Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Commercial pressures and professional ethics: Troubling revisions to the recent ACOG Practice Bulletins on surgery for pelvic organ prolapse

  • Current Opinion / Update
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Commercial interests are reshaping the practice of gynecological surgery by promoting the use of trochar-and-mesh surgical “kits” for the treatment of stress incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. In this article, we discuss the ethical implications of changes in surgical practice that are driven by commercial interests. We point out the dangers inherent in the adoption of new procedures without adequate and documented evidence to support their safety and efficacy. We discuss the most recent American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Practice Bulletins on pelvic organ prolapse (numbers 79 and 85) which were altered without explanation to downplay the experimental nature of these commercial products. We suggest that in so doing, ACOG is not meeting its fiduciary responsibilities to patients and is undermining important professional values.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nygaard I (2007) What does “FDA approved” mean for medical devices? Obstet Gynecol 111:4–6

    Google Scholar 

  2. ACOG (2007) ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 79, “Pelvic organ prolapse”. ACOG, Washington, DC (February)

  3. ACOG (2007) ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 85, “Pelvic organ prolapse”. ACOG, Washington, DC (September)

  4. Diwadkar GB, Barber MD, Feiner B, Maher C, Jelovsek JE (2009) Complication and reoperation rates after apical vaginal prolapse surgical repair. Obstet Gynecol 113:367–373

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Strasberg SM, Ludbrook PA (2003) Who oversees innovative practice? Is there a structure that meets the monitoring needs of new techniques? J Am Coll Surg 196:938–948

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Campus Box 8064, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    L. Lewis Wall

  2. Barnes-Jewish Hospital Ethics Program, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Douglas Brown

Authors
  1. L. Lewis Wall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Lewis Wall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wall, L.L., Brown, D. Commercial pressures and professional ethics: Troubling revisions to the recent ACOG Practice Bulletins on surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 20, 765–767 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0864-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0864-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation