer risk.¹² In a meta-analysis of 15 publications with 6,704 cases, breastfeeding was associated with a 26% reduction in endometrial cancer. After controlling for hormone use and body mass index, the reduced risk was in the range of 35%. A linear relationship between breastfeeding and reduced risk of endometrial cancer was observed, with 1 month of breastfeeding being associated with a 1.2% reduction in the risk of endometrial cancer.¹³

Let’s support our patients’ health by encouraging successful breastfeeding

Obstetrician-gynecologists play an important role in helping women make informed decisions about breastfeeding. Most professional organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life, with continued breastfeeding and introduction of complementary food from 6 to 12 months.^14,15 Birth practices that help to increase successful breastfeeding include:

• inform all pregnant women about the newborn and maternal health benefits and management of breastfeeding
• initiate skin-to-skin contact at birth
• encourage the initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth
• ensure that breastfeeding newborns do not receive any food or drink other than breast milk, unless medically indicated
• encourage breastfeeding women to not use pacifiers or artificial nipples.¹⁵

When women are discharged from the maternity center, providing information about community-based lactation support is helpful in ensuring continuation of successful breastfeeding.¹⁶

Most patients know that exercise and maintaining a healthy weight can reduce the risk of developing many prevalent diseases. However, far fewer patients know that breastfeeding can reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease, as well as breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancers. Educating our patients about these health benefits may help them to more fully commit to breastfeeding.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The conventional bone mineral density threshold for initiating treatment to prevent fragility fractures is a T-score of less than -2.5 (the World Health Organization criteria for osteoporosis).¹ However, most fractures experienced by postmenopausal women occur not in osteoporotic women but in those with low bone mass (osteopenia).²

Investigators in New Zealand recently published the results of a randomized controlled trial they conducted to determine the efficacy of zoledronate (zoledronic acid) in preventing fractures in postmenopausal women.³ They enrolled women age 65 years or older with osteopenia of the hip and randomly assigned the participants to 4 intravenous infusions of 5 mg zoledronic acid or placebo at 18-month intervals for 6 years.

Zoledronic acid reduced fracture risk

The trial included 2,000 postmenopausal women (mean age at baseline, 71 years; 94% European ethnicity) with a T-score of -1.0 to -2.5 at either the total hip or the femoral neck on either side. Both hips were assessed. The women received either zoledronic acid treatment or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. Candidates were excluded if they regularly used bone-active drugs in the previous year.

Fragility fractures were noted in 190 women in the placebo group and in 122 women treated with zoledronic acid (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50–0.79, P<.001). The number of women that would need to be treated to prevent the occurrence of a fracture in 1 woman was 15.

Compared with placebo, zoledronic acid also lowered the risk of nonvertebral, symptomatic, and vertebral fractures as well as height loss (P≤.003 for these 4 comparisons). Relatively few adverse events occurred with zoledronic acid treatment. No atypical femoral fractures or cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in either group.

Trial closes the knowledge gap regarding treatment thresholds

This trial’s findings underscore the importance of age as a risk factor for fragility fracture and clarify that pharmacologic treatment is appropriate not only for women with osteoporosis but also for older postmenopausal women with osteopenia.

As the authors point out, administration of zoledronic acid less often than annually can be highly effective in preventing fractures; they recommend future trials of administration of this intravenous bisphosphonate at intervals less frequent than 18 months. Although the absence of atypical femoral fractures or cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw is reassuring, the authors note that their trial was underpowered to assess these uncommon events.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The conventional bone mineral density threshold for initiating treatment to prevent fragility fractures is a T-score of less than -2.5 (the World Health Organization criteria for osteoporosis).¹ However, most fractures experienced by postmenopausal women occur not in osteoporotic women but in those with low bone mass (osteopenia).²

Investigators in New Zealand recently published the results of a randomized controlled trial they conducted to determine the efficacy of zoledronate (zoledronic acid) in preventing fractures in postmenopausal women.³ They enrolled women age 65 years or older with osteopenia of the hip and randomly assigned the participants to 4 intravenous infusions of 5 mg zoledronic acid or placebo at 18-month intervals for 6 years.

Zoledronic acid reduced fracture risk

The trial included 2,000 postmenopausal women (mean age at baseline, 71 years; 94% European ethnicity) with a T-score of -1.0 to -2.5 at either the total hip or the femoral neck on either side. Both hips were assessed. The women received either zoledronic acid treatment or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. Candidates were excluded if they regularly used bone-active drugs in the previous year.

Fragility fractures were noted in 190 women in the placebo group and in 122 women treated with zoledronic acid (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50–0.79, P<.001). The number of women that would need to be treated to prevent the occurrence of a fracture in 1 woman was 15.

Compared with placebo, zoledronic acid also lowered the risk of nonvertebral, symptomatic, and vertebral fractures as well as height loss (P≤.003 for these 4 comparisons). Relatively few adverse events occurred with zoledronic acid treatment. No atypical femoral fractures or cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in either group.

Trial closes the knowledge gap regarding treatment thresholds

This trial’s findings underscore the importance of age as a risk factor for fragility fracture and clarify that pharmacologic treatment is appropriate not only for women with osteoporosis but also for older postmenopausal women with osteopenia.

As the authors point out, administration of zoledronic acid less often than annually can be highly effective in preventing fractures; they recommend future trials of administration of this intravenous bisphosphonate at intervals less frequent than 18 months. Although the absence of atypical femoral fractures or cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw is reassuring, the authors note that their trial was underpowered to assess these uncommon events.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The conventional bone mineral density threshold for initiating treatment to prevent fragility fractures is a T-score of less than -2.5 (the World Health Organization criteria for osteoporosis).¹ However, most fractures experienced by postmenopausal women occur not in osteoporotic women but in those with low bone mass (osteopenia).²

Investigators in New Zealand recently published the results of a randomized controlled trial they conducted to determine the efficacy of zoledronate (zoledronic acid) in preventing fractures in postmenopausal women.³ They enrolled women age 65 years or older with osteopenia of the hip and randomly assigned the participants to 4 intravenous infusions of 5 mg zoledronic acid or placebo at 18-month intervals for 6 years.

Zoledronic acid reduced fracture risk

The trial included 2,000 postmenopausal women (mean age at baseline, 71 years; 94% European ethnicity) with a T-score of -1.0 to -2.5 at either the total hip or the femoral neck on either side. Both hips were assessed. The women received either zoledronic acid treatment or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. Candidates were excluded if they regularly used bone-active drugs in the previous year.

Fragility fractures were noted in 190 women in the placebo group and in 122 women treated with zoledronic acid (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50–0.79, P<.001). The number of women that would need to be treated to prevent the occurrence of a fracture in 1 woman was 15.

Compared with placebo, zoledronic acid also lowered the risk of nonvertebral, symptomatic, and vertebral fractures as well as height loss (P≤.003 for these 4 comparisons). Relatively few adverse events occurred with zoledronic acid treatment. No atypical femoral fractures or cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in either group.

Trial closes the knowledge gap regarding treatment thresholds

This trial’s findings underscore the importance of age as a risk factor for fragility fracture and clarify that pharmacologic treatment is appropriate not only for women with osteoporosis but also for older postmenopausal women with osteopenia.

As the authors point out, administration of zoledronic acid less often than annually can be highly effective in preventing fractures; they recommend future trials of administration of this intravenous bisphosphonate at intervals less frequent than 18 months. Although the absence of atypical femoral fractures or cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw is reassuring, the authors note that their trial was underpowered to assess these uncommon events.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Although it has been more than 100 years since endometriosis was first described in the literature, deciphering the mechanisms that cause pain in women with this enigmatic disease is an ongoing pursuit.

