-
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 -
Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics &... May 2021This meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of dilatation and curettage (D&C) (simply D&C or combined with other treatments) and lesion resection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of dilatation and curettage (D&C) (simply D&C or combined with other treatments) and lesion resection for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). A search of English and Chinese databases from 2010 to 2019 was conducted. Thirty one studies were retrieved including sixteen random controlled and fifteen case controlled trials. Compared with abdominal resection surgery(ARS) and vaginal resection surgery(VRS), uterine artery embolization(UAE)+D&C has no obvious difference in curative effect and safety (UAE + D&C versus ARS: Cure rate(CR): P = 0.076, time for menstruation recovery/β-HCG normalization: P = 0.545/0.949,Blood loss: P = 0.005, adverse event: P = 0.420; versus VRS: CR: P = 0.085, time for menstruation recovery/β-HCG normalization: P < 0.001/P = 0.031,Blood loss: P = 0.902, adverse event: P = 0.249). UAE + D&C associated with lower blood loss and less postoperative complication than laparoscopic resection surgery(LRS), but LRS take more advantages in terms of the curative effect (CR: P = 0.047, time for menstruation recovery/β-HCG normalization: P = 0.352/0.103). The efficacy and safety of VRS are better than D&C, methotrexate (MTX) + D&C (D&C versus VRS: CR: P < 0.001, time for β-HCG normalization: P = 0.363,blood loss: P < 0.001, adverse event: P = 0.046; MTX + D&C versus VRS: CR: P < 0.001, time for menstruation recovery/β-HCG normalization: P < 0.001/P = 0.005, blood loss: P < 0.001, adverse event: P < 0.001). Lesion resection had advantages in shorter time for menstrual recovery/β-HCG normalization and less adverse events, lower failure rate over the administration of D&C treatments. In detail, the curative effect of UAE + D&C is similar to ARS and VRS, but inferior to LRS, while the safety of UAE + D&C is better than LRS. The efficacy and safety of simply D&C and MTX + D&C are not as good as VRS.
Topics: Abortion, Therapeutic; Adult; Cesarean Section; Cicatrix; Dilatation and Curettage; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Abdominal; Treatment Outcome; Uterine Artery Embolization
PubMed: 33966722
DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2021.03.006 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Mar 2021Retained placenta represents a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality affecting 0.5-3% of all vaginal deliveries. The unpredictability of this condition makes...
BACKGROUND
Retained placenta represents a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality affecting 0.5-3% of all vaginal deliveries. The unpredictability of this condition makes difficult to develop predictive and preventive strategies to apply in clinical practice. This analysis collected and analyzed all known risk factors related to this obstetric complication.
METHODS
A systematic literature review for all original research articles published between 1990 and 2020 was performed. Observational studies about retained placenta risk factors published in English language were considered eligible. Conference abstracts, untraceable articles and studies focused on morbidly adherent placenta were excluded. The included articles were screened to identify study design, number of enrolled patients and retained placenta risk factors investigated. All stages of the revision followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement.
RESULTS
Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The reported retained placenta prevalence ranged from 0.5 to 4.8%. Maternal age, previous cesarean sections, previous dilation and curettage, previous retained placenta, labor induction, resulted as the most recurrent, independent risk factors for retained placenta. Previous estro-progestins therapy, morphological placental features (weight, shape, insertion of umbilical cord, implantation site), endometriosis, Assisted Reproductive Technologies, Apgar score are fascinating new proposal risk factors.
CONCLUSIONS
Old and new data are not enough robust to draw firm conclusions. Prospective and well-designed studies, based on a well agreed internationally retained placenta definition, are needed in order to clarify this potential dramatic and life-threatening condition.
Topics: Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Placenta, Retained; Pregnancy; Prevalence; Prospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33789611
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-021-03721-9 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Jun 2021To assess the comparative effectiveness and potential harms of cervical ripening in the outpatient compared with the inpatient setting, or different methods of ripening... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the comparative effectiveness and potential harms of cervical ripening in the outpatient compared with the inpatient setting, or different methods of ripening in the outpatient setting alone.
DATA SOURCES
Searches for articles in English included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists (up to August 2020).
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
Using predefined criteria and DistillerSR software, 10,853 citations were dual-reviewed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies of outpatient cervical ripening using prostaglandins and mechanical methods in pregnant women at or beyond 37 weeks of gestation.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Using prespecified criteria, study data abstraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted and strength of evidence was assessed. We included 30 RCTs and 10 cohort studies (N=9,618) most generalizable to women aged 25-30 years with low-risk pregnancies. All findings were low or insufficient strength of evidence and not statistically significant. Incidence of cesarean delivery was not different for any comparison of inpatient and outpatient settings, or comparisons of different methods in the outpatient setting (most evidence available for single-balloon catheters and dinoprostone). Harms were inconsistently reported or inadequately defined. Differences were not found for neonatal infection (eg, sepsis) with outpatient compared with inpatient dinoprostone, birth trauma (eg, cephalohematoma) with outpatient compared with inpatient single-balloon catheter, shoulder dystocia with outpatient dinoprostone compared with placebo, maternal infection (eg, chorioamnionitis) with outpatient compared with inpatient single-balloon catheters or outpatient prostaglandins compared with placebo, and postpartum hemorrhage with outpatient catheter compared with inpatient dinoprostone. Evidence on misoprostol, hygroscopic dilators, and other outcomes (eg, perinatal mortality and time to vaginal birth) was insufficient.
