The Society of Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
Convention issue:
®
GeneralsurGerynews.Com
The Independent Monthly Newspaper for the General Surgeon F ebruary 2012 • V olume 39 • Number 2
opinion
The Medical Arms Race
Study Asks: How Informed Should Your Patients Be? Surgeons’ Outcomes Matter to Patients; Legal Obligations in Flux
b y J oN c. W hite , mD
T
he term “mad” has always had numerous uses, but during the 1960s Cold War, it became popular as an acronym— MAD—shorthand for “mutually assured destruction.” It referred to the bizarre logic of the nuclear arms race, whereby the United States and the Soviet Union kept building up their nuclear arsenals to equal and then exceed the opposition, presumably as a deterrent to aggression. Eventually, the size of the arms buildups reached a point at which either country could destroy the other many times over. This policy was truly deserving of its ominous yet descriptive acronym. Today, there is a similar situation in medicine that has appropriately been named “the medical arms race,” whereby competing hospitals or medical systems try to purchase the most up-to-date equipment and technology, which then can be used as a marketing ploy to compete for patients. Insurers do not question the provision of these services but
San FranciSco—Should surgeons disclose their volumes and outcomes during the informed consent process? For years, it’s been a question hotly debated by surgeons, patients and jurists. Legally, there’s no resolution on the matter. Now, the results of a new survey presented at the 2011 Clinical Congress of the American College of Surgeons suggest that surgeons do have an ethical obligation to disclose information about their experience during informed consent discussions. The disclosure
MedInfoNow Subscription see page 51
b y K ate o’r ourKe
LAP-BAND! SAFE 1 HOUR, FDA APPROVED 1-800-GETTHIN,” the billboard reads, featuring a fit blonde woman standing on a scale, flexing her biceps and flashing a wide smile.
San antonio—Doctors now have additional evidence that axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) does not add benefit to sentinel lymph node resection in clinically node-negative breast cancer patients with minimal sentinel node involvement. These results come from an update of the Phase III International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) trial 23-01. The study was reported at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS; abstract S3-1). “Our findings are consistent with those of the ACOSOG Z-11 trial,” said Viviana Galimberti, MD, of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, referring to the study conducted by the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG). That randomized trial, first presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, showed no benefit from ALND in clinically node-negative patients with one or two positive sentinel nodes. Since then, surgeons have gradually been adopting the more conservative approach to surgery. Dr. Galimberti said the two trials together should change clinical practice. Patients eligible for the IBCSG 23-01 trial had clinically node-negative
see FDA GAstric BAnD page 10
see AxillAry page 22
see inForMeD consent page 14
FDA Squeezes Centers for Improper Promotion of Gastric Banding Deceitful Practices Target Patients Who May Not Need Surgery b y V ictoria S terN
I
Book page
No Benefit in Node-Negative Breast Cancer Patients
b y c hriStiNa F raNgou
see MAD page 38
More Evidence Against Axillary Dissection
f you live in California, perhaps you’ve noticed a billboard along the highway promoting weight loss with a safe, one-hour procedure that can be scheduled simply by calling a 1-800 number: “LOSE WEIGHT WITH THE
INSIDE
In the News
On the Spot
Opinion
From Napkin Sketch to FDA Approval: Developing Devices Challenging Yet Meaningful .................... 4
On the Spot: Treating the Sportsman’s Hernia; Gut Reaction on Various Topics in Surgery ......................... 26
Money for Drugs: Should Physicians Be Paid for Pharmaceutical Development and Clinical Research .......... 40