-
Neurourology and Urodynamics Jan 2021To evaluate the management methods of female urethral stricture (FUS) and analyze the outcomes of surgical treatments. A meta-analysis was done in an attempt to identify... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the management methods of female urethral stricture (FUS) and analyze the outcomes of surgical treatments. A meta-analysis was done in an attempt to identify the best approach of urethroplasty and the graft-of-choice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search of Pubmed/Medline and Embase databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis statement, for articles reporting on FUS management in the last decade. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of 28 included non-randomized studies. The data on FUS management was summarized and pooled success rates (taken as symptom improvement and no need for further instrumentation) were compared. The secondary outcome was to establish a diagnostic modality of choice and define a "successful-outcome" of repair.
RESULTS
The outcome was separately reported for 554 women undergoing surgical intervention for FUS in the literature. The criteria defining FUS were varied. A combination of tests was used for diagnosis as none was singularly conclusive. A total of 301 patients had previous urethral instrumentations. The pooled success rate of urethral dilatation (234 women) was 49% at a mean follow-up of 32 months; flap urethroplasty (108 cases) was 92% at a mean follow-up of 42 months; buccal mucosal graft (BMG) urethroplasty (133 cases) was 89% at a mean follow-up of 19 months; vaginal graft augmentation (44 cases) was 87% at a mean follow-up of 15 months; and labial graft reconstruction (19 cases) was 89% at a mean follow-up of 18.4 months. The dorsal approach of graft augmentation met with 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.95) success compared with 95% (95% CI 0.86-1) for the ventral approach.
CONCLUSION
FUS is a rare condition requiring a meticulous diagnostic workup using multiple tests. All urethroplasties have shown better pooled success rates (86%-93%) compared with dilatation (49%). BMG is equally effective as vaginal graft urethroplasty.
Topics: Female; Humans; Treatment Outcome; Urethral Stricture
PubMed: 33617047
DOI: 10.1002/nau.24584 -
The Ultrasound Journal Aug 2021This systematic review aimed to investigate the reliability of ultrasound method compared with digital vaginal examinations in detecting cervical dilation. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review aimed to investigate the reliability of ultrasound method compared with digital vaginal examinations in detecting cervical dilation.
METHODS
We searched Cochrane (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science Core Collection, Trip Database, PubMed, DARE and NHS EED, HTA, and PROSPERO. Ten observational studies with a total sample size of 856 were included in the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values ranged between 0.21 and 0.69. The fixed-effect models for the ultrasound test showed an average of ICC (r = 0.32 (95% CI 0.26-0.38). Correlation between two methods was poor (r = 0.359, 95% CI 0.26-0.44). In nulliparous and multigravida participants the correlation between ultrasound measurements and digital examinations was (r = 0.349, 95% CI 0.25-0.43) and ICC (r = 0.676, 95% CI 0.419-0.833), respectively.
CONCLUSION
Trans-perineal ultrasonography seems to be a reliable method for assessing labor progression in multigravida women, but its usage in nulliparous women needs further studies.
PubMed: 34403002
DOI: 10.1186/s13089-021-00239-1 -
Journal of Advanced Nursing Jun 2024The aim of this paper is to present the evidence on the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions to improve health and well-being in women living with... (Review)
Review
AIM
The aim of this paper is to present the evidence on the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions to improve health and well-being in women living with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome.
DESIGN
Systematic review guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews checklist.
DATA SOURCES
The search was conducted between June and September 2022 across the following databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO and Cochrane. Trial registries (clinicaltrials. gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register-CCTR), Google scholar, dissertations, conference proceedings and reference lists of included studies were also searched. Corresponding authors, formal and informal MRKH groups were contacted to obtain any significant studies or reviews.
REVIEW METHODS
Eligible were only English-language empirical studies of any time period. The review followed narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies were identified that fit the inclusion criteria which included 1540 MRKH syndrome affected women. Four studies were on psychological interventions (n = 85) and 19 studies (vaginal dilation therapy n = 897, coital dilation n = 57) focused on non-surgical vaginal dilation as a measure to vaginal agenesis in MRKH syndrome.
