-
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We included published, unpublished or ongoing randomised controlled trial (RCTs).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 -
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 -
Practical Radiation Oncology 2021Successful multimodality treatment of anorectal cancers has led to increased numbers of survivors who experience permanent, life-changing side effects of treatment.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Successful multimodality treatment of anorectal cancers has led to increased numbers of survivors who experience permanent, life-changing side effects of treatment. Little is known about sexual dysfunction (SD) in this population. The etiology of SD after anorectal cancer treatment is complex and multifactorial. However, pelvic radiation plays a significant negative role in anatomic, hormonal, and physiological aspects of sexual function.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
A systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Information was organized by key concepts useful for patient education, including (1) rates of SD after pelvic radiation for rectal cancer, (2) rates of SD after pelvic radiation for anal cancer, (3) mechanisms of SD and methods to reduce rates of SD, and (4) issues and opportunities related to patient education and discussion of SD after pelvic radiation.
RESULTS
SD after pelvic radiation for anorectal cancers is common in both men and women. Higher radiation doses may increase the risk for vaginal stenosis; however, it is unclear whether there are similar dose-volume relationships for men. Vaginal dilators and advanced radiation techniques can reduce the radiation dose to sexual organs at risk. Improvement is needed regarding counseling and education of patients about SD.
CONCLUSIONS
This review provides information from previously published studies that clinicians may use in their discussions with patients embarking on pelvic radiation for anorectal cancers. More modern, standardized, and complete data are needed to quantify the risk of SD after treatment. Some methods of sexual toxicity reduction have been studied, but further study into interventions aimed at treating postradiation sexual function are needed.
Topics: Anus Neoplasms; Constriction, Pathologic; Female; Humans; Male; Rectal Neoplasms; Sexual Behavior; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological; Vagina
PubMed: 32777386
DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2020.07.007 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Sep 2020To investigate the effect of the vaginoscopic approach to office hysteroscopy on patients' experience of pain, when compared with the traditional approach where a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effect of the vaginoscopic approach to office hysteroscopy on patients' experience of pain, when compared with the traditional approach where a vaginal speculum is used.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane library were searched from inception until December 2019, in order to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials investigating vaginoscopy compared to traditional hysteroscopy on pain experienced by women undergoing diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy in an office setting. Data regarding procedural time, feasibility, incidence of vasovagal reactions and complications, acceptability and satisfaction were also recorded.
RESULTS
The literature search returned 363 results of which seven were selected for systematic review, and six for meta-analysis. The vaginoscopic approach was associated with a statistically significant reduction in pain (4 studies including 2214 patients; SMD -0.27, 95 % CI -0.48 to -0.06), procedural time (6 studies including 2443 patients; SMD -0.25, 95 % CI -0.43 to -0.08) and the incidence of vasovagal episodes (3 studies including 2127 patients; OR 0.35; 95 % CI 0.15 to 0.82). Failure rates between the two techniques were similar (p = .90). No study reported significant differences in complications or patient or clinician acceptability or satisfaction.
CONCLUSION
Clinicians performing office hysteroscopy should use the vaginoscopic technique because it makes office hysteroscopy quicker, less painful and reduces the likelihood of inducing a vasovagal reaction. The traditional approach should only be used when vaginoscopy fails or when the need for cervical dilatation is anticipated.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Laparoscopy; Pain; Pain Measurement; Pregnancy; Vagina
PubMed: 32645643
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.06.045 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Sep 2020Retained placenta affects 2% to 3.3% of all vaginal deliveries and is one of the leading causes of postpartum hemorrhage worldwide. Despite the prevalence of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Retained placenta affects 2% to 3.3% of all vaginal deliveries and is one of the leading causes of postpartum hemorrhage worldwide. Despite the prevalence of this condition, there is limited guidance on its management.
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions for the management of retained placenta.
STUDY DESIGN
PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for full-text publications in English. Search terms included "retained placenta" AND "treatment" OR "therapy" OR "disease management" OR "Pitocin" OR "misoprostol" OR "Cytotec" OR "dinoprostone" OR "nitroglycerin" OR "carbetocin" OR "ergotamine," with no restriction on publication dates. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The primary outcome was the need for manual extraction of the placenta or dilation and curettage. Reviewers evaluated the quality of included articles using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias. Pooled risk ratios were estimated based on random- and fixed-effects analyses. Interstudy heterogeneity was considered when I≥50%.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 29 randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria (2682 subjects). The most commonly used agent across the studies was oxytocin administered via umbilical vein injection; there was high heterogeneity among these studies (I=62%). Oxytocin was inferior to carbetocin (risk ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.52) and prostaglandins (risk ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-5.86) for the primary outcome. For oxytocin, prostaglandin agents, and nitroglycerin, there was a trend toward favoring the study drug for the primary outcome compared with control or placebo. Compared with placebo or control, estimated blood loss was lower if pharmacologic interventions were administered, with a mean difference of 121.5 mL (95% confidence interval, -185.7 to -52.3). There was no difference in postpartum hemorrhage or the need for blood transfusion between pharmacologic interventions and placebo or control.
CONCLUSION
Pooled estimates for oxytocin via umbilical vein injection, prostaglandin agents, and nitroglycerin performed favorably compared with placebo or control for the management of retained placenta. Carbetocin and prostaglandin agents were superior to oxytocin in reducing the need for manual extraction or dilation and curettage.
