-
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Oct 2011Rates of labour induction are increasing. We conducted this systematic review to assess the evidence supporting use of each method of labour induction. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Rates of labour induction are increasing. We conducted this systematic review to assess the evidence supporting use of each method of labour induction.
METHODS
We listed methods of labour induction then reviewed the evidence supporting each. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library between 1980 and November 2010 using multiple terms and combinations, including labor, induced/or induction of labor, prostaglandin or prostaglandins, misoprostol, Cytotec, 16,16,-dimethylprostaglandin E2 or E2, dinoprostone; Prepidil, Cervidil, Dinoprost, Carboprost or hemabate; prostin, oxytocin, misoprostol, membrane sweeping or membrane stripping, amniotomy, balloon catheter or Foley catheter, hygroscopic dilators, laminaria, dilapan, saline injection, nipple stimulation, intercourse, acupuncture, castor oil, herbs. We performed a best evidence review of the literature supporting each method. We identified 2048 abstracts and reviewed 283 full text articles. We preferentially included high quality systematic reviews or large randomised trials. Where no such studies existed, we included the best evidence available from smaller randomised or quasi-randomised trials.
RESULTS
We included 46 full text articles. We assigned a quality rating to each included article and a strength of evidence rating to each body of literature. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and vaginal misoprostol were more effective than oxytocin in bringing about vaginal delivery within 24 hours but were associated with more uterine hyperstimulation. Mechanical methods reduced uterine hyperstimulation compared with PGE2 and misoprostol, but increased maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity compared with other methods. Membrane sweeping reduced post-term gestations. Most included studies were too small to evaluate risk for rare adverse outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Research is needed to determine benefits and harms of many induction methods.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Dinoprostone; Female; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 22032440
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-11-84 -
The Journal of Sexual Medicine Mar 2021Vaginal stenosis (VS) is a common side effect of pelvic radiotherapy for gynecological cancer in women. It has a high incidence variability, likely due to unstandardized...
BACKGROUND
Vaginal stenosis (VS) is a common side effect of pelvic radiotherapy for gynecological cancer in women. It has a high incidence variability, likely due to unstandardized and subjective assessment methods. Furthermore, even though the worldwide standard treatment for VS is vaginal dilation, low compliance rates have been noted.
AIM
To evaluate the parameters used to diagnose VS and to assess whether the lack of an objective measure of VS hampers vaginal dilator use.
METHODS
A systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA reporting guidelines was conducted. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched. Randomized trials and prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies published from January 2011 to February 2020 were included.
OUTCOMES
The main outcome of this study was a review of the published literature on assessment methods for VS and compliance to vaginal dilator use.
RESULTS
Of the 28 articles obtained, only 7 used objective methods to measure the vaginal volume. 3 studies have demonstrated patient's concern with VS development and showed a high compliance to dilator use, whereas others reported several barriers to dilator use.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Lack of an objective assessment method can be a predisposing factor for uncertain VS incidence rates and impair compliance to vaginal dilator therapy, leading to long-term VS and sexual dysfunction.
STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS
This is the first systematic review on the heterogeneity of VS evaluation methods and compliance to vaginal dilator use. All studies were comprehensively evaluated by 2 reviewers. The limitations included the heterogeneity of the study designs and the unstandardized criteria used to classify stenosis or to evaluate compliance to dilator use. Although 3 well-known databases were used, the inclusion of more data sources could have increased the number of publications included in this review.
CONCLUSION
VS is frequently diagnosed using subjective parameters. Few unstandardized objective methods are used to evaluate this condition. Regarding compliance to vaginal dilator use, there was a high dropout rate during follow-up and no consensus on starting time or ideal usage. Haddad NC, Soares Brollo LC, Pinho Oliveira MA, et al. Diagnostic Methods for Vaginal Stenosis and Compliance to Vaginal Dilator Use: A Systematic Review. J Sex Med 2021;18:493-514.