CONCLUSIONS
Clearly, vaginal dilation is a viable initial treatment option for women with MRKH syndrome. There is limited evidence that 'coital dilation' is an effective method of dilation for vaginal agenesis. The literature, however, supports the need for psychological intervention to improve health and well-being.
IMPACT
Women with MRKH syndrome who require dilation can receive guidance and support from their healthcare providers, particularly sexual and reproductive health nurses, clinical nurse specialists and gynaecologists. From the point of diagnosis, clinical psychologists should be involved. As much as feasible, family and partner support can be encouraged.
PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION
No patient or public contribution.
Topics: Humans; Female; 46, XX Disorders of Sex Development; Congenital Abnormalities; Mullerian Ducts; Adult; Quality of Life; Middle Aged; Young Adult; Adolescent
PubMed: 37994266
DOI: 10.1111/jan.15976 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020The setting in which induction of labour takes place (home or inpatient) is likely to have implications for safety, women's experiences and costs. Home induction may be... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The setting in which induction of labour takes place (home or inpatient) is likely to have implications for safety, women's experiences and costs. Home induction may be started at home with the subsequent active phase of labour happening either at home or in a healthcare facility (hospital, birth centre, midwifery-led unit). More commonly, home induction starts in a healthcare facility, then the woman goes home to await the start of labour. Inpatient induction takes place in a healthcare facility where the woman stays while awaiting the start of labour.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects on neonatal and maternal outcomes of third trimester home induction of labour compared with inpatient induction using the same method of induction.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 January 2020)), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which home and inpatient settings for induction have been compared. We included conference abstracts but excluded quasi-randomised trials and cross-over studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study reports for inclusion. Two review authors carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias independently. GRADE assessments were checked by a third review author.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven RCTs, six of which provided data on 1610 women and their babies. Studies were undertaken between 1998 and 2015, and all were in high- or upper-middle income countries. Most women were induced for post dates. Three studies reported government funding, one reported no funding and three did not report on their funding source. Most GRADE assessments gave very low-certainty evidence, downgrading mostly for high risk of bias and serious imprecision. 1. Home compared to inpatient induction with vaginal prostaglandin E (PGE) (two RCTs, 1028 women and babies; 1022 providing data). Although women's satisfaction may be slightly better in home settings, the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.34, 1 study, 399 women), very low-certainty evidence. There may be little or no difference between home and inpatient induction for other primary outcomes, with all evidence being very low certainty: - spontaneous vaginal birth (average risk ratio (RR) [aRR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21, 2 studies, 1022 women, random-effects method); - uterine hyperstimulation (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.50, 1 study, 821 women); - caesarean birth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.28, 2 studies, 1022 women); - neonatal infection (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.82, 1 study, 821 babies); - admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.90, 2 studies, 1022 babies). Studies did not report serious neonatal morbidity or mortality. 2. Home compared to inpatient induction with controlled release PGE (one RCT, 299 women and babies providing data). There was no information on whether the questionnaire on women's satisfaction with care used a validated instrument, but the findings presented showed no overall difference in scores. We found little or no difference between the groups for other primary outcomes, all also being very low-certainty evidence: - spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.14, 1 study, 299 women); - uterine hyperstimulation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.98, 1 study, 299 women); - caesarean births (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.42, 1 study, 299 women); - admission to NICU (RR 1.38, 0.57 to 3.34, 1 study, 299 babies). The study did not report on neonatal infection nor serious neonatal morbidity or mortality. 3. Home compared to inpatient induction with balloon or Foley catheter (four RCTs; three studies, 289 women and babies providing data). It was again unclear whether questionnaires reporting women's experiences/satisfaction with care were validated instruments, with one study (48 women, 69% response rate) finding women were similarly satisfied. Home inductions may reduce the number of caesarean births, but the data are also compatible with a slight increase and are of very low-certainty (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.01, 2 studies, 159 women). There was little or no difference between the groups for other primary outcomes with all being very low-certainty evidence: - spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.98, 1 study, 48 women): - uterine hyperstimulation (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.03 to 6.79, 1 study, 48 women); - admission to NICU (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.86, 2 studies, 159 babies). There were no serious neonatal infections nor serious neonatal morbidity or mortality in the one study (involving 48 babies) assessing these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Data on the effectiveness, safety and women's experiences of home versus inpatient induction of labour are limited and of very low-certainty. Given that serious adverse events are likely to be extremely rare, the safety data are more likely to come from very large observational cohort studies rather than relatively small RCTs.