Pain is the most debilitating symptom of endometriosis.^1,2 In many cases, it has a profoundly negative impact on a patient’s quality of life, and contributes significantly to disease burden, as well as to personal and societal costs from lost productivity.^3,4 Women with endometriosis often experience chronic pelvic pain, deep dyspareunia, dysmenorrhea, and subfertility.⁵ The majority of women with the disease also have one or more comorbidities, including adenomyosis, adhesive disease, and other pelvic pain conditions such as interstitial cystitis, irritable bowel disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and pelvic floor myalgia.^6-8

Recent studies have yielded new insights into the development of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. The role of peritoneal inflammation, de novo innervation of endometriosis implants, and changes in the central nervous system are becoming increasingly clear.^5,9,10 These discoveries have important treatment implications.

In this article, Andrea J. Rapkin, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Founder and Director of the UCLA Pelvic Pain Center, offers her expert opinion on the findings of key studies and their clinical implications, including the importance of a multidisciplinary treatment approach that focuses on the whole patient.

Q What mechanisms underlie the chronic pain that many women with endometriosis feel?

Although pain is the primary symptom experienced by women with endometriosis, the disease burden and symptom severity do not often correlate.^11,12 “This was the first conundrum presented to clinicians,” noted Dr. Rapkin. “In fact, we do not know the true prevalence of endometriosis because women with endometriosis only come to diagnosis either based on pain or infertility. When infertility is the problem, very often we are surprised by how much disease is present in an individual with either no pain or minimal pain. Conversely, in other individuals with very severe pain, upon laparoscopic surgery, have minimal or mild endometriosis.”

Efforts to solve this clinical puzzle began decades ago. “Dr. Michael Vernon discovered that the small, red, endometriosis implants that looked like petechial hemorrhages produced more prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) in vitro than the older black-brown lesions. PGE2 is a pain-producing (algesic) chemical produced after cytokines stimulation,” said Dr. Rapkin. “This was the first evidence that, yes, there is a reason for pain in many individuals with lower-stage disease.”

“Prostaglandins are known to be a major cause of dysmenorrhea. Prostaglandins induce uterine cramping, sensitize nerve endings, and promote other inflammatory factors responsible for attracting monocytes that become macrophages, further contributing to inflammation,” Dr. Rapkin continued. “PGE2 also stimulates the enzyme aromatase, which allows androgens to be converted to estrogen, which promotes growth of endometriotic lesions. This is a self-feeding aspect of endometriosis.”

Continue to: These discoveries were followed by the realization that deeply infiltrating endometriosis...

Q What other chronic pain conditions might women with endometriosis experience?

Overlapping chronic pain conditions are common in women with endometriosis. “There is a very high co-occurrence of interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome,” said Dr. Rapkin. “Irritable bowel syndrome is more common in women with endometriosis, as is vulvodynia. Fibromyalgia, migraine headache, temporo-mandibular joint pain (TMJ), anxiety, and depression also commonly co-occur in women with endometriosis.”

“Two concepts may be relevant to why these overlapping pain conditions develop,” Dr. Rapkin continued. “First, visceral sensitization: If one organ or tissue is inflamed and becomes hyperalgesic then other organs in the adjacent region with shared thoracolumbar and sacral innervation can become sensitized through shared cell bodies in the spinal cord, cross-sensitization in the cord, or at higher regions of the CNS. In addition, visceral somatic conversion occurs, whereby somatic tissues such as muscles and subcutaneous tissues with the same nerve supply as the affected organs become sensitized. This process may explain why abdominal wall and pelvic floor muscles become painful. The involvement of surrounding musculature is an important contributor to the pain in many women with endometriosis.”

“Finally, genetic studies of alterations in genes that encode for chemicals affecting the sensitivity and perception of pain are shedding light on the development of chronic pain. Ultimately these studies will advance our understanding of pain related to endometriosis.”

Continue to: Q How have new understandings about the pain mechanisms...

According to Dr. Rapkin, the increased understanding of the mechanisms involved in endometriosis-associated pain gained from these key studies led to a paradigm shift, with endometriosis being viewed not just as a condition with mechanical hypersensitivity due to altered anatomy and inflammation but also as a neurologic condition, or a nerve pain condition with peripheral and central sensitization. “This means there is upregulation or hyperactivity both in the periphery (in the pelvis) and centrally (in the spinal cord and brain),” said Dr. Rapkin.

“In the periphery, the endometriotic lesions develop an afferent sensory innervation and communicate with the brain. Stimulation of these nerves by the inflammatory milieu contributes to pain.” Dr. Rapkin noted research by Maria Adele Giamberardino, which demonstrated that women with endometriosis and pain have a lower threshold for feeling pain in the tissues overlying the pelvis (the abdominal wall and back).¹⁴ This also has been shown by Dr. Berkley in rodents given endometriosis.

“The muscles develop trigger points and tender hyperalgesic points as part of the sensitization process. In addition, distant sensitization develops—women with pelvic pain and endometriosis have a lower threshold for sensing experimental pain in areas outside the pelvis, for example the back, leg, or shoulder. These discoveries clearly reflect up regulation for pain processing in the central nervous system.”

Dr. Rapkin also pointed to research published in 2016 by Sawson As-Sanie, MD, MPH, that showed an association between endometriosis-associated pelvic pain and altered brain chemistry and function.¹⁶ “Dr. As-Sanie demonstrated a decrease in gray matter volume in key neural pain processing areas in the brain in women with pain with endometriosis. This was not found in women with endometriosis who did not have pain,” she said. “Altered connectivity in brain areas related to perception and inhibition of pain is important in maintaining pain. Dr. As-Sanie’s studies also found that these changes are correlated with anxiety, depression, and pain intensity in patients with endometriosis and chronic pain.”

Continue to: Q What are some newer treatment approaches to chronic pain with endometriosis?

Q What are some newer treatment approaches to chronic pain with endometriosis?

“Multidisciplinary approaches to endometriosis-related pain are important,” said Dr. Rapkin. “Although it is important to excise or cauterize endometriosis lesions, or debulk as much as can safely be removed during laparoscopic surgery, it is now standard of care that medical therapy, not surgery, is the first approach to treatment. Endometriosis is a chronic condition. Inflammatory factors will continue to proliferate in patients who menstruate and produce high levels of estrogen with ovulation. The goal of medical therapy is to decrease the levels of estrogen that contribute to maintenance and proliferation of the implants. We want to suppress estrogen in a way that is compatible with long-term quality of life for our patients. Wiping out estrogen and placing patients into a chemical or surgical menopause for most of their reproductive years is not desirable.”

Approaches to hormonally modulate endometriosis include combined hormonal contraceptives and progestin-only medications, such as the levonogestrol-containing IUD, progestin-containing contraceptive implants, injections, or tablets. Second-line medical therapy consists of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists that can be used for 6 months to 2 years and allows for further lowering of estrogen levels. These may not provide sufficient pain relief for some patients. “There is some evidence from Dr. Giamberadino’s studies that after women with dysmenorrhea were treated with oral contraceptives, the abdominal wall hyperalgesia decreased,” said Dr. Rapkin. “The question is, why don’t we see this in all patients? We come to the realization that endometriosis has to be treated as a neurologically mediated disorder. We have to treat the peripheral and central sensitization in a multidisciplinary way.”

A holistic approach to endometriosis is a new and exciting area for the field, said Dr. Rapkin. “We have to treat ‘bottom-up’, and ‘top-down.’ Bottom-up means we are addressing the peripheral factors that contribute to pain: endometriotic lesions, other pelvic organ pain, myofascial pain, trigger points, the tender points, and the muscle dysfunction in the abdominal wall, the back, and the pelvic floor. Pelvic floor physical therapists help women with pain and endometriosis. Often, women with endometriosis have myofascial pain and pain related to the other comorbid pain conditions they may have developed. Peripheral nerve blocks and medications used for neuropathic pain that alter nerve firing can be helpful in many situations. Pain can be augmented by cognitions and beliefs about pain, and by anxiety and depression. So the top-down approach addresses the cognitions, depression, and anxiety. We do not consider endometriosis a psychosomatic condition, but we know that if you do not address the central upregulation, including anxiety and depression, we may not get anywhere.”

