Retained Tampon Fragment as an Unusual Cause of Vesicovaginal Fistula.

BACKGROUND: Vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) is an uncommon cause of urinary incontinence (UI). Iatrogenic etiologies, especially abdominal hysterectomy, are most common; however, a minority of VVFs are caused by retained foreign bodies. Objects associated with VVF include intrauterine devices, gauze, pessaries, bottle caps, and sexual aids, but retained tampons or other menstrual products have not been commonly reported. CASE: We present the case of a 53-year-old woman, gravida 0, with no prior pelvic surgery, with 2 months of intermittent UI and hematuria. Although initial diagnostic test results were negative, cystoscopy and vaginoscopy eventually confirmed the diagnosis of VVF associated with a retained foreign body. In the operating room, all debris was removed using vaginoscopy, and the VVF was repaired using a modified Latzko technique. At the patient's 9-week follow-up appointment, she was found to have complete healing of the VVF and resolution of associated symptoms. CONCLUSION: This is a case of VVF secondary to a retained tampon fragment. In addition to this uncommon etiology, our patient's presenting symptoms were atypical, leading to a delay in diagnosis and treatment for which vaginoscopy was critical.

Chemicals in menstrual products: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: From menarche until menopause, the average menstruator will use over 11 000 tampons or sanitary pads. Vaginal and vulvar tissue is highly permeable, and chemicals are absorbed without undergoing first-pass metabolism. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a review of the literature to determine exposure to environmental chemicals in menstrual products. SEARCH STRATEGY: This review identified 15 papers over the past 10 years. SELECTION CRITERIA: Papers that measured chemicals in menstrual products and that measured human biomarkers of chemical exposure were included. Papers had to also be available in English. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reviewers assessed the articles and data provided. Multiple chemical groups were found. MAIN RESULTS: Phthalates, volatile organic compounds, parabens, environmental phenols, fragrance chemicals, dioxins and dioxin-like compounds were detected in menstrual products. Research gaps were identified, including the lack of studies on newer products such as menstrual underwear and cups/discs. In addition to measuring chemicals in these products, future research should focus on clarifying the exposure per menstrual cycle to these chemicals to understand how menorrhagia and cycle length influence exposure from menstrual products. CONCLUSION: Menstrual products contained measurable levels of a range of endocrine disrupting chemicals including phthalates, phenols and parabens. This reflects a potentially important route of exposure to chemicals that can impact women's reproductive health.

Menstrual Tampons Are Reliable and Acceptable Tools to Self-Collect Vaginal Microbiome Samples.

Many women report embarrassment as the cause for their avoidance of routine gynaecological screening appointments. Methods of self-collection of bio samples would perhaps encourage women to participate in routine screening programs. The vaginal microbiome plays a key role in women's health and reproductive function. Microbial disturbances can result in the loss of lactobacillus dominance, also known as dysbiosis, associated with an increased risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs), pregnancy complications and infertility. Our primary aim was to determine if vaginal microbiome screening results are comparable between two methods for self-collected sample acquisition: tampons and lower vaginal swabs (LVSs). Secondary aims included the assessment of the effect of pre-analytic storage on the data (to streamline processing), the prevalence of dysbiosis and the acceptability of the tampons to the participants. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in the microbiome data, from tampons versus LVSs or fresh versus frozen samples. The prevalence of dysbiosis in this population of healthy volunteers was 42.9%. The questionnaire data revealed that 52.4% of volunteers use tampons every period, and the majority of volunteers rated the tampons as 5 on a 1-5 Likert scale regarding their perceived comfort using tampons. All (100%) of volunteers were happy to provide a tampon as a sample for testing. The findings from this study show that tampons and LVSs were comparable when analysing the vaginal microbiome, with potential superiority of the tampon with regard to patient acceptability. Self-collection of vaginal secretions for gynaecological screening using tampons warrants further research as this could change the screening landscape, ensuring wider participation and increasing efficacy.

Does exposure to different menstrual products affect the vaginal environment?

The vaginal ecosystem is a key component of women's health. It also represents an ideal system for ecologists to investigate the consequence of perturbations on species diversity and emerging properties between organizational levels. Here, we study how exposure to different types of menstrual products is linked to microbial, immunological, demographic, and behavioural measurements in a cohort of young adult women who reported using more often tampons (n = 107) or menstrual cups (n = 31). We first found that cup users were older and smoked less than tampon users. When analysing health indicators, we detected potential associations between cups use reporting and fungal genital infection. A multivariate analysis confirmed that in our cohort, reporting using cups over tampons was associated with the higher odds ratio to report a fungal genital infection diagnosis by a medical doctor within the last 3 months. We did not detect significant differences between groups in terms of their bacterial vaginal microbiota composition and found marginal differences in the level of expression of 20 cytokines. However, a multivariate analysis of these biological data identified some level of clustering based on the menstrual product type preferred (cups or tampons). These results suggest that exposure to different types of menstrual products could influence menstrual health. Larger studies and studies with a more powered setting are needed to assess the robustness of these associations and identify causal mechanisms.

