Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles.
"Time-to-event analysis showed no differences in outcomes between the two procedures", yet the authors write that their study adds information on uterine preservation being more effective than vaginal hysterectomy.
Furthermore, the authors "believe that future risk of malignancy should not be regarded as a valid reason for removal of the uterus" but women with uterine prolapse should be properly informed and decide for themselves if they really want to keep an atrophic non-functioning organ which could later give them cancer.
The authors also dismiss the observed 1% risk of malignancy as low, but laparoscopic power morcellators in operating rooms were largely abandoned and relative lawsuits were issued for much less frequent cancer risks.