Topics: Female; Humans; Oxytocics; Perinatal Care; Placenta, Retained; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32592695
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.06.044 -
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 -
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 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Dec 2019There is great controversy regarding the most effective route for cervical priming before diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There is great controversy regarding the most effective route for cervical priming before diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the evidence from published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) about the efficacy and safety of oral vs vaginal misoprostol for cervical priming before hysteroscopy.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science were searched using the relevant keywords.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All RCTs assessing the effect of oral vs vaginal misoprostol before hysteroscopy for cervical priming were considered. One hundred and ten studies were identified, of which eight studies were deemed eligible for this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The extracted outcomes were: cervical canal width, ease of dilatation, time for cervical dilatation and adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, bleeding, fever, abdominal pain/uterine cramping and any complications during the procedure). All statistical analyses were completed using RevMan.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight RCTs with 768 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Cervical canal width did not differ significantly between the two routes of misoprostol administration [mean difference -0.25 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92-0.42; p = 0.47]. However, the vaginal route was significantly superior to the oral route for reducing the time for cervical dilatation (standardized mean difference 0.17, 95% CI 0.02-0.32; p = 0.03). No significant differences in adverse effects were found between the routes, except for diarrhoea which was significantly less prevalent with vaginal administration of misoprostol (risk ratio 2.48, 95% CI 1.17-5.26; p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Oral and vaginal administration of misoprostol before hysteroscopy were similar in terms of cervical canal width, ease of dilatation and various adverse effects, except that the vaginal route was associated with faster cervical dilatation and lower prevalence of diarrhoea.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Administration, Intravaginal; Administration, Oral; Cervix Uteri; Diarrhea; Dilatation; Female; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Premedication; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31689673
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.10.023 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Jul 2019Acute colonic pseudo-obstruction or Ogilvie's syndrome (OS) is a rare form of postsurgical or posttraumatic complication. OS rarely occurs in the postoperative course of...
BACKGROUND
Acute colonic pseudo-obstruction or Ogilvie's syndrome (OS) is a rare form of postsurgical or posttraumatic complication. OS rarely occurs in the postoperative course of gynecologic and obstetric patients and is difficult to diagnose.
CASE PRESENTATION
We present the case of an 83-years-old patient with carcinosarcoma of the uterus who developed OS with non-obstructive dilation of the right hemicolon and intraabdominal compression after total abdominal hysterectomy, omentectomy, and lymphadenectomy. Laparotomy with colonic decompression and abdominal dressing was performed. Subsequently, the patient developed pneumonia and peritonitis and died due to septic shock.
SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
We identified 49 case reports and 10 case series describing 17 gynecologic (cervical cancer, n = 2; carcinosarcoma of the uterus, n = 1; benign gynecologic condition, n = 14) and 76 obstetric patients (cesarean section, n = 66; OS during pregnancy or after vaginal delivery, n = 10). Outcome data were available for 59 patients. First-line treatment was conservative in 22/59 (37%) cases, laparotomy with decompression or colon resection was performed in 20/59 (34%) cases, endoscopic decompression in 12/59 (20%) cases, and i.v. neostigmine in 4/59 (7%) cases. Resolution was achieved in 22/59 (37%) of patients. The most common second-line treatment was right hemicolectomy. Adverse events grade 3 and 4 were observed in 8/59 and 31/59 patients (together 66%), respectively, mortality was 3/59 (5%).
CONCLUSION
OS is a rare postoperative complication of gynecologic and obstetric patients with a good prognosis, but a high morbidity. Pregnancy seems to be a predisposing factor for OS. Conservative treatment is a successful first-line approach.
Topics: Acute Disease; Aged, 80 and over; Colonic Pseudo-Obstruction; Female; Genital Diseases, Female; Humans
PubMed: 31093741
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-019-05170-4 -
American Journal of Obstetrics &... May 2019The aim of the present systematic review was to investigate the efficacy and safety of cervical ripening for the combination of mechanical dilation and misoprostol... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Maternal and neonatal outcomes with mechanical cervical dilation plus misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone for cervical ripening; a systematic review of literature and metaanalysis.
OBJECTIVE DATA
The aim of the present systematic review was to investigate the efficacy and safety of cervical ripening for the combination of mechanical dilation and misoprostol administration compared with misoprostol alone by evaluating 2 primary outcomes: time to delivery and rate of cesarean delivery.
STUDY
The Medline, EMBASE, and Web-of-Science electronic databases (from conception to end-of-search date December 31, 2018) were searched systematically. Randomized controlled trials that included patients with a singleton viable fetus who underwent induction of labor that required cervical ripening with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop ≤7) were eligible for inclusion.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Data were pooled with the use of the random effects and fixed effects model after the assessment for the presence of heterogeneity. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed based on the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
RESULTS
Eleven trials met the inclusion criteria and included a total of 922 and 947 subjects in the combination and misoprostol-only groups, respectively. There was no difference in the incidence of cesarean delivery between the 2 groups (relative risk, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.13). The combination of mechanical dilation and misoprostol resulted in overall shorter time to delivery (mean difference, -3.65 hours; 95% confidence interval, 5.23 to -2.07), shorter time to vaginal delivery (mean difference, -4.53 hours; 95% confidence interval, -5.79 to -3.27), lower risk of neonatal intensive care unit admission (relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.96), meconium-stained fluid (relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90), tachysystole with fetal heart trace changes (relative risk, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.94), and terbutaline use (relative risk, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.85) compared with the use of misoprostol alone. Risk of endometritis (relative risk, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-2.61) and chorioamnionitis (relative risk, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-2.84) was comparable between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION
The combination of mechanical cervical dilation with misoprostol for cervical ripening is associated with a shorter time to delivery, a similar rate of cesarean delivery, and a lower incidence of neonatal intensive care unit admission compared with the use of misoprostol alone.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Adult; Cervical Ripening; Dilatation; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Oxytocics; Pregnancy
PubMed: 33345815
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2019.06.003