Safety assessment scheme for menstrual cups and application for the evaluation of a menstrual cup comprised of medical grade silicone.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring menstrual cup safety is paramount, yet a menstrual cup safety assessment scheme is lacking. This paper presents a quadripartite scheme, showing how it can be applied. METHODS: The Tampax Menstrual Cup was evaluated in the safety assessment scheme: (1) Biocompatibility and chemical safety of cup constituents. Extractables were obtained under different use condition; exposure-based risk assessments (EBRA) were conducted for extractables exceeding thresholds of toxicological concern. (2) Physical impact to vaginal mucosa. After physical evaluations, the Tampax Cup and another cup were assessed in a randomised double-blinded, two-product, two-period cross-over clinical trial (65 women, mean age 34.2 years). (3) Impact to vaginal microbiota (in vitro mixed microflora assay and evaluation of vaginal swabs). (4) In vitro growth of Staphylococcus aureus and toxic shock syndrome toxin-1 (TSST-1) production. FINDINGS: Biocompatibility assessments and EBRA of cup constituents showed no safety concerns. In the randomised clinical trial, all potentially product-related adverse effects were mild, vaginal exams were unremarkable, no clinically relevant pH changes occurred, post-void residual urine volume with and without cup were similar, and self-reported measures of comfort along with reports of burning, itching and stinging between cups were comparable. Cup use had no effect on microbial growth in vitro or in the 62 subjects who completed the trial or on in vitro TSST-1 production. INTERPRETATION: The quadripartite safety assessment scheme allows evaluation of menstrual cup safety. The Tampax Cup is safe and well-tolerated upon intended use. As with all feminine hygiene products, post-market safety surveillance confirmed this conclusion. FUNDING: By Procter & Gamble.

Quantitative risk assessment of allergens leaching from menstrual hygiene products.

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) often associated with the topical use of perfumed products, remains one of the most common chronic skin disorders in Western countries. Since labelling of scented menstrual hygiene products (MHPs) is not mandatory, women might be unknowingly exposed to allergens. Given that vaginal mucosae lack the vital barrier function of the skin, skin allergens can easily penetrate and become systemically available and hence women may experience adverse effects in the anogenital region. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate whether women using scented MHPs are at risk of sensitization and hence developing ACD. Hereto, a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) is performed on four well-known skin sensitizing chemicals (α-isomethyl ionone, benzyl salicylate, hexyl cinnamaldehyde and heliotropine) that were previously found leaching from five different scented MHPs including tampons and sanitary pads. The amounts of heliotropine, leached by one of the investigated tampons, exceeded acceptable exposure levels determined with the QRA and could induce sensitization. In addition, although no sensitization is expected for the other three compounds, an allergenic reaction might be provoked in women who are already sensitized. Labelling of allergens on scented MHPs would therefore help consumers to prevent adverse effects linked to ACD.

Tampon loss - management among adolescents and adult women.

The widespread use of tampons carries a risk of tampon loss due to imperfect use. We performed a retrospective study including all women attending the emergency room (ER) with the complaint of tampon loss during 2011-2018. Overall, 72 women presented to the ER with a complaint of tampon loss. In 25% (18/72), a lost tampon was found on physical examination. The lost tampon was found in a higher rate among adolescents as compared to older women (4 (80%) vs. 14 (21%), 15.1, p = .01). Time from tampon loss to referral for evaluation was shorter among adolescents as compared to older women (7 ± 3 vs. 21 ± 21 h, p = .007). In most adolescents with a complaint of a lost tampon - it was eventually found on pelvic examination, as opposed to older women, in whom a finding was present in only one-fifth of cases. This highlights the importance of thorough examination of adolescents presenting due to tampon loss. The study protocol was approved by the Sheba Medical Center review board (March 15, 2018), 6345-19-SMC.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? Very little is known regarding the distinguished phenomena of tampon loss among adult females.What do the results of this study add? In most adolescents referred due to tampon loss - a tampon was found on pelvic examination, as opposed to older women.What are the implications of these findings for future clinical practice and/or further research? In most adolescents referred due to tampon loss - a tampon will be found on pelvic examination, as opposed to older women, in whom a finding is present in only one-fifth of cases. This highlights the importance of thorough examination of adolescents presenting with a loss of tampon.