“Interestingly, neurotransmitters and brain regions governing mood contribute to nerve pain. Medications such as tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, anticonvulsants, and calcium channel blocking agents may prove fruitful. Cognitive behavioral therapy is another approach—to stimulate the prefrontal cortex, the area that is involved in pain inhibition, and other areas of the brain that may produce endogenous opioids to help with inhibiting pain. Bringing in complementary approaches is very important—for example, mindfulness-based meditation or yoga. There is growing evidence for acupuncture as well. Physical therapists, pain psychologists, anesthesiologists, or gynecologists who are facile with nerve blocks, to help tone down hyperalgesic tissues, in addition to medical and surgical therapy, have the possibility of really improving the lives of women with endometriosis.”

Q What key pearls would you like to share with readers?

“It is important to evaluate the entire individual,” she said. “Do not just viscerally focus on the uterus, the ovaries, fallopian tubes, and the peritoneum; investigate the adjacent organs and somatic tissues. Think about the abdominal wall, think about the pelvic floor. Learn how to evaluate these structures. There are simple evaluation techniques that gynecologists can learn and should include with every patient with pelvic pain, whether or not they are suspected of having endometriosis. You also want to get a complete history to determine if there are other co-occurring pain conditions. If there are, it is already a sign that there may be central sensitization.”

“Very often, it is necessary to bring in a pain psychologist—not because the disease is psychosomatic but because therapy can help the patient to learn how to use their brain to erase pain memory, and of course to address the concomitant anxiety, depression, and social isolation that happens with pain.”

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Although it has been more than 100 years since endometriosis was first described in the literature, deciphering the mechanisms that cause pain in women with this enigmatic disease is an ongoing pursuit.

Pain is the most debilitating symptom of endometriosis.^1,2 In many cases, it has a profoundly negative impact on a patient’s quality of life, and contributes significantly to disease burden, as well as to personal and societal costs from lost productivity.^3,4 Women with endometriosis often experience chronic pelvic pain, deep dyspareunia, dysmenorrhea, and subfertility.⁵ The majority of women with the disease also have one or more comorbidities, including adenomyosis, adhesive disease, and other pelvic pain conditions such as interstitial cystitis, irritable bowel disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and pelvic floor myalgia.^6-8

Recent studies have yielded new insights into the development of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. The role of peritoneal inflammation, de novo innervation of endometriosis implants, and changes in the central nervous system are becoming increasingly clear.^5,9,10 These discoveries have important treatment implications.

In this article, Andrea J. Rapkin, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Founder and Director of the UCLA Pelvic Pain Center, offers her expert opinion on the findings of key studies and their clinical implications, including the importance of a multidisciplinary treatment approach that focuses on the whole patient.

Q What mechanisms underlie the chronic pain that many women with endometriosis feel?

Although pain is the primary symptom experienced by women with endometriosis, the disease burden and symptom severity do not often correlate.^11,12 “This was the first conundrum presented to clinicians,” noted Dr. Rapkin. “In fact, we do not know the true prevalence of endometriosis because women with endometriosis only come to diagnosis either based on pain or infertility. When infertility is the problem, very often we are surprised by how much disease is present in an individual with either no pain or minimal pain. Conversely, in other individuals with very severe pain, upon laparoscopic surgery, have minimal or mild endometriosis.”

Efforts to solve this clinical puzzle began decades ago. “Dr. Michael Vernon discovered that the small, red, endometriosis implants that looked like petechial hemorrhages produced more prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) in vitro than the older black-brown lesions. PGE2 is a pain-producing (algesic) chemical produced after cytokines stimulation,” said Dr. Rapkin. “This was the first evidence that, yes, there is a reason for pain in many individuals with lower-stage disease.”

“Prostaglandins are known to be a major cause of dysmenorrhea. Prostaglandins induce uterine cramping, sensitize nerve endings, and promote other inflammatory factors responsible for attracting monocytes that become macrophages, further contributing to inflammation,” Dr. Rapkin continued. “PGE2 also stimulates the enzyme aromatase, which allows androgens to be converted to estrogen, which promotes growth of endometriotic lesions. This is a self-feeding aspect of endometriosis.”

Continue to: These discoveries were followed by the realization that deeply infiltrating endometriosis...

Q What other chronic pain conditions might women with endometriosis experience?

Overlapping chronic pain conditions are common in women with endometriosis. “There is a very high co-occurrence of interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome,” said Dr. Rapkin. “Irritable bowel syndrome is more common in women with endometriosis, as is vulvodynia. Fibromyalgia, migraine headache, temporo-mandibular joint pain (TMJ), anxiety, and depression also commonly co-occur in women with endometriosis.”

“Two concepts may be relevant to why these overlapping pain conditions develop,” Dr. Rapkin continued. “First, visceral sensitization: If one organ or tissue is inflamed and becomes hyperalgesic then other organs in the adjacent region with shared thoracolumbar and sacral innervation can become sensitized through shared cell bodies in the spinal cord, cross-sensitization in the cord, or at higher regions of the CNS. In addition, visceral somatic conversion occurs, whereby somatic tissues such as muscles and subcutaneous tissues with the same nerve supply as the affected organs become sensitized. This process may explain why abdominal wall and pelvic floor muscles become painful. The involvement of surrounding musculature is an important contributor to the pain in many women with endometriosis.”

“Finally, genetic studies of alterations in genes that encode for chemicals affecting the sensitivity and perception of pain are shedding light on the development of chronic pain. Ultimately these studies will advance our understanding of pain related to endometriosis.”

Continue to: Q How have new understandings about the pain mechanisms...

According to Dr. Rapkin, the increased understanding of the mechanisms involved in endometriosis-associated pain gained from these key studies led to a paradigm shift, with endometriosis being viewed not just as a condition with mechanical hypersensitivity due to altered anatomy and inflammation but also as a neurologic condition, or a nerve pain condition with peripheral and central sensitization. “This means there is upregulation or hyperactivity both in the periphery (in the pelvis) and centrally (in the spinal cord and brain),” said Dr. Rapkin.

“In the periphery, the endometriotic lesions develop an afferent sensory innervation and communicate with the brain. Stimulation of these nerves by the inflammatory milieu contributes to pain.” Dr. Rapkin noted research by Maria Adele Giamberardino, which demonstrated that women with endometriosis and pain have a lower threshold for feeling pain in the tissues overlying the pelvis (the abdominal wall and back).¹⁴ This also has been shown by Dr. Berkley in rodents given endometriosis.

“The muscles develop trigger points and tender hyperalgesic points as part of the sensitization process. In addition, distant sensitization develops—women with pelvic pain and endometriosis have a lower threshold for sensing experimental pain in areas outside the pelvis, for example the back, leg, or shoulder. These discoveries clearly reflect up regulation for pain processing in the central nervous system.”

Dr. Rapkin also pointed to research published in 2016 by Sawson As-Sanie, MD, MPH, that showed an association between endometriosis-associated pelvic pain and altered brain chemistry and function.¹⁶ “Dr. As-Sanie demonstrated a decrease in gray matter volume in key neural pain processing areas in the brain in women with pain with endometriosis. This was not found in women with endometriosis who did not have pain,” she said. “Altered connectivity in brain areas related to perception and inhibition of pain is important in maintaining pain. Dr. As-Sanie’s studies also found that these changes are correlated with anxiety, depression, and pain intensity in patients with endometriosis and chronic pain.”