Topics: Ambulatory Care; Catheterization; Cervical Ripening; Cesarean Section; Delayed-Action Preparations; Dinoprostone; Female; Hospitalization; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Labor, Induced; Length of Stay; Oxytocics; Patient Safety; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32852803
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007372.pub4 -
BJOG : An International Journal of... Nov 2023Over one-quarter of women in the UK have a caesarean birth (CB). More than one in 20 of these births occurs near the end of labour, when the cervix is fully dilated...
Over one-quarter of women in the UK have a caesarean birth (CB). More than one in 20 of these births occurs near the end of labour, when the cervix is fully dilated (second stage). In these circumstances, and when labour has been prolonged, the baby's head can become lodged deep in the maternal pelvis making it challenging to deliver the baby. During the caesarean birth, difficulty in delivery of the baby's head may result - this emergency is known as impacted fetal head (IFH). These are technically challenging births that pose significant risks to both the woman and baby. Complications for the woman include tears in the womb, serious bleeding and longer hospital stay. Babies are at increased risk of injury including damage to the head and face, lack of oxygen to the brain, nerve damage, and in rare cases, the baby may die from these complications. Maternity staff are increasingly encountering IFH at CB, and reports of associated injuries have risen dramatically in recent years. The latest UK studies suggest that IFH may complicate as many as one in 10 unplanned CBs (1.5% of all births) and that two in 100 babies affected by IFH die or are seriously injured. Moreover, there has been a sharp increase in reports of babies having brain injuries when their birth was complicated by IFH. When an IFH occurs, the maternity team can use different approaches to help deliver the baby's head at CB. These include: an assistant (another obstetrician or midwife) pushing the head up from the vagina; delivering the baby feet first; using a specially designed inflatable balloon device to elevate the baby's head and/or giving the mother a medicine to relax the womb. However, there is currently no consensus for how best to manage these births. This has resulted in a lack of confidence among maternity staff, variable practice and potentially avoidable harm in some circumstances. This paper reviews the current evidence regarding the prediction, prevention and management of IFH at CB, integrating findings from a systematic review commissioned from the National Guideline Alliance.
Topics: Infant; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Cesarean Section; Labor, Obstetric; Fetus; Uterus; Cervix Uteri
PubMed: 37303275
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17534 -
World Journal of Urology Feb 2020To provide a literature review of the urological and obstetric outcomes during and after pregnancy following urinary diversion using bowel segments.
PURPOSE
To provide a literature review of the urological and obstetric outcomes during and after pregnancy following urinary diversion using bowel segments.
METHODS
A systematic literature research by specific keywords was performed in February 2017. Relevant articles were assessed and available parameters such as, e.g., number of included patients, indication for and type of urinary diversion, birth mode and complications during and after pregnancy were evaluated.
RESULTS
We found 61 relevant articles published between 1961 and 2017. Overall, data of 282 females carrying 330 babies within 395 pregnancies were listed. Birth was via vaginal delivery in 132 cases, while 183 females delivered via elective or emergency cesarean. The main urological complications during pregnancy were urinary tract infections, pyelonephritis and dilatation of the upper urinary tract. In total, 155 episodes of pyelonephritis (39.2%) were reported, but no major or persisting complications occurred.
CONCLUSION
After urinary diversion, pregnancy is possible without major complications. Due to an increased risk of pyelonephritis and dilatation of the upper urinary tract requiring intervention, these pregnancies should be considered high risk. Vaginal delivery as well as delivery by cesarean is feasible, but should be carried out in centers of expertise with urological stand-by.
Topics: Female; Humans; Intestines; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Urinary Diversion; Urinary Reservoirs, Continent
PubMed: 31028456
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02781-z -
BMC Women's Health Dec 2022Women's adherence is essential to physiotherapeutic treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction, but its related factors are not usually considered in the development of...
BACKGROUND
Women's adherence is essential to physiotherapeutic treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction, but its related factors are not usually considered in the development of treatment approaches. This study aims to understand how women with pelvic floor dysfunction experience pelvic floor conservative non-pharmacological treatment options.
METHODS
A systematic review of qualitative studies. The electronic search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Lilacs, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases. Primary articles on qualitative methods focused on the experience of women regarding pelvic floor conservative non-pharmacological interventions, i.e., pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), either associated or not with biofeedback, perineal massage, vaginal dilators, and others. A meta-aggregation was performed.
RESULTS
It was included 22 manuscripts in this review. It was found seven studies about the use of vaginal devices, two about manual intervention and 14 studies on women's experience with PFMT. The findings were synthesized as follows: I) women's experience of manual interventions; II) women's experience using vaginal devices changes according to health professional attitudes; III) women's experiences using vaginal devices varied depending on their pelvic floor dysfunction; IV) reported side effects due to the use of vaginal devices; V) external factors influencing PFMT performance; VI) women's perception of their own personal factors influencing PFMT performance; VII) PFMT characteristics influencing women's adherence; VIII) strategies used by women to include PFMT in their routine.
CONCLUSION
Women's experience with pelvic floor conservative non-pharmacological treatment options is a complex phenomenon that involves many more variables than simply personal aspects. This is a systematic review of qualitative studies registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42018080244).
Topics: Female; Humans; Pelvic Floor; Exercise Therapy; Qualitative Research; Attitude of Health Personnel
PubMed: 36503437
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-022-02097-y -
American Journal of Perinatology May 2024This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs and NCTs, respectively) that explored... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs and NCTs, respectively) that explored the maternal-neonatal outcomes of cervical osmotic dilators versus dinoprostone in promoting cervical ripening during labor induction.
STUDY DESIGN
Six major databases were screened until August 27, 2022. The quality of included studies was evaluated. The data were summarized as mean difference or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Overall, 14 studies with 15 arms were analyzed ( = 2,380 patients). Ten and four studies were RCTs and NCTs, respectively. The overall quality for RCTs varied (low risk = 2, unclear risk = 7, and high risk = 1), whereas all NCTs had good quality ( = 4). For the primary endpoints, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the rate of normal vaginal delivery (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.95-1.14, = 0.41) and rate of cesarean delivery (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.93-1.17, = 0.51). Additionally, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean change in Bishop score and mean time from intervention to delivery. The rate of uterine hyperstimulation was significantly lower in the cervical osmotic dilator group. For the neonatal outcomes, during cervical ripening, the rate of fetal distress was significantly lower in the cervical osmotic dilator group. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean Apgar scores, rate of meconium-stained amniotic fluid, rate of umbilical cord metabolic acidosis, rate of neonatal infection, and rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission.
CONCLUSION
During labor induction, cervical ripening with cervical osmotic dilators and dinoprostone had comparable maternal-neonatal outcomes. Cervical osmotic dilators had low risk of uterine hyperstimulation compared with dinoprostone. Overall, cervical osmotic dilators might be more preferred over dinoprostone in view of their analogous cervical ripening effects, comparable maternal-neonatal outcomes, and lack of drug-related adverse events.
KEY POINTS
· This is the first analysis of cervical osmotic dilators versus PGE2 for cervical ripening during labor.. · There was no difference between both arms regarding the rates of normal vaginal/cesarean deliveries.. · There was no difference between both arms regarding the rates of neonatal adverse events.. · Cervical osmotic dilators had significant lower risk of uterine hyperstimulation compared with PGE2.. · Cervical osmotic dilators may be superior to PGE2 in view of their similar efficacy and better safety..
Topics: Humans; Labor, Induced; Cervical Ripening; Pregnancy; Female; Dinoprostone; Oxytocics; Cesarean Section; Infant, Newborn; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Cervix Uteri; Delivery, Obstetric
PubMed: 37336231
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1770161 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Preterm birth (PTB) remains the foremost global cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Thus, the prevention of spontaneous PTB still remains of critical importance....
