You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letters to the editor
Comment on ‘Continuing need for and provision of a service for non-standard implant removal’: authors’ response
  1. Mary Pillai, FRCOG, MRCPCH
  1. Consultant in Community Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Gloucestershire Care Services NHS Trust, Sexual Health Service, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester, UK; mary.pillai@glos.nhs.uk
  1. A Caroline Gazet, MBBS, MFSRH
  1. Associate Specialist in Sexual & Reproductive Health, Gloucestershire Care Services NHS Trust, Sexual Health Service, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester, UK; caroline.gazet@glos.nhs.uk
  1. Megan Griffiths, MRCOG, MFSRH
  1. ST5 in Community Sexual & Reproductive Health, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital Trust, Contraception and Sexual Health Clinic, Norwich, UK; megan.griffiths@nnuh.nhs.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2014-100973

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We thank Drs Bacon and Mahfoud for their comments1 on our article2 that appeared in the April 2014 Journal.

    We do use the U-technique with subfascial implants. The ultrasound equipment we had access to at the time of data collection necessitated a compromise of using a low-frequency transducer (suitable for deeper structures) on a setting for musculoskeletal …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    Linked Articles