Topics: Constriction, Pathologic; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dilatation; Female; Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Vaginal Diseases
PubMed: 33526400
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.12.013 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2020Induction of labour involves stimulating uterine contractions artificially to promote the onset of labour. There are several pharmacological, surgical and mechanical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Induction of labour involves stimulating uterine contractions artificially to promote the onset of labour. There are several pharmacological, surgical and mechanical methods used to induce labour. Membrane sweeping is a mechanical technique whereby a clinician inserts one or two fingers into the cervix and using a continuous circular sweeping motion detaches the inferior pole of the membranes from the lower uterine segment. This produces hormones that encourage effacement and dilatation potentially promoting labour. This review is an update to a review first published in 2005.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects and safety of membrane sweeping for induction of labour in women at or near term (≥ 36 weeks' gestation).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (25 February 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (25 February 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing membrane sweeping used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment or other methods listed on a predefined list of labour induction methods. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible, but none were identified.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, risk of bias and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, or by including a third review author. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 44 studies (20 new to this update), reporting data for 6940 women and their infants. We used random-effects throughout. Overall, the risk of bias was assessed as low or unclear risk in most domains across studies. Evidence certainty, assessed using GRADE, was found to be generally low, mainly due to study design, inconsistency and imprecision. Six studies (n = 1284) compared membrane sweeping with more than one intervention and were thus included in more than one comparison. No trials reported on the outcomes uterine hyperstimulation with/without fetal heart rate (FHR) change, uterine rupture or neonatal encephalopathy. Forty studies (6548 participants) compared membrane sweeping with no treatment/sham Women randomised to membrane sweeping may be more likely to experience: · spontaneous onset of labour (average risk ratio (aRR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.34, 17 studies, 3170 participants, low-certainty evidence). but less likely to experience: · induction (aRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.94, 16 studies, 3224 participants, low-certainty evidence); There may be little to no difference between groups for: · caesareans (aRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04, 32 studies, 5499 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); · spontaneous vaginal birth (aRR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.07, 26 studies, 4538 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); · maternal death or serious morbidity (aRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.20, 17 studies, 2749 participants, low-certainty evidence); · neonatal perinatal death or serious morbidity (aRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.17, 18 studies, 3696 participants, low-certainty evidence). Four studies reported data for 480 women comparing membrane sweeping with vaginal/intracervical prostaglandins There may be little to no difference between groups for the outcomes: · spontaneous onset of labour (aRR, 1.24, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.57, 3 studies, 339 participants, low-certainty evidence); · induction (aRR 0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.45, 2 studies, 157 participants, low-certainty evidence); · caesarean (aRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09, 3 studies, 339 participants, low-certainty evidence); · spontaneous vaginal birth (aRR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.32, 2 studies, 252 participants, low-certainty evidence); · maternal death or serious morbidity (aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.21, 1 study, 87 participants, low-certainty evidence); · neonatal perinatal death or serious morbidity (aRR 0.40, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.33, 2 studies, 269 participants, low-certainty evidence). One study, reported data for 104 women, comparing membrane sweeping with intravenous oxytocin +/- amniotomy There may be little to no difference between groups for: · spontaneous onset of labour (aRR 1.32, 95% CI 88 to 1.96, 1 study, 69 participants, low-certainty evidence); · induction (aRR 0.51, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.42, 1 study, 69 participants, low-certainty evidence); · caesarean (aRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.85, 1 study, 69 participants, low-certainty evidence); · maternal death or serious morbidity was reported on, but there were no events. Two studies providing data for 160 women compared membrane sweeping with vaginal/oral misoprostol There may be little to no difference between groups for: · caesareans (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.17, 1 study, 96 participants, low-certainty evidence). One study providing data for 355 women which compared once weekly membrane sweep with twice-weekly membrane sweep and a sham procedure There may be little to no difference between groups for: · induction (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.85, 1 study, 234 participants, low-certainty); · caesareans (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.46, 1 study, 234 participants, low-certainty evidence); · spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.17, 1 study, 234 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); · maternal death or serious maternal morbidity (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.02, 1 study, 234 participants, low-certainty evidence); · neonatal death or serious neonatal perinatal morbidity (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 21.76, 1 study, 234 participants, low-certainty evidence); We found no studies that compared membrane sweeping with amniotomy only or mechanical methods. Three studies, providing data for 675 women, reported that women indicated favourably on their experience of membrane sweeping with one study reporting that 88% (n = 312) of women questioned in the postnatal period would choose membrane sweeping in the next pregnancy. Two studies reporting data for 290 women reported that membrane sweeping is more cost-effective than using prostaglandins, although more research should be undertaken in this area.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Membrane sweeping may be effective in achieving a spontaneous onset of labour, but the evidence for this was of low certainty. When compared to expectant management, it potentially reduces the incidence of formal induction of labour. Questions remain as to whether there is an optimal number of membrane sweeps and timings and gestation of these to facilitate induction of labour.
