ABSTRACT
Introduction: The uterine cavity is a potential space with limited methods for evaluating its volume, limiting the evaluation of interventions' effectiveness in various uterine conditions. This study aims to objectively measure the uterine cavity volume using sonohysterography coupled with a Foley catheter to provide a normative model of age and parity-related uterine cavity volume. Methods: The research included 35 women (group 1) with a total abdominal hysterectomy and 150 women (group 2) who underwent sonohysterography for various gynecologic indications. Saline infusion sonography was administered to all patients. The most common shape obtained after the saline infusion was taken to measure the uterine cavity's dimensions and volume. The uterine cavity volumes, as measured by sonohysterography, and the volumes of saline injected after the hysterectomy were compared. Results: A significant association exists between uterine cavity volumes measured by sonohysterography and true volumes measured immediately after hysterectomy (p = 0.001). The association between uterine cavity volume measured by sonohysterography and using only a Foley catheter balloon was statistically insignificant (p = 0.13). A statistically significant positive association was observed between the uterine cavity volume and the patient's age and parity (p ⩽ 0.05). Conclusion: Measuring the uterine cavity volume using a paediatric Foley catheter balloon coupled with sonohysterography offers an objective approach to measuring a normal (without gross pathologies) uterus volume. This technique would improve the diagnostic accuracy and the management of women with distinct uterine cavity morphologies.
ABSTRACT
STUDY QUESTION: What is the scope of literature regarding infertility and fertility care indicators in terms of types and dimensions of these indicators? SUMMARY ANSWER: Most available infertility and fertility care indicators are outcomes indicators of effectiveness and efficiency dimensions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The use of appropriate, relevant and valid indicators of infertility and fertility care is critical for monitoring access, equity and utilization. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A systematic scoping review was conducted. We searched MEDLINE, Pubmed, JSTOR, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases from inception to May 2022 without imposing language or date restrictions. We searched gray literature and online libraries of relevant organizations. We hand-searched the list of relevant references. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: This scoping systematic review followed the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Records identified by the search were independently screened and data were extracted. We performed conceptual synthesis by grouping the reported indicators by typology and dimensions. Structured tabulation and graphical synthesis were used along with narrative commentary. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included 46 reports from 88 countries. The reporting of infertility and fertility care indicators was voluntary in 63 countries (72%) and compulsory in 25 countries (28%). Reporting for cycles or deliveries was based on individual cycles in 56 countries (64%) and on cumulative cycles in 32 countries (36%). Most indicators were utilized as outcome indicators with fewer being process indicators or structural indicators. For the dimension of indicators, most indicators were utilized as effectiveness and efficiency indicators with fewer utilized as indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Most indicators fall into the domain of assisted reproductive technology and are reported by fertility clinics. Indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness as well as non-clinical indicators are almost invisible. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A wide range of indicators of infertility and fertility care exist in literature. Most indicators were effectiveness and efficiency indicators, while indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness remain almost invisible. The scope of the current indicators indicates a predominant focus on clinical metrics, with substantial invisibility of non-clinical indicators and indicators outside the ART domain. These gaps need to be considered in further work of identifying a core set of indicators. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work received funding from the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored program executed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The authors had no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework vsu42.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The current study aims to compare between a transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length and Bishop score in the induction of labor (IOL) at term for prediction of cesarean delivery (CD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study included 320 full-term pregnant women attending Ain Shams Maternity Hospital in the period from August 2017 to February 2018 were enrolled. Seventy-three women were delivered by CD (positive group), and 247 women were delivered vaginally (negative group). All patients had a vaginal examination for assessing the Bishop Score before IOL then a transvaginal ultrasound for assessment of cervical length. IOL was initiated by using PGE1 analog. The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of the cervical length or the bishop score for prediction of the CD. RESULTS: In our current study, CD was achieved in 22.8% of all participants while vaginal delivery was achieved in 77.8% after IOL by misoprostol 25 micrograms within 24 h from the beginning of induction. Both the cervical length and Bishop Score had poor predictive value for CD (AUC = 0.694 and 0.623, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both transvaginal sonography for cervical length and Bishop score are useful predictors of the need for CD following labor induction.