Evolving Paradigms in Gynaecological Practices: From Clinical Judgment to Technological Precision

Ancient time,Empathy,Gynaecology,Investigations,Touch

Dear Editor,

Over the past few decades, the landscape of gynaecological practice has changed significantly, reflecting advances in medical technology, societal views, and patient demographics [1]. Historically, gynaecology largely relied on subjective evaluations and clinical judgment. With limited means of investigations, diagnoses and treatments were frequently made only on the basis of personal experience and physical examinations. In contrast, advances in technology are driving gynaecological practice today.

Modern diagnostic tools such as high-resolution ultrasound (for assessing ovulatory disorders, structural anomalies, endometrial conditions, ovarian reserve, and other contributing factors), advanced hormonal assays (for in-vitro fertilisation, implantation, and growth of embryos), and genetic testing (for prenatal and postnatal diagnosis of inherited disorders) [2-4] have shifted the focus from subjective judgments to objective data. This shift has enabled the early detection of conditions such as obesity, Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS), menstrual disorders, hypothyroidism, and genital herpes, which are now prevalent in the gynaecological setting [5]. Recent advancements in gynaecologic surgery, including robotic-assisted techniques for hysterectomies, myomectomies, pelvic support procedures, and reproductive surgeries, alongside the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in foetal cardiotocography, ultrasonography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for improved diagnostics in obstetrics, have caused a monumental shift in the way gynaecologic procedures are performed. These innovations have shifted surgical practices toward minimally invasive techniques, reducing the need for open surgeries and enhancing precision and outcomes [6]. While these technologies have improved early detection and treatment, they have also increased the need for investigative data, often at the expense of developing clinical expertise.

The demographics of gynaecological patients have also changed dramatically. In the past, infertility problems were uncommon in gynaecological Outpatient Departments (OPDs). In contrast, modern OPDs receive a wider range of patients; fewer of them are pregnant, and a sizable percentage are seeking infertility treatments [7,8].

Early registrations for Antenatal Care (ANC) were once rare, with many patients only seeking care in the later stages of pregnancy due to ignorance or social taboos. Today, pre-conception visits and counselling sessions (to reduce the risk of poor maternal, foetal, and obstetric outcomes) are standard practices, reflecting a more proactive approach to reproductive health. One notable shift is in the perception and management of Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP). Once a taboo subject, with MTP wards being discreetly hidden, the practice is now widely accepted due to changing societal norms, including the rise of modern relationships and evolving cultural attitudes. Although the preference for a ‘female’ gynaecologist was mostly seen in younger women, nowadays, education levels have been shown to impact the gender of a gynaecologist [9].

In conclusion, the evolution of gynaecological practice from a subjective to an objective, technology-driven approach reflects significant advancements in medical science and shifts in societal attitudes. While these changes have undoubtedly improved patient care and outcomes, they also highlight the need for a balanced approach that integrates clinical expertise with technological innovation.

[1]. Kramer KJ, Rhoads-Baeza ME, Sadek S, Chao C, Bell C, Recanati MA, Trends and evolution in women’s health workforce in the first quarter of the 2^1st century World J Gynaecol Womens Health [Internet] 2022 5(5):622Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.33552/wjgwh.2022.05.00062210.33552/WJGWH.2022.05.00062235601601PMC9122235  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[2]. Thaker N, Dhande R, Parihar P, Role of transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of female infertility: A comprehensive review Cureus [Internet] 2023 15(12):e50048Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.5004810.7759/cureus.50048  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[3]. Sultan Sheriff D, Infertility, assisted methods of reproduction and hormonal assays In: Infertility, Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Hormone Assays. IntechOpen 2019 10.5772/intechopen.83748PMC6387889  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[4]. Modern genetics in obstetrics and gynaecology [Internet]. Acog.org. [cited 2024 Oct 23]. Available from: https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/technology-assessment/articles/2018/09/modern-genetics-in-obstetrics-and-gynaecology  [Google Scholar]

[5]. Busse RM, Imaging modalities in gynaecology Donald Sch J Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol [Internet] 2010 4(1):01-12.Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10009-112310.5005/jp-journals-10009-1123  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[6]. Lenihan JP Jr, Robotic surgery in gynaecology: Indications, advantages, avoiding complications, training, and future platforms; Update 2022 In: Handbook of Gynaecology 2023 ChamSpringer International Publishing:1-27.10.1007/978-3-319-17002-2_55-336604733PMC9817299  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[7]. Kundu S, Ali B, Dhillon P, Surging trends of infertility and its behavioural determinants in India PLoS One [Internet] 2023 18(7):e0289096Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.028909610.1371/journal.pone.028909637490506PMC10368286  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[8]. 1 in 6 people globally affected by infertility: WHO [Internet]. Who.int. [cited 2024 Oct 23]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/04-04-2023-1-in-6-people-globally-affected-by-infertility  [Google Scholar]

[9]. Riaz B, Sherwani NZF, Inam SHA, Rafiq MY, Tanveer S, Arif A, Physician gender preference amongst females attending obstetrics/gynaecology clinics Cureus [Internet] 2021 13(5):e15028Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1502810.7759/cureus.15028  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]