Topics: Amnion; Cervical Ripening; Female; Humans; Labor, Induced; Mechanical Phenomena; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Term Birth
PubMed: 32103497
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000451.pub3 -
Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease Jul 2023To conduct a systematic literature search to identify and determine the prevalence, signs and symptoms, and clinical management of vulvar and vaginal graft versus host...
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic literature search to identify and determine the prevalence, signs and symptoms, and clinical management of vulvar and vaginal graft versus host disease (GVHD).
METHODS
A systematic literature search of articles from 1993 to August 2022 was performed. Studies were included if full text was available in the English language and provided reports on female subjects with more than four patients. Review articles, conference abstracts, case reports, and case series of less than 5 patients were excluded. Included studies had their reference list searched for further manuscripts. Two authors reviewed the search results and independently identified studies that met the selection criteria and summarized available data.
RESULTS
There were 29 studies available in the literature that met the inclusion criteria. There was a high risk of bias within the available literature. The prevalence of vulval and vaginal GVHD varied between 27% and 66% of women after allogeneic stem cell transplant. Other organ GVHD, most commonly the skin, mouth, and eyes, may be present concurrently in these patients, or they may be asymptomatic. Specialist gynecology review, topical estrogen, topical steroids, topical immunosuppression, and vaginal dilatation led to a reduction in complications associated with the condition, and surgery was helpful in some severe refractory cases. These patients remain at higher risk of developing cervical dysplasia, and regular human papillomavirus screening is recommended.
CONCLUSIONS
Female genital GVHD is a rare phenomenon. Early, coordinated, and regular gynecological reviews after stem cell transplant are essential to reduce the long-term complications.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Graft vs Host Disease; Stem Cell Transplantation; Gynecology
PubMed: 37379441
DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000738 -
Patient Preference and Adherence 2018Vaginal dilator (VD) therapy is often recommended for women receiving pelvic radiation therapy or experiencing pain and discomfort during intercourse, as well as for...
BACKGROUND
Vaginal dilator (VD) therapy is often recommended for women receiving pelvic radiation therapy or experiencing pain and discomfort during intercourse, as well as for women with a congenital malformation of the vagina. VD use has both physical and psychological benefits; however, it often causes pain, discomfort, and adverse emotions, including embarrassment and loss of modesty, which often result in low adherence to therapy.
OBJECTIVES
The aims of this study were to explore the use and adherence of VD therapy in women, identify barriers and facilitators of therapy adherence, and suggest improvement strategies from the theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus databases, with no year restrictions. Articles addressing the experience of women using VD therapy, as well as barriers and facilitators of therapy adherence were selected and analyzed. Then, the theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism was introduced and applied to synthesize the results.
RESULTS
A total of 21 articles were selected for the review. Most of the reviewed studies explored VD therapy in women who had undergone pelvic radiation therapy for gynecological cancer. Women's adherence to the therapy ranged between 25% and 89.2%, with great variance in definitions and methods for assessing therapy adherence. Among the five categories of identified barriers to therapy adherence, "unhelpful circumstances" and "negative perceptions toward the VD" were the two most frequently mentioned. The two most frequently reported facilitators of adherence among the six identified categories were "supportive interactions with health care providers" and "risk perception and positive outcome expectancies". On the basis of the perspective of symbolic interactionism, strategies for strengthening interactions with others (eg, health care providers, significant others, and support groups) are discussed in detail.
CONCLUSION
Strategic intervention regarding the decisive factors identified in the review can benefit women by enhancing their experience and adherence to VD therapy.
PubMed: 29695897
DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S163273 -
International Urogynecology Journal Mar 2014The management of vaginal agenesis is currently determined by geographical location and surgeon preference. The optimal treatment is unknown and the majority of articles... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The management of vaginal agenesis is currently determined by geographical location and surgeon preference. The optimal treatment is unknown and the majority of articles on technique and outcome focus on personal case series with little standardisation of reporting and follow-up.
METHODS
Six thousand six hundred and ninety-one articles concerning the management of vaginal agenesis were systematically reviewed, with 162 fitting the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS
Only one randomised control trial was included with the remaining articles made up of case series or case reports. The bowel vaginoplasty method was most commonly reported historically with 945 patients and 45 articles included. The Vecchietti procedure had the shortest operative time, but the highest number of urological injuries (2.1 %). The split thickness procedure had the highest infection rate (4.2 %) and re-operation rate (7.84 %).
