Let’s work together to do better for women, by providing the less invasive procedures they deserve.
Women’s health is a growing priority in the healthcare industry — and for good reason. Women face unique and complex health issues that require tailored services and solutions in whatever care setting they visit.
See below for a collection of our offering for the Ambulatory Surgery Center setting, including:
Hysteroscopy is the gold standard for allowing providers to look directly into the uterus and determine if symptoms (such as abnormal uterine bleeding) are related to fibroids, polyps, retained products of conception or intrauterine adhesions.1 Hysteroscopy can also allow for treatment of these pathologies under direct visualization.
See and treat in the same procedure with the only operative hysteroscopic system that provides optimized visibility and tissue-specific instrumentation. The TruClear™ system consists of:
TruClear™ Elite Hysteroscopes
TruClear™ Tissue Shavers (for soft and dense tissue)
HysteroLux™ Fluid Management System
An estimated 20 million US women have had a hysterectomy; more than one-third of all women have had a hysterectomy by age 60.2
We are committed to helping customers improve clinic efficiencies and patient outcomes. As ASCs take on more gynecological surgeries, we can support you with a range of diverse products.
The next generation McGRATH™ MAC video laryngoscope is an enhanced, more robust device, designed to be durable and used throughout the day. Add McGRATH™ to your ASC to make your first attempt your best.View more information
These downloadable documents provide general coverage and reimbursement information for gynecological procedures.
Currently we offer the following information regarding coding and reimbursement.
The documents listed below provide general reimbursement information to assist in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for healthcare services.
Medical necessity will dictate site of service for each individual patient. Physicians should confirm inpatient or outpatient admission criteria before selecting site of service.
As compared to conventional suturing.
Bench test and pre-clinical results may not necessarily be indicative of clinical performance
van Dongen, H. et al (2007) “Diagnostic hysteroscopy in abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis> BJOG 114(6): 664-675.
Whiteman MK, Hillis SD, Jamieson DJ, et al. Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000-2004. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(1):34.e1–7.
Lee J, Jennings K, Borahay MA, Rodriguez AM, Kilic GS, Snyder RR, Patel PR. Trends in the national distribution of laparoscopic hysterectomies from 2003 to 2010. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(4):656–661.
Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD003677.
Leiserowitz GS, Xing G, Parikh-Patel A, et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: comparison of patient outcomes. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19(8):1370–1376.
Warren L, Ladapo JA, Borah BJ, Gunnarsson CL. Open abdominal versus laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy: analysis of a large United States payer measuring quality and cost of care. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16(5):581–588.
Scalici J, Laughlin BB, Finan MA, Wang B, Rocconi RP. The trend towards minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for endometrial cancer: an ACSNSQIP evaluation of surgical outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;136(3):512–515.
Chalermchockchareonkit A, Tekasakul P, Chaisilwattana P, Sirimai K, Wahab N. Laparoscopic hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy for severe pelvic endometriosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;116(2):109–111.
Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2013;108(1):63–69.
Tinelli R, Litta P, Meir Y, et al. Advantages of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in extremely obese women (BMI>35) with early-stage endometrial cancer: a multicenter study. Anticancer Res. 2014;34(5):2497–2502.
Walsh CA, Walsh SR, Tang TY, Slack M. Total abdominal hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009
Adams JB, Schulam PG, Moore RG, Partin AW, Kavoussi LR. New laparoscopic suturing device: initial clinical experience. Urology.1995;46(2):242-245.
Stringer NH. Laparascopic myomectomy with the Endo Stitch 10-mm laparascopic suturing device. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1996;3(2):299-303.
Nguyen NT, Mayer KL, Bold RJ, Larson M, Foster S, Ho HS, Wolfe BM. Laparoscopic suturing evaluation among surgical residents. J Surg Res. 2000;93(1):133-136.
Pattaras JG, Smith GS, Landman L, Moore RG. Comparison and analysis of laparoscopic intracorporeal suturing devices: preliminary results. J Endourol. 2001;15(2):187-192.
Omotosho, P., B. Yurcisin, et al. (2011). In vivo assessment of an absorbable and nonabsorbable knotless barbed suture for laparoscopic single-layer enterotomy closure: a clinical and biomechanical comparison against nonbarbed suture. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 21(10): 893-7.
Hart S, Hashemi L, Sobolewski CJ. Effect of a Disposable Automated Suturing Device on Cost and Operating Room Time in Benign Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Procedures. JSLS. 2013. 17(4): 508–518.