Continue to: Q What are some newer treatment approaches to chronic pain with endometriosis?

Q What are some newer treatment approaches to chronic pain with endometriosis?

“Multidisciplinary approaches to endometriosis-related pain are important,” said Dr. Rapkin. “Although it is important to excise or cauterize endometriosis lesions, or debulk as much as can safely be removed during laparoscopic surgery, it is now standard of care that medical therapy, not surgery, is the first approach to treatment. Endometriosis is a chronic condition. Inflammatory factors will continue to proliferate in patients who menstruate and produce high levels of estrogen with ovulation. The goal of medical therapy is to decrease the levels of estrogen that contribute to maintenance and proliferation of the implants. We want to suppress estrogen in a way that is compatible with long-term quality of life for our patients. Wiping out estrogen and placing patients into a chemical or surgical menopause for most of their reproductive years is not desirable.”

Approaches to hormonally modulate endometriosis include combined hormonal contraceptives and progestin-only medications, such as the levonogestrol-containing IUD, progestin-containing contraceptive implants, injections, or tablets. Second-line medical therapy consists of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists that can be used for 6 months to 2 years and allows for further lowering of estrogen levels. These may not provide sufficient pain relief for some patients. “There is some evidence from Dr. Giamberadino’s studies that after women with dysmenorrhea were treated with oral contraceptives, the abdominal wall hyperalgesia decreased,” said Dr. Rapkin. “The question is, why don’t we see this in all patients? We come to the realization that endometriosis has to be treated as a neurologically mediated disorder. We have to treat the peripheral and central sensitization in a multidisciplinary way.”

A holistic approach to endometriosis is a new and exciting area for the field, said Dr. Rapkin. “We have to treat ‘bottom-up’, and ‘top-down.’ Bottom-up means we are addressing the peripheral factors that contribute to pain: endometriotic lesions, other pelvic organ pain, myofascial pain, trigger points, the tender points, and the muscle dysfunction in the abdominal wall, the back, and the pelvic floor. Pelvic floor physical therapists help women with pain and endometriosis. Often, women with endometriosis have myofascial pain and pain related to the other comorbid pain conditions they may have developed. Peripheral nerve blocks and medications used for neuropathic pain that alter nerve firing can be helpful in many situations. Pain can be augmented by cognitions and beliefs about pain, and by anxiety and depression. So the top-down approach addresses the cognitions, depression, and anxiety. We do not consider endometriosis a psychosomatic condition, but we know that if you do not address the central upregulation, including anxiety and depression, we may not get anywhere.”

“Interestingly, neurotransmitters and brain regions governing mood contribute to nerve pain. Medications such as tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, anticonvulsants, and calcium channel blocking agents may prove fruitful. Cognitive behavioral therapy is another approach—to stimulate the prefrontal cortex, the area that is involved in pain inhibition, and other areas of the brain that may produce endogenous opioids to help with inhibiting pain. Bringing in complementary approaches is very important—for example, mindfulness-based meditation or yoga. There is growing evidence for acupuncture as well. Physical therapists, pain psychologists, anesthesiologists, or gynecologists who are facile with nerve blocks, to help tone down hyperalgesic tissues, in addition to medical and surgical therapy, have the possibility of really improving the lives of women with endometriosis.”

Q What key pearls would you like to share with readers?

“It is important to evaluate the entire individual,” she said. “Do not just viscerally focus on the uterus, the ovaries, fallopian tubes, and the peritoneum; investigate the adjacent organs and somatic tissues. Think about the abdominal wall, think about the pelvic floor. Learn how to evaluate these structures. There are simple evaluation techniques that gynecologists can learn and should include with every patient with pelvic pain, whether or not they are suspected of having endometriosis. You also want to get a complete history to determine if there are other co-occurring pain conditions. If there are, it is already a sign that there may be central sensitization.”

“Very often, it is necessary to bring in a pain psychologist—not because the disease is psychosomatic but because therapy can help the patient to learn how to use their brain to erase pain memory, and of course to address the concomitant anxiety, depression, and social isolation that happens with pain.”

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Although it has been more than 100 years since endometriosis was first described in the literature, deciphering the mechanisms that cause pain in women with this enigmatic disease is an ongoing pursuit.

Pain is the most debilitating symptom of endometriosis.^1,2 In many cases, it has a profoundly negative impact on a patient’s quality of life, and contributes significantly to disease burden, as well as to personal and societal costs from lost productivity.^3,4 Women with endometriosis often experience chronic pelvic pain, deep dyspareunia, dysmenorrhea, and subfertility.⁵ The majority of women with the disease also have one or more comorbidities, including adenomyosis, adhesive disease, and other pelvic pain conditions such as interstitial cystitis, irritable bowel disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and pelvic floor myalgia.^6-8

Recent studies have yielded new insights into the development of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. The role of peritoneal inflammation, de novo innervation of endometriosis implants, and changes in the central nervous system are becoming increasingly clear.^5,9,10 These discoveries have important treatment implications.

In this article, Andrea J. Rapkin, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Founder and Director of the UCLA Pelvic Pain Center, offers her expert opinion on the findings of key studies and their clinical implications, including the importance of a multidisciplinary treatment approach that focuses on the whole patient.

Q What mechanisms underlie the chronic pain that many women with endometriosis feel?

Although pain is the primary symptom experienced by women with endometriosis, the disease burden and symptom severity do not often correlate.^11,12 “This was the first conundrum presented to clinicians,” noted Dr. Rapkin. “In fact, we do not know the true prevalence of endometriosis because women with endometriosis only come to diagnosis either based on pain or infertility. When infertility is the problem, very often we are surprised by how much disease is present in an individual with either no pain or minimal pain. Conversely, in other individuals with very severe pain, upon laparoscopic surgery, have minimal or mild endometriosis.”

Efforts to solve this clinical puzzle began decades ago. “Dr. Michael Vernon discovered that the small, red, endometriosis implants that looked like petechial hemorrhages produced more prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) in vitro than the older black-brown lesions. PGE2 is a pain-producing (algesic) chemical produced after cytokines stimulation,” said Dr. Rapkin. “This was the first evidence that, yes, there is a reason for pain in many individuals with lower-stage disease.”

“Prostaglandins are known to be a major cause of dysmenorrhea. Prostaglandins induce uterine cramping, sensitize nerve endings, and promote other inflammatory factors responsible for attracting monocytes that become macrophages, further contributing to inflammation,” Dr. Rapkin continued. “PGE2 also stimulates the enzyme aromatase, which allows androgens to be converted to estrogen, which promotes growth of endometriotic lesions. This is a self-feeding aspect of endometriosis.”

Continue to: These discoveries were followed by the realization that deeply infiltrating endometriosis...

Q What other chronic pain conditions might women with endometriosis experience?

Overlapping chronic pain conditions are common in women with endometriosis. “There is a very high co-occurrence of interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome,” said Dr. Rapkin. “Irritable bowel syndrome is more common in women with endometriosis, as is vulvodynia. Fibromyalgia, migraine headache, temporo-mandibular joint pain (TMJ), anxiety, and depression also commonly co-occur in women with endometriosis.”

“Two concepts may be relevant to why these overlapping pain conditions develop,” Dr. Rapkin continued. “First, visceral sensitization: If one organ or tissue is inflamed and becomes hyperalgesic then other organs in the adjacent region with shared thoracolumbar and sacral innervation can become sensitized through shared cell bodies in the spinal cord, cross-sensitization in the cord, or at higher regions of the CNS. In addition, visceral somatic conversion occurs, whereby somatic tissues such as muscles and subcutaneous tissues with the same nerve supply as the affected organs become sensitized. This process may explain why abdominal wall and pelvic floor muscles become painful. The involvement of surrounding musculature is an important contributor to the pain in many women with endometriosis.”