CONCLUSION
Overall, the conservative method using dilation had the fewest complications, with an average vaginal length of 6.65 cm (± 1.39 cm). However, with an operative procedure full consent is imperative, as is an understanding of the need for postoperative dilation with the majority of techniques.
Topics: Dilatation; Female; Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Length of Stay; Postoperative Complications; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Vagina
PubMed: 24114388
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2221-9 -
Physical Therapy Aug 2020The aim of this systematic review was to identify, evaluate, and synthesize the evidence from studies that have investigated the effect of nonsurgical,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to identify, evaluate, and synthesize the evidence from studies that have investigated the effect of nonsurgical, nonpharmacological, pelvic floor muscle interventions on any type of pelvic floor dysfunction or health-related quality of life in patients after any type of treatment for gynecological cancer.
METHODS
Six electronic databases (Cochrane Library 2018, CINAHL 1982-2018, MEDLINE 1950-2018, EMBASE 1980-2018, PsycINFO 1806-2018, and EMCARE 1995-2018) were systematically searched in June 2018. Reference lists of identified articles were hand searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series were included if they investigated the effects of conservative treatments, including pelvic floor muscle training or dilator training, on bladder, bowel, or sexual function in patients who had received treatment for gynecological cancer. Risk of bias was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies.
RESULTS
Five RCTs and 2 retrospective cohort studies were included (n = 886). The results provided moderate-level evidence that pelvic floor muscle training with counseling and yoga or core exercises were beneficial for sexual function (standardized mean difference = -0.96, 95% CI = -1.22 to -0.70, I2 = 0%) and health-related quality of life (standardized mean difference = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.38 to 0.88, I2 = 0%) in survivors of cervical cancer and very low-level evidence that dilator therapy reduced vaginal complications in survivors of cervical and uterine cancer (odds ratio = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.80, I2 = 54%). There were insufficient data for meta-analysis of bladder or bowel function.
CONCLUSION
Conservative pelvic floor muscle interventions may be beneficial for improving sexual function and health-related quality of life in survivors of gynecological cancer. Given the levels of evidence reported in this review, further high-quality studies are needed, especially to investigate effects on bladder and bowel function.
IMPACT
This review provides moderate-level evidence for the role of pelvic floor rehabilitation to improve health outcomes in the gynecological cancer survivorship journey. Clinicians and health service providers should consider how to provide cancer survivors the opportunity to participate in supervised pelvic floor rehabilitation programs.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Conservative Treatment; Counseling; Dilatation; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Muscle Contraction; Muscle Strength; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pelvic Floor Disorders; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Sexual Behavior; Urinary Bladder; Yoga
PubMed: 32367126
DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzaa081 -
Sexual Medicine Reviews Oct 2022Vaginal stenosis is a distressing side effect of radiation therapy that can impair quality of life. Dilator therapy is an option for patients undergoing pelvic... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Vaginal stenosis is a distressing side effect of radiation therapy that can impair quality of life. Dilator therapy is an option for patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy to mitigate vaginal stenosis. Currently, the dilators given to patients by most hospitals are made of plastic, compared to silicone dilators which are available on the market for purchase.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a systematic literature review to find information to guide clinical recommendations to pelvic radiotherapy patients on potential differences regarding the use of plastic vs silicone dilators with regard to efficacy, cost, and patient preferences.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed using Emtree terms. To be included in the review, papers needed to: focus on female patients undergoing radiation therapy, assess a vaginal dilator, measure any dilator intervention outcome, and specifically compare plastic vs silicone dilators for any measured outcome (either qualitative or quantitative).
RESULTS
The initial search yielded 195 articles. Two area experts, with a third expert for arbitration, read each article and found that none met all review inclusion criteria. No studies were found that compared silicone to plastic dilators with regard to efficacy in treating vaginal stenosis due to radiation therapy, no studies were found that compared cost or cost-effectiveness of the 2 dilator types, and no studies were found comparing patient preferences or experiences (eg, comfort, adherence, ease of use) between the 2 dilator types.
