The praxeology of the office dilatation and curettage

      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.


      Studies establishing the validity, safety, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness of dilatation and curettage (D&C) performed in the office have been published for 60 years. Major obstacles to office D&Cs have been third-party payers, congressional action and governmental regulations, social mores, medicolegal practices, and specialization. Analysis of 310 office D&Cs in a private gynecologic practice reveals a 300% reduction of patient short-term disability, 90% patient acceptability, 98% diagnostic accuracy, 450% improved physician time, approximately 450% cost reduction, and improved cost savings and income to patient and physician. The gynecologist has the substantial role in medical care decision-making. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that these very personal and individualized decisions must involve the patient as well. In order to maintain the most beneficial perspective for medical care decision-making, a hierarchy of values is presented: quality medical care, patient and physician satisfaction. economies of cost, and replicability. It is suggested that this praxeologic approach to the office D&C can be applied to other medical care decisions.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Cohen C.J.
        • Gusberg S.B.
        Screening for endometrial cancer.
        Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 1975; 18: 27
        • Haack-Sorensen P.E.
        • Starklint H.
        • Aronsen A.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic Vabra (aspiration) curettage.
        Danish Med. Bull. 1979; 26: 1
        • Hofmeister F.J.
        Endometrial biopsy: Another look.
        Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1974; 118: 773
        • Kelly H.A.
        Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1925; 9: 78
        • Kennedy C.R.
        Minor gynecologic operations in the office.
        Obstet. Gynecol. 1961; 17: 128
        • Martin P.L.
        Outpatient dilatation and curettage.
        Calif. Med. 1970; 113: 46
        • Martin P.L.
        Ambulatory surgical gynecology: An overview.
        Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 1974; 17: 199
        • Martin P.L.
        • Rust J.A.
        Surgical gynecology for the ambulatory patient.
        Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 1974; 17: 205
        • McNerney W.
        How to improve medical care.
        U.S. News World Rep. March 24, 1969; (cited in)
        • Memgert W.F.
        • Slate W.G.
        Diagnostic dilatation and curettage as an outpatient procedure.
        Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1960; 79: 727
        • Morton D.G.
        Guest editorial.
        West. Obstet. Gynecol. 1952; 60: 593
        • Reed W.A.
        • Ford J.L.
        The surgicenter: An ambulatory surgical facility.
        Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 1974; 17: 217
        • Rhu H.S.
        • Rust J.A.
        Economics of ambulatory surgical gynecology.
        Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 1974; 17: 291
        • Sandmire H.F.
        • Austin S.D.
        Curettage as an office procedure.
        Obstet. Gynecol. 1964; 24: 140
        • Scharfman E.
        • Posner N.A.
        • Schocklander R.N.
        Dilatation and curettage in outpatient department.
        N. Y. State J. Med. 1966; : 1218
        • von Mises L.
        Human Action.
        in: ed. 3. Henry Regnery Co, Chicago1949 (Introduction, chap. 1 and 2)