“Finally, genetic studies of alterations in genes that encode for chemicals affecting the sensitivity and perception of pain are shedding light on the development of chronic pain. Ultimately these studies will advance our understanding of pain related to endometriosis.”

Continue to: Q How have new understandings about the pain mechanisms...

According to Dr. Rapkin, the increased understanding of the mechanisms involved in endometriosis-associated pain gained from these key studies led to a paradigm shift, with endometriosis being viewed not just as a condition with mechanical hypersensitivity due to altered anatomy and inflammation but also as a neurologic condition, or a nerve pain condition with peripheral and central sensitization. “This means there is upregulation or hyperactivity both in the periphery (in the pelvis) and centrally (in the spinal cord and brain),” said Dr. Rapkin.

“In the periphery, the endometriotic lesions develop an afferent sensory innervation and communicate with the brain. Stimulation of these nerves by the inflammatory milieu contributes to pain.” Dr. Rapkin noted research by Maria Adele Giamberardino, which demonstrated that women with endometriosis and pain have a lower threshold for feeling pain in the tissues overlying the pelvis (the abdominal wall and back).¹⁴ This also has been shown by Dr. Berkley in rodents given endometriosis.

“The muscles develop trigger points and tender hyperalgesic points as part of the sensitization process. In addition, distant sensitization develops—women with pelvic pain and endometriosis have a lower threshold for sensing experimental pain in areas outside the pelvis, for example the back, leg, or shoulder. These discoveries clearly reflect up regulation for pain processing in the central nervous system.”

Dr. Rapkin also pointed to research published in 2016 by Sawson As-Sanie, MD, MPH, that showed an association between endometriosis-associated pelvic pain and altered brain chemistry and function.¹⁶ “Dr. As-Sanie demonstrated a decrease in gray matter volume in key neural pain processing areas in the brain in women with pain with endometriosis. This was not found in women with endometriosis who did not have pain,” she said. “Altered connectivity in brain areas related to perception and inhibition of pain is important in maintaining pain. Dr. As-Sanie’s studies also found that these changes are correlated with anxiety, depression, and pain intensity in patients with endometriosis and chronic pain.”

Continue to: Q What are some newer treatment approaches to chronic pain with endometriosis?

Q What are some newer treatment approaches to chronic pain with endometriosis?

“Multidisciplinary approaches to endometriosis-related pain are important,” said Dr. Rapkin. “Although it is important to excise or cauterize endometriosis lesions, or debulk as much as can safely be removed during laparoscopic surgery, it is now standard of care that medical therapy, not surgery, is the first approach to treatment. Endometriosis is a chronic condition. Inflammatory factors will continue to proliferate in patients who menstruate and produce high levels of estrogen with ovulation. The goal of medical therapy is to decrease the levels of estrogen that contribute to maintenance and proliferation of the implants. We want to suppress estrogen in a way that is compatible with long-term quality of life for our patients. Wiping out estrogen and placing patients into a chemical or surgical menopause for most of their reproductive years is not desirable.”

Approaches to hormonally modulate endometriosis include combined hormonal contraceptives and progestin-only medications, such as the levonogestrol-containing IUD, progestin-containing contraceptive implants, injections, or tablets. Second-line medical therapy consists of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists that can be used for 6 months to 2 years and allows for further lowering of estrogen levels. These may not provide sufficient pain relief for some patients. “There is some evidence from Dr. Giamberadino’s studies that after women with dysmenorrhea were treated with oral contraceptives, the abdominal wall hyperalgesia decreased,” said Dr. Rapkin. “The question is, why don’t we see this in all patients? We come to the realization that endometriosis has to be treated as a neurologically mediated disorder. We have to treat the peripheral and central sensitization in a multidisciplinary way.”

A holistic approach to endometriosis is a new and exciting area for the field, said Dr. Rapkin. “We have to treat ‘bottom-up’, and ‘top-down.’ Bottom-up means we are addressing the peripheral factors that contribute to pain: endometriotic lesions, other pelvic organ pain, myofascial pain, trigger points, the tender points, and the muscle dysfunction in the abdominal wall, the back, and the pelvic floor. Pelvic floor physical therapists help women with pain and endometriosis. Often, women with endometriosis have myofascial pain and pain related to the other comorbid pain conditions they may have developed. Peripheral nerve blocks and medications used for neuropathic pain that alter nerve firing can be helpful in many situations. Pain can be augmented by cognitions and beliefs about pain, and by anxiety and depression. So the top-down approach addresses the cognitions, depression, and anxiety. We do not consider endometriosis a psychosomatic condition, but we know that if you do not address the central upregulation, including anxiety and depression, we may not get anywhere.”

“Interestingly, neurotransmitters and brain regions governing mood contribute to nerve pain. Medications such as tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, anticonvulsants, and calcium channel blocking agents may prove fruitful. Cognitive behavioral therapy is another approach—to stimulate the prefrontal cortex, the area that is involved in pain inhibition, and other areas of the brain that may produce endogenous opioids to help with inhibiting pain. Bringing in complementary approaches is very important—for example, mindfulness-based meditation or yoga. There is growing evidence for acupuncture as well. Physical therapists, pain psychologists, anesthesiologists, or gynecologists who are facile with nerve blocks, to help tone down hyperalgesic tissues, in addition to medical and surgical therapy, have the possibility of really improving the lives of women with endometriosis.”

Q What key pearls would you like to share with readers?

“It is important to evaluate the entire individual,” she said. “Do not just viscerally focus on the uterus, the ovaries, fallopian tubes, and the peritoneum; investigate the adjacent organs and somatic tissues. Think about the abdominal wall, think about the pelvic floor. Learn how to evaluate these structures. There are simple evaluation techniques that gynecologists can learn and should include with every patient with pelvic pain, whether or not they are suspected of having endometriosis. You also want to get a complete history to determine if there are other co-occurring pain conditions. If there are, it is already a sign that there may be central sensitization.”

“Very often, it is necessary to bring in a pain psychologist—not because the disease is psychosomatic but because therapy can help the patient to learn how to use their brain to erase pain memory, and of course to address the concomitant anxiety, depression, and social isolation that happens with pain.”

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

While reimbursement for ObGyn services seemingly should be a simple matter of putting codes on a claim form, the reality is that it is complex, and it requires a team approach to accomplish timely filing to receive fair and accurate reimbursement.

Reimbursement occurs over the length of the revenue cycle for a patient encounter and involves many steps. It starts when the patient makes an appointment for services and ends when the practice receives payment. Along the way, there must be good clinician documentation and sound knowledge about the billing process (including the Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] or Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System [HCPCS] codes for services), the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-10-CM] codes that establish medical necessity, the modifiers that alter the meaning of the codes, and, of course, the bundling issues that now accompany many coding situations.

In addition, ObGyn practices must contend with a multitude of payers—from federal to commercial—and must understand and adhere to each payer’s rules and policies to maximize and retain reimbursement.

In this article, I detail stumbling blocks to maximizing reimbursement and how to avoid them.

Coding considerations for office services

Good documentation before, during, and after a patient’s office visit is essential, along with accurate codes, modifiers, and order of services on the claims you submit.

Prep paperwork before the patient encounter

Once a patient makes an appointment, the front-end staff can handle some of the tasks in the cycle. This includes ensuring that the patient’s insurance coverage information is current, informing the patient of any additional information to bring at the time of the visit (such as a patient history form for a new patient visit or a list of current prescriptions), or, if an established patient will be having a procedure, making sure that prior authorization is complete. This streamlines the process, assists the clinician with documentation housekeeping, and ensures that incorrect or missing information does not cause a claim to be denied or not be filed in a timely manner (many payers require submission of an initial claim 30 days from the date of service).

