The July/August issue of AARP magazine features a column on “Reasons to think twice before going under the knife.”
The column’s preamble states:
“The following four operations are overperformed for a variety of reasons: Some are moneymakers for hospitals and doctors, others are expedient, and still others seem to work, at least in the short term. But evidence shows that all have questionable long-term outcomes for treating certain conditions, and some may even cause harm.”
The four they list are:
1. stents for stable angina
2. complex spinal fusion for stenosis
3. hysterectomy for uterine fibroids
4. knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
allan jones
July 5, 2011 at 10:36 amaarp is a rip off and a great supporter of obamacare and i therefore have no use for this subversive organization…
ed krzykwa
July 21, 2011 at 4:03 pmi don’t understand why aarp articles repeatedly ignore chiropractic care. chiropractic has saved me from numerous medical interventions. three hospitals in two states and it was a doctor of chiropractic that saved my life. you are missing the boat when all health professions are not given fair research.
Thomas
November 14, 2011 at 12:56 amGood information, thanks Gary. Another one that a family member was convinced to have is a gallbladder removal. Although generally a lot less traumatic than open surgery, the laparoscopy method is used in most gallbladder removals (an increase of 40% since the advent of laparoscopy), there are still major potential risks. Unintentional cutting of the bile duct, which could result in permanent liver damage, happens in 1 to 2 % of laparoscopies.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like