Acceptability and safety of the menstrual cup: A systematic review of the literature / Aceptabilidad y seguridad de la copa menstrual: revisión sistemática de la literatura

Objectives: To conduct a systematic review of the literature and assess the acceptability and safety of the menstrual cup as a feminine hygiene product. Materials and methods: A search was conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PopLine and Google Scholar databases for publications be- tween 1966 and July 2019. The terms ("Menstrual" AND "Cup") OR ("Copa" AND "Menstrual") were used. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed studies were included, as well as case series and case reports published in English and Spanish assessing the menstrual cup in women in childbearing age. The studies were selected and the data extracted by two reviewers working independently. Acceptability and safety were assessed as the primary result. The summary of the information is presented in narrative form. Results: Overall, 737 titles were found for initial review and, in the end, 38 studies were included in this work. The acceptability of the menstrual cup ranges between 35 % and 90 %. Between 10 to 45 % of women found it difficult to use. It was described as more comfortable when compared to tampons and pads. Continued use of the cup ranges between 48 and 94 %. In terms of safety, there was one case of toxic shock syndrome, one case of mechanical entrapment, and another case of allergy; and a higher risk of expulsion was found among intrauterine device users. Conclusion: The menstrual cup appears to be a comfortable, safe and efficient option for menstrual hygiene. Further randomized controlled studies and long-term prospective cohort studies are needed in order to determine the risk of complications due to excess bacterial colonization or retrograde menstruation.

TITULO: ACEPTABILIDAD Y SEGURIDAD DE LA COPA MENSTRUAL: REVISIÓN SISTEMÁTICA DE LA LITERATURA. OBJETIVO: Realizar una búsqueda sistemática de la literatura para evaluar la aceptabilidad y seguridad de la copa menstrual como producto de higiene genital femenina. METODOS: Se realizó búsqueda en las bases de datos PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PopLine y Google Scholar, desde 1966 hasta julio de 2019. Se utilizaron los términos: "Menstrual" AND "Cup" OR "Copa" AND "Menstrual". Se incluyeron estudios cuantitativos, cualitativos y mixtos, series y reportes de caso publicados en inglés y español que hubieran evaluado la copa menstrual en mujeres en edad reproductiva. Los estudios fueron selecciona- dos y los datos fueron extraídos por dos evaluadores de manera independiente. Como resultado primario se evaluó la aceptabilidad y seguridad. La síntesis de información se presenta de manera narrativa. RESULTADOS: Se encontraron 737 títulos para revisión inicial. Finalmente, se incluyeron 38 estudios. La copa menstrual tiene una aceptabilidad que varía entre el 35 y el 90 %. Del 10 al 45 % la encontraron difícil de usar. Fue descrita como más cómoda comparada con el tampón y la toalla higiénica de fabricación industrial. La continuidad de su uso está entre el 48 y el 94 %. En cuanto a la seguridad se presentó un caso de síndrome de choque tóxico, uno de atrapamiento mecánico, uno de alergia al producto y mayor riesgo de expulsión en usuarias del dispositivo intrauterino. CONCLUSIONES: La copa menstrual es una alternativa cómoda, segura y eficiente para la higiene mens- trual. Se requieren más estudios controlados alea- torizados y cohortes prospectivas a largo plazo para determinar el riesgo de complicaciones por una exagerada colonización bacteriana o menstruación retrógrada.

Device-Associated Menstrual Toxic Shock Syndrome.

In the 1980s, menstrual toxic shock syndrome (mTSS) became a household topic, particularly among mothers and their daughters. The research performed at the time, and for the first time, exposed the American public as well as the biomedical community, in a major way, to understanding disease progression and investigation. Those studies led to the identification of the cause, Staphylococcus aureus and the pyrogenic toxin superantigen TSS toxin 1 (TSST-1), and many of the risk factors, for example, tampon use. Those studies in turn led to TSS warning labels on the outside and inside of tampon boxes and, as important, uniform standards worldwide of tampon absorbency labeling. This review addresses our understanding of the development and conclusions related to mTSS and risk factors. We leave the final message that even though mTSS is not commonly in the news today, cases continue to occur. Additionally, S. aureus strains cycle in human populations in roughly 10-year intervals, possibly dependent on immune status. TSST-1-producing S. aureus bacteria appear to be reemerging, suggesting that physician awareness of this emergence and mTSS history should be heightened.

Acute Ureteral Obstruction by Deeply Inserted Menstrual Cup.