Continue to: Document details of the clinician-patient interaction

At the time of the encounter, you are responsible for documenting your contact with the patient in enough detail to support billing a CPT evaluation and management (E/M) code at the level selected and/or any procedures or other services performed. The TABLE provides an overview of the requirements for each level of office service.

If both an E/M and a procedure are performed on the same date of service, the E/M must be documented to show it was separate from the procedure and that the work was significantly more than would be required to accomplish the procedure. Documentation of the procedure should include the indication, steps performed, findings, the patient’s condition afterward, and instructions for aftercare or follow-up.

If you use an electronic health record for reporting, you may be the one responsible for selecting both the CPT code for services performed and an ICD-10-CM code(s) to establish the medical need for them. Select the most accurate CPT codes, and clearly link them to a supporting diagnosis for each service that will be billed. If more than one diagnosis is applicable, the first one linked to any given service should represent the most important justification, as not all payers will accept more than one diagnosis code on the claim per service billed.

If the billing staff is assigned the task of selecting the CPT and/or ICD-10-CM diagnostic codes based on your documentation, they should be well versed in the services, procedures, and diagnoses reported for their ObGyn practice.

The actual code selection may end up being a joint venture between the clinician and the staff to ensure that accurate information will be entered on the claim. Good and frequent clinician-staff communication on billing of services can transform average reimbursement into maximized reimbursement.

Be aware of bundles

Sometimes more than one service or procedure is listed on a claim on the same date of service. However, it is important to identify all potential bundles before billing to ensure correct payment. For instance, payers like to bundle an E/M service and a procedure, or you may be in the global period (defined below) of a surgery but need to report an unrelated service.

You and your staff must work together to ensure the claim is submitted with the correct modifiers; on the other hand, you may decide that a better method of coding is in order. Some payers, for example, will not reimburse both an insertion and a removal of an intrauterine device (IUD) on the same date of service. If that does happen, a modifier on the removal code might save the day, rather than billing 2 codes.

Continue to: Manage the modifiers

Sometimes the code billed requires a modifier to ensure payment. Typical modifiers used in an ObGyn office setting include the following:

• 22, Increased procedural services (the clinician must assign a fee that is higher than the usual fee for the procedure and be able to document CPT equivalents to the work involved)
• 24, Unrelated E/M during the postoperative period (note that this modifier does not apply during the antepartum period for pregnancy)
• 25, Significant and separate E/M on the same date as another service or minor procedure
• 52, Reduced services (generally, the payer will expect an explanation of the reduced service and will determine payment accordingly)
• 57, Decision to perform major surgery the day of or the day before the surgery
• 59, Distinct procedural service (used when 2 procedures are bundled and a modifier is allowed). Note that payment reductions for multiple procedures will still apply.
• 79, Unrelated procedure during the postoperative period (usually paid at the full allowable).

Organize the order of services on the claim

For an outpatient claim that includes both an E/M service and procedures, the order of the services—not the order in which they were performed—may be important to obtaining maximum reimbursement. In general, payers will pay in full for a supported E/M service no matter where it appears on the claim, but they apply reductions only for multiple procedures.

For instance, if you insert levonorgestrel implants on the same date as you remove a large polyp from the cervix, you would want to report the code with the highest relative value unit (RVU) first. In this case, it would be 11981 (4.05 RVUs), 57500 (3.61 RVUs).

In the IUD case mentioned earlier (removal and insertion of IUDs on the same date), the order of the codes, assuming the payer reimburses for both, will be even more important since removal usually has a higher payment: 58301 (2.70 RUVs), 58300 (1.54 RVUs).

Coding considerations for surgical services

Surgical services performed in a hospital or ambulatory surgical center present another set of must-dos to ensure timely and fair reimbursement.

Grasp the ‘global package’ concept

Understanding this concept can be crucial to getting paid for additional services during this time period and correct billing for any E/M services performed prior to surgery. In general, the routine history and physical examination performed prior to a major surgery is considered included in the work and should not be billed separately. Surgical clearance for a patient’s condition, such as hypertension, a heart condition, or lung issues, can be billed separately, but these generally are performed by someone other than the operating surgeon.

Procedures performed in the hospital setting generally will have a 10- or 90-day global period. During this time, any related E/M service should not be billed separately, and the use of modifiers becomes even more important than with office services.

Applicable modifiers for use with hospital surgery can include all those for outpatient services plus:

• 50, Bilateral procedure (for which you may be paid up to 150% of the allowable)
• 58, Staged or related procedure during the postoperative period (this may be paid at the full allowable)
• 62, Co-surgeons (both surgeons bill the same CPT code and both document their involvement in the surgery). Medicare will reimburse each surgeon 62.5% of the allowable.
• 78, Return to the operating room for an unplanned related procedure (the full allowable may be reduced by some payers owing to their belief that this is soon after the original procedure so intraoperative time only is considered).

Be savvy about surgical bundles

Here, it is important to understand all published bundling edits for multiple procedures performed by the same surgeon at the same surgical session. If a code combination is never allowed but the surgery is more intense due to additional work required, a modifier -22 may be your only option. Again, clear, concise documentation of the additional work is imperative to receive the additional payment.

When a modifier is allowed, it generally will be one that denotes a procedure done on bilateral organs (such as the ovaries) when there is no extensive code to cover all of the work or when the additional procedure is “distinct” and meets the criteria for using a modifier 59.

Medicare has expanded the modifier -59 into additional modifiers to further explain the situation. These additional modifiers are:

• XE, A service that is distinct because it occurred during a separate encounter on the same date of service
• XS, A service that is distinct because it was performed on a separate organ/structure
• XP, A service that is distinct because it was performed by a different practitioner
• XU, The use of a service that is distinct because it does not overlap usual components of the main service.

Standards of care: Some steps are inherent to the surgery

Expect to receive claim denials if you bill separately for adhesiolysis during a surgical procedure. Every payer considers this procedure related to access to the surgical site and will deny separate coding. If the lysis was truly significant in terms of work, try reporting the modifier 22 and provide adequate documentation.

Other procedures at the time of surgery that generally are not paid for include 1) examination under anesthesia, 2) any procedure done to check the surgeon’s work (for example, cystoscopy, especially when done after urinary or pelvic reconstruction procedures, or chromotubation following extensive ovariolysis), 3) placement of catheters, and 4) placement of devices to alleviate postsurgical pain.

Bottom line

Maximizing reimbursement involves good documentation, correct CPT codes linked to specific and accurate medical indications, the use of appropriate modifiers, and listing codes in order of their relative values from highest to lowest.

Should a denial or unfair reduction in payment come your way, analyze the rejection to determine the cause and make billing and reporting changes as needed to improve your future reimbursements.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

While reimbursement for ObGyn services seemingly should be a simple matter of putting codes on a claim form, the reality is that it is complex, and it requires a team approach to accomplish timely filing to receive fair and accurate reimbursement.

Reimbursement occurs over the length of the revenue cycle for a patient encounter and involves many steps. It starts when the patient makes an appointment for services and ends when the practice receives payment. Along the way, there must be good clinician documentation and sound knowledge about the billing process (including the Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] or Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System [HCPCS] codes for services), the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-10-CM] codes that establish medical necessity, the modifiers that alter the meaning of the codes, and, of course, the bundling issues that now accompany many coding situations.

In addition, ObGyn practices must contend with a multitude of payers—from federal to commercial—and must understand and adhere to each payer’s rules and policies to maximize and retain reimbursement.

In this article, I detail stumbling blocks to maximizing reimbursement and how to avoid them.

Coding considerations for office services

Good documentation before, during, and after a patient’s office visit is essential, along with accurate codes, modifiers, and order of services on the claims you submit.

