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

International Urogynecology Journal

Volumn 20, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 765-767

  Wall, L Lewis ^a   Brown, Douglas ^b  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Ethics; Medical devices; Prolapse; Sling operations; Surgical ethics; Surgical innovation; Surgical mesh

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; DEVICE; DOCUMENTATION; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; MARKETING; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PATIENT CARE; PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLICATION; REIMBURSEMENT; SAFETY; STRESS INCONTINENCE; SURGEON; SURGICAL EQUIPMENT; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE;

EID: 67849119182     PISSN: 09373462     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-009-0864-3     Document Type: Article

References (5)

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