Mechanical complications from menstrual cups are rare, with only four reported cases of ureteral obstruction. Clinicians should be aware of gynecologic devices in patients with acute abdominopelvic pain because simple removal may obviate the need for further expensive work-up or exposure to ionizing radiation.

Sensitizing fragrances in absorbent hygiene products.

BACKGROUND: Allergenic fragrances are present in a wide range of products but they are not regulated in all industries to the same extent. In Europe, absorbent hygiene products (AHPs) are only covered by the general product safety directive and therefore fragrances can be used freely, whereas in cosmetics and toys the use of these ingredients is regulated. METHOD: An analytical method was developed to evaluate the presence of 24 sensitizing fragrances in AHPs. This method allows simultaneous identification and quantification and was validated using the total error approach with an acceptance value of ±15%. RESULTS: The validated method was applied to evaluate 10 scented AHPs consisting of four tampons, three panty liners, and three sanitary pads. Eight allergenic fragrances were identified in these products and five products contained at least one allergen above 10 µg/g. CONCLUSION: The presence of these allergens is not communicated to the consumer. This is, however, a strict requirement in other industries (eg, cosmetics, toys) to ensure adequate consumer protection. Knowing that the exposed area is more susceptible to allergens and irritants, the presence of these allergens should be disclosed.

Toxic Shock Syndrome: Still a Timely Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Toxic shock syndrome (TSS) is an acute, severe, toxin-mediated disease, characterized by fever, hypotension, and multiorgan system involvement. Toxic shock syndrome has made headlines because of its high associated morbidity and mortality rate in previously healthy young females. Incidence peaked in the early 1980s owing to increased usage of ultra-absorbent tampons. After improved patient education and tampon labeling, the incidence of menstrual TSS has declined. CASE: A previously healthy 14-year-old girl presented to an urgent care center with a 2-day history of fever, erythematous maculopapular rash, vomiting, diarrhea, and malaise. She was found to be tachycardic and hypotensive. Investigations revealed thrombocytopenia, an elevated white count and lactate, and acute kidney injury, consistent with septic shock. Recent tampon usage with menstruation was reported, and a pelvic examination revealed purulent vaginal discharge. The patient was transferred to a pediatric intensive care unit for antibiotic and vasopressor therapy. Vaginal swabs later tested positive for Staphylococcus aureus and TSS toxin-1. CONCLUSIONS: Although the incidence of TSS has decreased in recent years, it is crucial that clinicians rapidly recognize and treat this life-threatening condition. Emergency physicians should always have a high index of suspicion for TSS in young females presenting without another obvious cause of shock. A pelvic examination should always be completed in these cases.

The impact of menstrual hygiene management on adolescent health: The effect of Go! pads on rate of urinary tract infection in adolescent females in Kibogora, Rwanda.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates of urinary tract infection (UTI) in adolescent users of menstrual pads versus non-users in a rural area of Rwanda. METHODS: An interventional prospective cohort study was conducted at four secondary schools in the Western Province of Rwanda from May 12, 2017 to October 20, 2017. Inclusion criteria were female students aged 18-24 who were menstruating and volunteered to participate in the study. In total, 240 adolescent participants were assigned to two cohorts; 120 received menstrual pads for 6 months and the other 120 did not use pads. Baseline symptoms and urine cultures were obtained. Symptoms and methods of menstrual hygiene management were assessed and urine cultures were obtained every 2 months. The primary outcome was the presence of UTI diagnosed by positive urine culture. Secondary outcomes were symptoms of UTI, vulvovaginal symptoms, sexual activity, dyspareunia, and self-reported sexually transmitted infection. Generalized estimating equations with nesting were used to assess associations of pad use with study outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 209 participants completed the study. There was no difference in rates of positive urine culture. A decreased odds of vulvovaginal symptoms was found in self-reported "always" versus "never" pad users (odds ratio [OR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.96; P=0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Despite not finding any difference in rates of UTI, the present study showed a decreased rate of vulvovaginal symptoms in users of menstrual pads. Further research investigating rates of genital infections in this population is thus necessary.

[Hydronephrosis caused by a menstrual cup].

In this case report, a 20-year-old healthy woman contacted the emergency department because of lower abdominal pain radiating to the right flank. She was discharged with analgesics suspecting a kidney stone attack. One month later she contacted the emergency department again with the same symptoms. A CT urography was made showing hydronephrosis on the right side and a menstrual cup in the vagina seemingly compressing the right ostia in the bladder. After removal of the menstrual cup the symptoms disappeared, and the patient was discharged. A control ultrasound scan two weeks later showed full regression of the hydronephrosis.