Prep paperwork before the patient encounter

Once a patient makes an appointment, the front-end staff can handle some of the tasks in the cycle. This includes ensuring that the patient’s insurance coverage information is current, informing the patient of any additional information to bring at the time of the visit (such as a patient history form for a new patient visit or a list of current prescriptions), or, if an established patient will be having a procedure, making sure that prior authorization is complete. This streamlines the process, assists the clinician with documentation housekeeping, and ensures that incorrect or missing information does not cause a claim to be denied or not be filed in a timely manner (many payers require submission of an initial claim 30 days from the date of service).

Continue to: Document details of the clinician-patient interaction

At the time of the encounter, you are responsible for documenting your contact with the patient in enough detail to support billing a CPT evaluation and management (E/M) code at the level selected and/or any procedures or other services performed. The TABLE provides an overview of the requirements for each level of office service.

If both an E/M and a procedure are performed on the same date of service, the E/M must be documented to show it was separate from the procedure and that the work was significantly more than would be required to accomplish the procedure. Documentation of the procedure should include the indication, steps performed, findings, the patient’s condition afterward, and instructions for aftercare or follow-up.

If you use an electronic health record for reporting, you may be the one responsible for selecting both the CPT code for services performed and an ICD-10-CM code(s) to establish the medical need for them. Select the most accurate CPT codes, and clearly link them to a supporting diagnosis for each service that will be billed. If more than one diagnosis is applicable, the first one linked to any given service should represent the most important justification, as not all payers will accept more than one diagnosis code on the claim per service billed.

If the billing staff is assigned the task of selecting the CPT and/or ICD-10-CM diagnostic codes based on your documentation, they should be well versed in the services, procedures, and diagnoses reported for their ObGyn practice.

The actual code selection may end up being a joint venture between the clinician and the staff to ensure that accurate information will be entered on the claim. Good and frequent clinician-staff communication on billing of services can transform average reimbursement into maximized reimbursement.

Be aware of bundles

Sometimes more than one service or procedure is listed on a claim on the same date of service. However, it is important to identify all potential bundles before billing to ensure correct payment. For instance, payers like to bundle an E/M service and a procedure, or you may be in the global period (defined below) of a surgery but need to report an unrelated service.

You and your staff must work together to ensure the claim is submitted with the correct modifiers; on the other hand, you may decide that a better method of coding is in order. Some payers, for example, will not reimburse both an insertion and a removal of an intrauterine device (IUD) on the same date of service. If that does happen, a modifier on the removal code might save the day, rather than billing 2 codes.

Continue to: Manage the modifiers

Sometimes the code billed requires a modifier to ensure payment. Typical modifiers used in an ObGyn office setting include the following:

• 22, Increased procedural services (the clinician must assign a fee that is higher than the usual fee for the procedure and be able to document CPT equivalents to the work involved)
• 24, Unrelated E/M during the postoperative period (note that this modifier does not apply during the antepartum period for pregnancy)
• 25, Significant and separate E/M on the same date as another service or minor procedure
• 52, Reduced services (generally, the payer will expect an explanation of the reduced service and will determine payment accordingly)
• 57, Decision to perform major surgery the day of or the day before the surgery
• 59, Distinct procedural service (used when 2 procedures are bundled and a modifier is allowed). Note that payment reductions for multiple procedures will still apply.
• 79, Unrelated procedure during the postoperative period (usually paid at the full allowable).

Organize the order of services on the claim

For an outpatient claim that includes both an E/M service and procedures, the order of the services—not the order in which they were performed—may be important to obtaining maximum reimbursement. In general, payers will pay in full for a supported E/M service no matter where it appears on the claim, but they apply reductions only for multiple procedures.

For instance, if you insert levonorgestrel implants on the same date as you remove a large polyp from the cervix, you would want to report the code with the highest relative value unit (RVU) first. In this case, it would be 11981 (4.05 RVUs), 57500 (3.61 RVUs).

In the IUD case mentioned earlier (removal and insertion of IUDs on the same date), the order of the codes, assuming the payer reimburses for both, will be even more important since removal usually has a higher payment: 58301 (2.70 RUVs), 58300 (1.54 RVUs).

Coding considerations for surgical services

Surgical services performed in a hospital or ambulatory surgical center present another set of must-dos to ensure timely and fair reimbursement.

Grasp the ‘global package’ concept

Understanding this concept can be crucial to getting paid for additional services during this time period and correct billing for any E/M services performed prior to surgery. In general, the routine history and physical examination performed prior to a major surgery is considered included in the work and should not be billed separately. Surgical clearance for a patient’s condition, such as hypertension, a heart condition, or lung issues, can be billed separately, but these generally are performed by someone other than the operating surgeon.

Procedures performed in the hospital setting generally will have a 10- or 90-day global period. During this time, any related E/M service should not be billed separately, and the use of modifiers becomes even more important than with office services.

Applicable modifiers for use with hospital surgery can include all those for outpatient services plus:

• 50, Bilateral procedure (for which you may be paid up to 150% of the allowable)
• 58, Staged or related procedure during the postoperative period (this may be paid at the full allowable)
• 62, Co-surgeons (both surgeons bill the same CPT code and both document their involvement in the surgery). Medicare will reimburse each surgeon 62.5% of the allowable.
• 78, Return to the operating room for an unplanned related procedure (the full allowable may be reduced by some payers owing to their belief that this is soon after the original procedure so intraoperative time only is considered).

Be savvy about surgical bundles

Here, it is important to understand all published bundling edits for multiple procedures performed by the same surgeon at the same surgical session. If a code combination is never allowed but the surgery is more intense due to additional work required, a modifier -22 may be your only option. Again, clear, concise documentation of the additional work is imperative to receive the additional payment.

When a modifier is allowed, it generally will be one that denotes a procedure done on bilateral organs (such as the ovaries) when there is no extensive code to cover all of the work or when the additional procedure is “distinct” and meets the criteria for using a modifier 59.

Medicare has expanded the modifier -59 into additional modifiers to further explain the situation. These additional modifiers are:

• XE, A service that is distinct because it occurred during a separate encounter on the same date of service
• XS, A service that is distinct because it was performed on a separate organ/structure
• XP, A service that is distinct because it was performed by a different practitioner
• XU, The use of a service that is distinct because it does not overlap usual components of the main service.

Standards of care: Some steps are inherent to the surgery

Expect to receive claim denials if you bill separately for adhesiolysis during a surgical procedure. Every payer considers this procedure related to access to the surgical site and will deny separate coding. If the lysis was truly significant in terms of work, try reporting the modifier 22 and provide adequate documentation.

Other procedures at the time of surgery that generally are not paid for include 1) examination under anesthesia, 2) any procedure done to check the surgeon’s work (for example, cystoscopy, especially when done after urinary or pelvic reconstruction procedures, or chromotubation following extensive ovariolysis), 3) placement of catheters, and 4) placement of devices to alleviate postsurgical pain.

Bottom line

Maximizing reimbursement involves good documentation, correct CPT codes linked to specific and accurate medical indications, the use of appropriate modifiers, and listing codes in order of their relative values from highest to lowest.

Should a denial or unfair reduction in payment come your way, analyze the rejection to determine the cause and make billing and reporting changes as needed to improve your future reimbursements.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

While reimbursement for ObGyn services seemingly should be a simple matter of putting codes on a claim form, the reality is that it is complex, and it requires a team approach to accomplish timely filing to receive fair and accurate reimbursement.

Reimbursement occurs over the length of the revenue cycle for a patient encounter and involves many steps. It starts when the patient makes an appointment for services and ends when the practice receives payment. Along the way, there must be good clinician documentation and sound knowledge about the billing process (including the Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] or Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System [HCPCS] codes for services), the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-10-CM] codes that establish medical necessity, the modifiers that alter the meaning of the codes, and, of course, the bundling issues that now accompany many coding situations.