CONCLUSION
In women with low-risk pregnancies, outpatient cervical ripening with dinoprostone or single-balloon catheters did not increase cesarean deliveries. Although there were no clear differences in harms when comparing outpatient with inpatient cervical ripening, the certainty of evidence is low or insufficient to draw definitive conclusions.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, CRD42020167406.
Topics: Ambulatory Care; Catheters; Cervical Ripening; Cesarean Section; Dilatation; Dinoprostone; Female; Hospitalization; Humans; Labor, Induced; Obstetric Labor Complications; Oxytocics; Pregnancy
PubMed: 33752219
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004382 -
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology... Dec 2020This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness and safety of camylofin compared with other antispasmodics (drotaverine, hyoscine, valethamate,... (Review)
Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness and safety of camylofin compared with other antispasmodics (drotaverine, hyoscine, valethamate, phloroglucinol, and meperidine) in labor augmentation. A systematic literature search until March 27, 2018, was performed, and data on the cervical dilatation rate (CDR) and duration of stages of labor reported in 39 eligible articles were analyzed using a random-effects model. CDR was significantly higher (0.38 cm/h, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.67, = 0.007), and the duration of the first stage of labor was significantly shorter (- 41.21 minutes, 95% CI, - 77.19 to - 5.22, = 0.02) in women receiving camylofin than those receiving other antispasmodics for labor augmentation. CDR was significantly higher with camylofin compared with valethamate (0.6 cm/h, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9, < 0.0001) and hyoscine (20 mg) (0.5 cm/h, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.8, = 0.02). The duration of the first stage of labor was significantly shorter with camylofin compared with hyoscine (20 mg) (- 59.9 min, 95% CI, - 117.9 to - 1.8, = 0.04). However, CDR and the duration of first stage of labor were not statistically different between camylofin and drotaverine groups. The percentage of women having nausea and vomiting, cervical/vaginal tear, and postpartum hemorrhage were comparable with all antispasmodics, whereas tachycardia was least reported in women receiving camylofin (3, 2.07%) than those receiving other antispasmodics. This meta-analysis demonstrated the benefit of camylofin in labor augmentation with a faster CDR and reduction in the active first stage of labor in Indian women.
PubMed: 33417640
DOI: 10.1007/s13224-020-01343-3 -
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 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects as many as 50% of parous women, with 14% to 19% of women undergoing a surgical correction. Although surgery for the treatment of POP... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects as many as 50% of parous women, with 14% to 19% of women undergoing a surgical correction. Although surgery for the treatment of POP is common, limited supportive data can be found in the literature regarding the preoperative and postoperative interventions related to these procedures. The main goal of perioperative interventions is to reduce the rate of adverse events while improving women's outcomes following surgical intervention for prolapse. A broad spectrum of perioperative interventions are available, and although the benefits of interventions such as prophylactic antibiotics before abdominal surgery are well established, others are unique to women undergoing POP surgeries and as such need to be investigated separately.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review is to compare the safety and effectiveness of a range of perioperative interventions versus other interventions or no intervention (control group) at the time of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 30 November 2017), and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women undergoing surgical treatment for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse that compared a perioperative intervention related to pelvic organ prolapse surgery versus no treatment or another intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were objective failure at any site and subjective postoperative prolapse symptoms. We also measured adverse effects, focusing on intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion, intraoperative ureteral injury, and postoperative urinary tract infection.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 RCTs that compared eight different interventions versus no treatment for 1992 women in five countries. Most interventions were assessed by only one RCT with evidence quality ranging from very low to moderate. The main limitation was imprecision, associated with small sample sizes and low event rates.Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) compared with no treatment (three RCTs) - peri-operative intervention The simplest of the PFMT programmes required women to attend six perioperative consultations in the three months surrounding prolapse surgery. Trial results provided no clear evidence of a difference between groups in objective failure at any site at 12 to 24 months (odds ratio (OR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.54; two RCTs, 327 women; moderate-quality evidence). With respect to awareness of prolapse, findings were inconsistent. One RCT found no evidence of a difference between groups at 24 months (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.87; one RCT, 305 women; low-quality evidence), and a second small RCT reported symptom reduction from the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Questionnaire completed by the intervention group at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -3.90, 95% CI -6.11 to -1.69; one RCT, 27 women; low-quality evidence). Researchers found no clear differences between groups at 24-month follow-up in rates of repeat surgery (or pessary) for prolapse (OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 5.02; one RCT, 316 women; low-quality evidence).Other interventionsSingle RCTs evaluated the following interventions: preoperative guided imagery (N = 44); injection of vasoconstrictor agent at commencement of vaginal prolapse surgery (N = 76); ureteral stent placement during uterosacral ligament suspension (N = 91); vaginal pack (N = 116); prophylactic antibiotics for women requiring postoperative urinary catheterisation (N = 159); and postoperative vaginal dilators (N = 60).Two RCTs evaluated bowel preparation (N = 298), and four RCTs assessed the method and timing of postoperative catheterisation (N = 514) - all in different comparisons.None of these studies reported our primary review outcomes. One study reported intraoperative blood loss and suggested that vaginal injection of vasoconstrictors at commencement of surgery may reduce blood loss by a mean of about 30 mL. Another study reported intraoperative ureteral injury and found no clear evidence that ureteral stent placement reduces ureteral injury. Three RCTs reported postoperative urinary tract infection and found no conclusive evidence that rates of urinary tract infection were influenced by use of a vaginal pack, prophylactic antibiotics, or vaginal dilators. Other studies did not report these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was a paucity of data about perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. A structured programme of pelvic floor muscle training before and after prolapse surgery did not consistently demonstrate any benefit for the intervention; however, this finding is based on the results of two small studies. With regard to other interventions (preoperative bowel preparation and injection of vasoconstrictor agent, ureteral stent placement during uterosacral ligament suspension, postoperative vaginal pack insertion, use of vaginal dilators, prophylactic antibiotics for postoperative catheter care), we found no evidence regarding rates of recurrent prolapse and no clear evidence that these interventions were associated with clinically meaningful reductions in adverse effects, such as intraoperative or postoperative blood transfusion, intraoperative ureteral injury, or postoperative urinary tract infection.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Exercise; Female; Humans; Imagery, Psychotherapy; Pelvic Floor; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Perioperative Care; Pessaries; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Reoperation; Stents; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 30121957
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013105 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018During elective (planned) caesarean sections, some obstetricians routinely dilate the cervix intraoperatively, using sponge forceps, a finger, or other instruments,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
During elective (planned) caesarean sections, some obstetricians routinely dilate the cervix intraoperatively, using sponge forceps, a finger, or other instruments, because the cervix of women not in labour may not be dilated, and this may cause obstruction of blood or lochia drainage. However, mechanical cervical dilatation during caesarean section may result in contamination by vaginal micro-organisms during dilatation, and increase the risk of infection or cervical trauma.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of mechanical dilatation of the cervix during elective caesarean section on postoperative morbidity.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and reference lists of retrieved studies on 20 September 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised, quasi-randomised, and cluster-randomised controlled trials comparing intraoperative cervical dilatation using a finger, sponge forceps, or other instruments during elective caesarean section versus no mechanical dilatation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight studies with a total of 2227 women undergoing elective caesarean section. Of these, 1097 underwent intraoperative cervical dilatation with a double-gloved index finger or Hegar dilator inserted into the cervical canal to dilate, and 1130 did not undergo intraoperative cervical dilatation. Six of the eight included trials had high risk of bias for some of the risk of bias domains.Very low-quality evidence suggested it was unclear whether cervical dilatation had any impact on postpartum haemorrhage (estimated blood loss greater than 1000 mL; risk ratio (RR) 1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 8.13; 5/205 versus 3/242; one study, 447 women).Low- or very low-quality evidence showed no clear difference for the need for blood transfusion (RR 3.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 33.79; two studies, 847 women); postoperative haemoglobin (mean difference (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.06; three studies, 749 women), or haematocrit (MD 0.01%, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.20; one study, 400 women); the incidence of drop from baseline haemoglobin above 0.5 g/dL (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.31; two studies, 722 women), or amount of haemoglobin drop (MD -0.01 g/dL, 95% -0.14 to 0.13; three studies, 796 women); the incidence of secondary postpartum haemorrhage within six weeks (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 18.76; one study, 447 women); febrile morbidity (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.85; seven studies, 2126 women); endometritis (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.52; four studies, 1536 women); or uterine subinvolution (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.36; two studies, 654 women); the results crossed the line of no effect for all of the outcomes. There were no data for cervical trauma.We found a slight improvement with mechanical dilatation for these secondary outcomes, not prespecified in the protocol: mean blood loss, endometrial cavity thickness, retained products of conception, distortion of uterine incision, and healing ratio. The evidence for these outcomes was based on one or two studies. Cervical dilatation did not have a clear effect on these secondary outcomes, not prespecified in the protocol: wound infection, urinary tract infection, operative time, infectious morbidity, and integrity of uterine scar.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At this time, the evidence does not support or refute the use of mechanical dilatation of the cervix during elective caesarean section for reducing postoperative morbidity.Further large, well-designed studies are required to compare the effect of intraoperative mechanical dilatation of the cervix with no intraoperative mechanical cervical dilatation for reducing postoperative morbidity.
Topics: Cervix Uteri; Cesarean Section; Dilatation; Elective Surgical Procedures; Endometritis; Female; Humans; Labor Stage, First; Postoperative Complications; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 30096215
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008019.pub3