Menstrual cup use, leakage, acceptability, safety, and availability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Girls and women need effective, safe, and affordable menstrual products. Single-use products are regularly selected by agencies for resource-poor settings; the menstrual cup is a less known alternative. We reviewed international studies on menstrual cup leakage, acceptability, and safety and explored menstrual cup availability to inform programmes. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Popline, Cinahl, Global Health database, Emerald, Google Scholar, Science.gov, and WorldWideScience from database inception to May 14, 2019, for quantitative or qualitative studies published in English on experiences and leakage associated with menstrual cups, and adverse event reports. We also screened the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database from the US Food and Drug Administration for events related to menstrual cups. To be eligible for inclusion, the material needed to have information on leakage, acceptability, or safety of menstrual cups. The main outcome of interest was menstrual blood leakage when using a menstrual cup. Safety outcomes of interest included serious adverse events; vaginal abrasions and effects on vaginal microflora; effects on the reproductive, digestive, or urinary tract; and safety in poor sanitary conditions. Findings were tabulated or combined by use of forest plots (random-effects meta-analysis). We also did preliminary estimates on costs and environmental savings potentially associated with cups. This systematic review is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42016047845. FINDINGS: Of 436 records identified, 43 studies were eligible for analysis (3319 participants). Most studies reported on vaginal cups (27 [63%] vaginal cups, five [12%] cervical cups, and 11 [25%] mixed types of cups or unknown) and 15 were from low-income and middle-income countries. 22 studies were included in qualitative or quantitative syntheses, of which only three were of moderate-to-high quality. Four studies made a direct comparison between menstrual cups and usual products for the main outcome of leakage and reported leakage was similar or lower for menstrual cups than for disposable pads or tampons (n=293). In all qualitative studies, the adoption of the menstrual cup required a familiarisation phase over several menstrual cycles and peer support improved uptake (two studies in developing countries). In 13 studies, 73% (pooled estimate: n=1144; 95% CI 59-84, I2=96%) of participants wished to continue use of the menstrual cup at study completion. Use of the menstrual cup showed no adverse effects on the vaginal flora (four studies, 507 women). We identified five women who reported severe pain or vaginal wounds, six reports of allergies or rashes, nine of urinary tract complaints (three with hydronephrosis), and five of toxic shock syndrome after use of the menstrual cup. Dislodgement of an intrauterine device was reported in 13 women who used the menstrual cup (eight in case reports, and five in one study) between 1 week and 13 months of insertion of the intrauterine device. Professional assistance to aid removal of menstrual cup was reported among 47 cervical cup users and two vaginal cup users. We identified 199 brands of menstrual cup, and availability in 99 countries with prices ranging US$0·72-46·72 (median $23·3, 145 brands). INTERPRETATION: Our review indicates that menstrual cups are a safe option for menstruation management and are being used internationally. Good quality studies in this field are needed. Further studies are needed on cost-effectiveness and environmental effect comparing different menstrual products. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, Department for International Development, and Wellcome Trust.

Do menstrual cups increase risk of IUD expulsion? A survey of self-reported IUD and menstrual hygiene product use in the United States.

Purpose: To gather preliminary data about menstrual hygiene product use and associated risk of intrauterine device (IUD) expulsion. Materials and methods: We conducted an Internet-based survey using the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform and Researchmatch.org. Eligible participants were women at least 18 years old and self-identified as current or previous IUD users. Results: Of 902 survey responses, 71% reported current or previous IUD use and 19.7% reported menstrual cup use. IUD users were significantly more likely than non-IUD users to use a menstrual cup or tampons. Among all IUD users, 56 individuals reported experiencing at least one expulsion (8.8%). We found a positive association between concurrent menstrual cup use and IUD expulsion (OR: 2.75, 95% CI: 1.40-5.42, p = .002), but no association with concurrent tampon or pad use. Of concurrent IUD and cup users who experienced an expulsion, one reported it occurring 'while using a menstrual cup', with others reporting the expulsion during other events. Conclusions: Menstrual cup use may be higher than previously reported, particularly in IUD users. Concurrent menstrual cup use may increase the risk of IUD expulsion. Prospective research is necessary to fully explore the relationship between menstrual hygiene product use and IUD expulsions.

Unintentional IUD expulsion with concomitant menstrual cup use: a case series.

Although reproductive-aged women use both menstrual cups and intrauterine devices (IUDs) simultaneously, it is unknown whether concomitant use reduces contraceptive effectiveness. We report seven cases wherein IUD expulsion occurred during concomitant menstrual cup use. Further research is needed to determine mechanisms of expulsion, predictors and strategies to avoid expulsions.