CONCLUSION
The materials used to create dilators have never been rigorously compared in the context of radiotherapy-related vaginal stenosis. Institutions and patients have no data to guide their choice. Significantly more research at the patient and institutional level is needed to explore the potential long-term quality of life and cost benefits of improved adherence with silicone dilator use, and to guide shared decision-making regarding dilator choice. Morgan O, Lopez MD, Martinez AJC, et al. Systematic Review of Comparisons Between Plastic and Silicone Dilators: Revealing a Knowledge Gap. Sex Med Rev 2022;10:513-519.
Topics: Constriction, Pathologic; Female; Humans; Plastics; Quality of Life; Silicones; Vagina
PubMed: 36030181
DOI: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2022.06.008 -
Scientific Reports May 2023The prevalence of cesarean sections is rising rapidly and is becoming a global issue. Vaginal birth after a cesarean section is one of the safest strategies that can be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The prevalence of cesarean sections is rising rapidly and is becoming a global issue. Vaginal birth after a cesarean section is one of the safest strategies that can be used to decrease the cesarean section rate. Different fragmented primary studies were done on the success rate of vaginal birth after cesarean section and its associated factors in Ethiopia. However, the findings were controversial and inconclusive. Therefore, this meta-analysis was intended to estimate the pooled success rate of vaginal birth after cesarean section and its associated factors in Ethiopia. Pertinent studies were searched in PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, direct open-access journals, and Ethiopian universities' institutional repositories. The data were analyzed using Stata 17. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. I squared statistics and Egger's regression tests were used to assess heterogeneity and publication bias, respectively. A random effects model was selected to estimate the pooled success rate of vaginal birth after cesarean section and its associated factors. The PROSPERO registration number for this review is CRD42023413715. A total of 10 studies were included. The pooled success rate of vaginal birth after a cesarean section was found to be 48.42%. Age less than 30 years (pooled odds ratio (OR) 3.75, 95% CI 1.92, 7.33), previous history of vaginal birth (OR 3.65, 95% CI 2.64, 504), ruptured amniotic membrane at admission (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.94, 4.26), 4 cm or more cervical dilatation at admission (OR 4, 95% CI 2.33, 6.8), a low station at admission (OR 5.07, 95% CI 2.08, 12.34), and no history of stillbirth (OR 4.93, 95% CI 1.82, 13.36) were significantly associated with successful vaginal birth after cesarean section. In conclusion, the pooled success rate of vaginal birth after a cesarean section was low in Ethiopia. Therefore, the Ministry of Health should consider those identified factors and revise the management guidelines and eligibility criteria for a trial of labor after a cesarean section.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Adult; Cesarean Section; Vaginal Birth after Cesarean; Ethiopia; Parturition; Labor, Obstetric
PubMed: 37188702
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-34856-8 -
Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent... Dec 2014The nonobstructive group of anatomic variants involving the reproductive tract includes vaginal agenesis as well as the congenital anomalies of the vagina and uterus,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The nonobstructive group of anatomic variants involving the reproductive tract includes vaginal agenesis as well as the congenital anomalies of the vagina and uterus, occurring without pain during the pubertal years.
OBJECTIVE
The objective is to discuss the non-obstructive morphologic variations in anatomy of the uterus and vagina.
DESIGN
Systematic review using the GRADE system.
RESULTS
These congenital anomalies are not associated with abnormalities of the external genitalia and therefore may be missed on routine physical examination. When these anomalies do cause symptoms they may be as minor as difficulty with menstrual hygiene or more significant such as primary amenorrhea, dyspareunia, recurrent pregnancy loss, and reproductive complications.
CONCLUSIONS
Women with non-obstructive reproductive tract anomalies present at various ages due to the asymptomatic nature or late symptom onset of certain conditions. An MRI is the gold standard in evaluation of such conditions to aid in confirming the müllerian variant. Each condition requires careful counseling because obstetric and gynecologic risks and consequences may differ. Treatment is individualized in cases of uterovaginal agenesis with both nonsurgical and surgical options available for neovagina creation. In cases of uterine or vaginal septae, the treatment timing may vary depending on patient history. Finally, in cases of non-obstructive communicating uterine horns, the risk of ectopic pregnancy is high in the remnant horn. Should a pregnancy occur in this small underdeveloped horn, therefore, excision is recommended.
Topics: Adult; Amenorrhea; Congenital Abnormalities; Dilatation; Dyspareunia; Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Mullerian Ducts; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Surgically-Created Structures; Urogenital Abnormalities; Uterus; Vagina
PubMed: 25438707
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpag.2014.07.001