|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Adnexal mass protocolFrom: Myer S. Bornstein (mborn@massmed.org)Sun Jul 20 08:33:33 1997
>This exchange reflects why the protocol that Geff is developing would >best be directed toward addressing indications for surgery vs. continued >non-surgical management of adnexal masses. The vagaries of patient >particulars, surgical judgement and experience, and immediate resources >available are too broad to address with a protocol applicable to a >standardized approach. Yes, we must remember that we are dealing with a biological system here and protocols will fit about 85% of all cases and that a protocol is an accepted way of doing, but is not the only way. Also ACOG places that cavet on their guidelines. I believe that addressing indications for surgery vrs medical management is the way to go. To say laparoscopic vs. open makes a differnece with the physician, there are those who are comfertable doing more advanced laparoscopic procedures vs thos who feel laparotomy is the only way to go. TSo the choice of surgical treatment must be lefty to the Attending Myer
-- Myer S. Bornstein, M.D.,F.A.C.O.G. Chairman Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Morton Hospital and Medical Center Taunton, MA 02780
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Wed Dec 2 05:20:20 2009 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.