In addition, ObGyn practices must contend with a multitude of payers—from federal to commercial—and must understand and adhere to each payer’s rules and policies to maximize and retain reimbursement.

In this article, I detail stumbling blocks to maximizing reimbursement and how to avoid them.

Coding considerations for office services

Good documentation before, during, and after a patient’s office visit is essential, along with accurate codes, modifiers, and order of services on the claims you submit.

Prep paperwork before the patient encounter

Once a patient makes an appointment, the front-end staff can handle some of the tasks in the cycle. This includes ensuring that the patient’s insurance coverage information is current, informing the patient of any additional information to bring at the time of the visit (such as a patient history form for a new patient visit or a list of current prescriptions), or, if an established patient will be having a procedure, making sure that prior authorization is complete. This streamlines the process, assists the clinician with documentation housekeeping, and ensures that incorrect or missing information does not cause a claim to be denied or not be filed in a timely manner (many payers require submission of an initial claim 30 days from the date of service).

Continue to: Document details of the clinician-patient interaction

At the time of the encounter, you are responsible for documenting your contact with the patient in enough detail to support billing a CPT evaluation and management (E/M) code at the level selected and/or any procedures or other services performed. The TABLE provides an overview of the requirements for each level of office service.

If both an E/M and a procedure are performed on the same date of service, the E/M must be documented to show it was separate from the procedure and that the work was significantly more than would be required to accomplish the procedure. Documentation of the procedure should include the indication, steps performed, findings, the patient’s condition afterward, and instructions for aftercare or follow-up.

If you use an electronic health record for reporting, you may be the one responsible for selecting both the CPT code for services performed and an ICD-10-CM code(s) to establish the medical need for them. Select the most accurate CPT codes, and clearly link them to a supporting diagnosis for each service that will be billed. If more than one diagnosis is applicable, the first one linked to any given service should represent the most important justification, as not all payers will accept more than one diagnosis code on the claim per service billed.

If the billing staff is assigned the task of selecting the CPT and/or ICD-10-CM diagnostic codes based on your documentation, they should be well versed in the services, procedures, and diagnoses reported for their ObGyn practice.

The actual code selection may end up being a joint venture between the clinician and the staff to ensure that accurate information will be entered on the claim. Good and frequent clinician-staff communication on billing of services can transform average reimbursement into maximized reimbursement.

Be aware of bundles

Sometimes more than one service or procedure is listed on a claim on the same date of service. However, it is important to identify all potential bundles before billing to ensure correct payment. For instance, payers like to bundle an E/M service and a procedure, or you may be in the global period (defined below) of a surgery but need to report an unrelated service.

You and your staff must work together to ensure the claim is submitted with the correct modifiers; on the other hand, you may decide that a better method of coding is in order. Some payers, for example, will not reimburse both an insertion and a removal of an intrauterine device (IUD) on the same date of service. If that does happen, a modifier on the removal code might save the day, rather than billing 2 codes.

Continue to: Manage the modifiers

Sometimes the code billed requires a modifier to ensure payment. Typical modifiers used in an ObGyn office setting include the following:

• 22, Increased procedural services (the clinician must assign a fee that is higher than the usual fee for the procedure and be able to document CPT equivalents to the work involved)
• 24, Unrelated E/M during the postoperative period (note that this modifier does not apply during the antepartum period for pregnancy)
• 25, Significant and separate E/M on the same date as another service or minor procedure
• 52, Reduced services (generally, the payer will expect an explanation of the reduced service and will determine payment accordingly)
• 57, Decision to perform major surgery the day of or the day before the surgery
• 59, Distinct procedural service (used when 2 procedures are bundled and a modifier is allowed). Note that payment reductions for multiple procedures will still apply.
• 79, Unrelated procedure during the postoperative period (usually paid at the full allowable).

Organize the order of services on the claim

For an outpatient claim that includes both an E/M service and procedures, the order of the services—not the order in which they were performed—may be important to obtaining maximum reimbursement. In general, payers will pay in full for a supported E/M service no matter where it appears on the claim, but they apply reductions only for multiple procedures.

For instance, if you insert levonorgestrel implants on the same date as you remove a large polyp from the cervix, you would want to report the code with the highest relative value unit (RVU) first. In this case, it would be 11981 (4.05 RVUs), 57500 (3.61 RVUs).

In the IUD case mentioned earlier (removal and insertion of IUDs on the same date), the order of the codes, assuming the payer reimburses for both, will be even more important since removal usually has a higher payment: 58301 (2.70 RUVs), 58300 (1.54 RVUs).

Coding considerations for surgical services

Surgical services performed in a hospital or ambulatory surgical center present another set of must-dos to ensure timely and fair reimbursement.

Grasp the ‘global package’ concept

Understanding this concept can be crucial to getting paid for additional services during this time period and correct billing for any E/M services performed prior to surgery. In general, the routine history and physical examination performed prior to a major surgery is considered included in the work and should not be billed separately. Surgical clearance for a patient’s condition, such as hypertension, a heart condition, or lung issues, can be billed separately, but these generally are performed by someone other than the operating surgeon.

Procedures performed in the hospital setting generally will have a 10- or 90-day global period. During this time, any related E/M service should not be billed separately, and the use of modifiers becomes even more important than with office services.

Applicable modifiers for use with hospital surgery can include all those for outpatient services plus:

• 50, Bilateral procedure (for which you may be paid up to 150% of the allowable)
• 58, Staged or related procedure during the postoperative period (this may be paid at the full allowable)
• 62, Co-surgeons (both surgeons bill the same CPT code and both document their involvement in the surgery). Medicare will reimburse each surgeon 62.5% of the allowable.
• 78, Return to the operating room for an unplanned related procedure (the full allowable may be reduced by some payers owing to their belief that this is soon after the original procedure so intraoperative time only is considered).

Be savvy about surgical bundles

Here, it is important to understand all published bundling edits for multiple procedures performed by the same surgeon at the same surgical session. If a code combination is never allowed but the surgery is more intense due to additional work required, a modifier -22 may be your only option. Again, clear, concise documentation of the additional work is imperative to receive the additional payment.

When a modifier is allowed, it generally will be one that denotes a procedure done on bilateral organs (such as the ovaries) when there is no extensive code to cover all of the work or when the additional procedure is “distinct” and meets the criteria for using a modifier 59.

Medicare has expanded the modifier -59 into additional modifiers to further explain the situation. These additional modifiers are:

• XE, A service that is distinct because it occurred during a separate encounter on the same date of service
• XS, A service that is distinct because it was performed on a separate organ/structure
• XP, A service that is distinct because it was performed by a different practitioner
• XU, The use of a service that is distinct because it does not overlap usual components of the main service.

Standards of care: Some steps are inherent to the surgery

Expect to receive claim denials if you bill separately for adhesiolysis during a surgical procedure. Every payer considers this procedure related to access to the surgical site and will deny separate coding. If the lysis was truly significant in terms of work, try reporting the modifier 22 and provide adequate documentation.

Other procedures at the time of surgery that generally are not paid for include 1) examination under anesthesia, 2) any procedure done to check the surgeon’s work (for example, cystoscopy, especially when done after urinary or pelvic reconstruction procedures, or chromotubation following extensive ovariolysis), 3) placement of catheters, and 4) placement of devices to alleviate postsurgical pain.

Bottom line

Maximizing reimbursement involves good documentation, correct CPT codes linked to specific and accurate medical indications, the use of appropriate modifiers, and listing codes in order of their relative values from highest to lowest.

Should a denial or unfair reduction in payment come your way, analyze the rejection to determine the cause and make billing and reporting changes as needed to improve your future reimbursements.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.