We read with great interest the article by Delara et al. [1] evaluating the safety of total vaginal hysterectomy (TVH) for patients with prior cesarean section (CS). A history of CS is a commonly encountered risk factor in women considering hysterectomy. When interpreting the authors' conclusions, context is important. The operating surgeons are all fellowship-trained gynecologic subspecialists with surgical volumes likely to exceed those of obstetrics and gynecology specialists. Studies have consistently shown that high-volume surgeons have better complication management rates than low-volume surgeons [2]. Furthermore, the authors report that only 12% of the subjects undergoing TVH had a history of CS. Although varying by region, CS rates generally exceed 25% [3]. This lower CS rate in the study population suggests the presence of selection bias, which most likely leans in the direction of including for favorable CS subjects. Combined, these points demonstrate that the authors are presenting a "best case" scenario. Complication rates may well be higher for women with a history of CS who elect to undergo TVH in the population at large.The most striking initial finding in this paper is a 5.6% transfusion rate in the CS group compared with 0.6% in the control group (p <.05 as reported in the abstract and results narrative). The magnitude of this finding-a more than 9fold increase in risk-was not highlighted in this study. We would ask the authors if it would have been reasonable to conclude, on the basis of these data alone, that surgeons should use caution in choosing TVH for women with a history of CS if they wish to minimize the transfusion risk. Furthermore, why did they report p <.05 in both the abstract and results when the actual p-value calculated by the Fisher exact test (line 6 of Table 3) is in fact p = .002? Was this intended to minimize the significance of this finding?Further review identified a discrepancy between the authors' main conclusion and their supporting evidence. The main conclusion is that ". . .a prior history of CS. . . did not increase the risk for overall perioperative complications." The authors find a 2.9% major complication rate in the control group vs a 11.2% rate in the CS group. These numbers are presented in neither the abstract nor the results narrative. Considering that the presentation of these data is the authors' stated primary objective, it is puzzling that one can only find