BACKGROUND
Preterm birth (PTB) remains the foremost global cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Thus, the prevention of spontaneous PTB still remains of critical importance. In an attempt to prevent PTB in singleton pregnancies, cervical cerclage, in combination with other treatments, has been advocated. This is because, cervical cerclage is an intervention that is commonly recommended in women with a short cervix at high risk of preterm birth but, despite this, many women still deliver prematurely, as the biological mechanism is incompletely understood. Additionally, previous Cochrane Reviews have been published on the effectiveness of cervical cerclage in singleton and multiple pregnancies, however, none has evaluated the effectiveness of using cervical cerclage in combination with other treatments.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether antibiotics administration, vaginal pessary, reinforcing or second cerclage placement, tocolytic, progesterone, or other interventions at the time of cervical cerclage placement prolong singleton gestation in women at high risk of pregnancy loss based on prior history and/or ultrasound finding of 'short cervix' and/or physical examination. History-indicated cerclage is defined as a cerclage placed usually between 12 and 15 weeks gestation based solely on poor prior obstetrical history, e.g. multiple second trimester losses due to painless dilatation. Ultrasound-indicated cerclage is defined as a cerclage placed usually between 16 and 23 weeks gestation for transvaginal ultrasound cervical length < 20 mm in a woman without cervical dilatation. Physical exam-indicated cerclage is defined as a cerclage placed usually between 16 and 23 weeks gestation because of cervical dilatation of one or more centimetres detected on physical (manual) examination.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (26 September 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included published, unpublished or ongoing randomised controlled trial (RCTs). Studies using a cluster-RCT design were also eligible for inclusion in this review but none were identified. We excluded quasi-RCTs (e.g. those randomised by date of birth or hospital number) and studies using a cross-over design. We also excluded studies that specified addition of the combination therapy after cervical cerclage because the woman subsequently became symptomatic. We included studies comparing cervical cerclage in combination with one, two or more interventions with cervical cerclage alone in singleton pregnancies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of all retrieved articles, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for this review's main outcomes. Data were checked for accuracy. Standard Cochrane review methods were used throughout.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two studies (involving a total of 73 women) comparing cervical cerclage alone to a different comparator. We also identified three ongoing studies (one investigating vaginal progesterone after cerclage, and two investigating cerclage plus pessary). One study (20 women), conducted in the UK, comparing cervical cerclage in combination with a tocolytic (salbutamol) with cervical cerclage alone in women with singleton pregnancy did not provide any useable data for this review. The other study (involving 53 women, with data from 50 women) took place in the USA and compared cervical cerclage in combination with a tocolytic (indomethacin) and antibiotics (cefazolin or clindamycin) versus cervical cerclage alone - this study did provide useable data for this review (and the study authors also provided additional data on request) but meta-analyses were not possible. This study was generally at a low risk of bias, apart from issues relating to blinding. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for serious risk of bias and imprecision (few participants, few events and wide 95% confidence intervals). Cervical cerclage in combination with an antibiotic and tocolytic versus cervical cerclage alone (one study, 50 women/babies) We are unclear about the effect of cervical cerclage in combination with antibiotics and a tocolytic compared with cervical cerclage alone on the risk of serious neonatal morbidity (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.24; very low-certainty evidence); perinatal loss (data for miscarriage and stillbirth only - data not available for neonatal death) (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.64; very low-certainty evidence) or preterm birth < 34 completed weeks of pregnancy (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.40; very low-certainty evidence). There were no stillbirths (intrauterine death at 24 or more weeks). The trial authors did not report on the numbers of babies discharged home healthy (without obvious pathology) or on the risk of neonatal death.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, there is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effect of combining a tocolytic (indomethacin) and antibiotics (cefazolin/clindamycin) with cervical cerclage compared with cervical cerclage alone for preventing spontaneous PTB in women with singleton pregnancies. Future studies should recruit sufficient numbers of women to provide meaningful results and should measure neonatal death and numbers of babies discharged home healthy, as well as other important outcomes listed in this review. We did not identify any studies looking at other treatments in combination with cervical cerclage. Future research needs to focus on the role of other interventions such as vaginal support pessary, reinforcing or second cervical cerclage placement, 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate or dydrogesterone or vaginal micronised progesterone, omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation and bed rest.
Topics: Albuterol; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Cefazolin; Cerclage, Cervical; Clindamycin; Female; Humans; Indomethacin; Opium; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stillbirth; Tocolytic Agents
PubMed: 32970845
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012871.pub2