Sequential-contingent strategy for fallopian tube evaluation using hysterosalpingo foam sonography: a cost analysis.

Background: Tubal pathology is the etiological factor in 20% of couples with female infertility. Historically, diagnostic evaluation of the fallopian tubes has been performed by means of hysterosalpingography (HSG). Hysterosonosalpingography with EXEM® foam is a recent technique with supposedly comparable effectiveness to HSG, but with better tolerability for patients. Methods: Tubal patency was assessed in patients who were candidates for intrauterine insemination (IUI) between January 2020 and July 2021. (I) Hysterosonosalpingography with EXEM® foam. (II) If the patient had both tubes patent, IUI was proposed. In case of inconclusive or pathological results, HSG was performed. (III) If the HSG concludes tubal patency, IUI is proposed. On the other hand, if it results in tubal obstruction, in vitro fertilization (IVF) is proposed. Results: Assessment of tubal patency by HSG showed concordance with previous Hysterosonosalpingography with EXEM® foam results in 45.5% (n=15) of cases of unilateral obstruction and 66.7% (n=6) of cases of bilateral obstruction. When we compare the total cost of HSG (€54,899.46) with the sum of patients who only required Hysterosonosalpingography with EXEM® foam together with those who underwent both tests (€45,575.96), it shows that the latter represents a cost benefit strategy (cost difference €9,323.50). Conclusions: Our results suggest a benefit of €9,323.50 when performing the contingent sequential strategy, in case of pathological or inconclusive results, compared to performing a systematic HSG in all patients. Patients with an obstructive hysterosalpingogram with EXEM® and a patent hysterosalpingogram will be the subgroup that will benefit the most, as IUI can be proposed instead of IVF. In addition, there is a benefit in terms of optimizing the medical procedure, hospital visits and speeding up the time to start assisted reproductive technology (ART).

Interobserver variability of ultrasound measurements for the differential diagnosis of uterine prolapse and cervical elongation without uterine prolapse.

OBJECTIVES: Our study aims to determine the interobserver variability of different ultrasound measurements (pubis-cervix distance, pubis-uterine fundus distance, and pubis-Douglascul-de-sac distance) previously analyzed for the ultrasound differential diagnosis of uterine prolapse (UP) and cervical elongation CE without UP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study with 40 patients scheduled to undergo surgical correction of UP and CE without UP. All patients underwent pelvic floor ultrasound examination by an examiner (E1) who acquired ultrasound images. Using these images, E1 measured the distances for the ultrasound differential diagnosis of UP and CE without UP, and these distances were compared with those measured by the other examiner (E2). Values were analyzed by calculating ICCs with 95% CIs. RESULTS: For UP, excellent reliability was obtained for all measurements except the pubis-Douglascul-de-sac measurement at rest, which was moderate (ICC 0.596; p = 0.028) and for the difference between the pubis-Douglascul-de-sac measurement at rest and during the Valsalva maneuver, which was good (ICC 0.691; p < 0.0005). For CE without UP, interobserver reliability was excellent for all measurements analyzed except the pubis-cervix measurement during the Valsalva maneuver, which was moderate (ICC 0.535; p = 0.052) and for the pubis-Douglascul-de-sac measurement at rest, which was good (ICC 0.768; p < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: There is excellent interobserver reliability in measurements of the difference in the distance from the pubic symphysis to the uterine fundus at rest and during the Valsalva maneuver for both UP and CE without UP, which are used for the ultrasound differential diagnosis of UP and CE without UP.

Differential diagnosis of middle compartment pelvic organ prolapse with transperineal ultrasound.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to identify the best parameter (pubis-cervix measurement, pubis-uterine fundus measurement or pubis-pouch of Douglas measurement) on transperineal ultrasound, based on the difference between measurements taken at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver, for presurgical differential diagnosis between uterine prolapse (UP) and cervical elongation (CE) without UP. METHODS: A prospective observational study of 60 consecutively recruited patients who underwent corrective surgery of the middle compartment (UP or CE without UP). A transperineal ultrasound was performed, and the descent of the pelvic organ was measured in relation to the posteroinferior margin of the pubis in the midsagittal plane, referencing the uterine fundus, pouch of Douglas and the cervix at rest and with the Valsalva test. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed for the three evaluated measures, based on the difference between rest and Valsalva, for the diagnosis of UP. For the pubis-cervix distance, an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.59 was obtained; for the pubis-uterine fundus distance, the AUC was 0.81; and for the pubis-pouch of Douglas distance, the AUC was 0.69. Based on the best AUC (the difference in the pubis-uterine fundus distance at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver), a cut-off point of 15 mm was established for the diagnosis of UP (sensitivity: 75%; specificity: 95%; positive predictive value: 86%; and negative predictive value: 89%). CONCLUSION: A difference of ≥15 mm in the pubis-uterine fundus distance at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver is useful for differentiating UP from CE without UP by ultrasound.

Gestación gemelar en paciente con epidermolisis bullosa distrófica recesiva severa: revisión de la bibliografía en base a un caso clínico / Twin pregnancy in woman affected by severe recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa: a case report and a literature review

La epidermolisis bullosa distrófica es un grupo de trastornos hereditarios de muy baja prevalencia que se caracterizan por una extrema fragilidad cutánea como consecuencia de una alteración de la cohesión de la unión epidermodérmica. Sin embargo, las manifestaciones clínicas van más allá de las lesiones cutáneas, habiéndose descrito afectación de la mayoría de aparatos y sistemas y siendo frecuente también cierto grado de desnutrición y anemia de origen multifactorial. Presentamos el caso de una paciente de 34 años, secundigesta, con epidermólisis bullosa distrófica recesiva severa, gestante gemelar bicorial y biamniótica, que seguimos durante todo el embarazo y su finalización. La baja prevalencia de la enfermedad hace que el manejo de la gestación suponga un reto para el ginecobstetra. A pesar de que los casos publicados hacen creer que la gestación no modifica el curso natural de la enfermedad, lo cierto es que se recomienda que el embarazo sea seguido por un equipo multidisciplinar. Existen publicados casos en los que se finaliza la gestación por vía vaginal, sin embargo, no existe evidencia suficiente para considerar ésta como la vía de elección.

Dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa is a group of hereditary disorders that has very low prevalence. It is characterized by an extreme cutaneous fragility as a consequence of a cohesion alteration of the epidermis and dermis junction. However, the clinical manifestations also affect other systems and organs, being able to cause malnutrition and anemia. We present the case of a 34-year-old woman affected by severe recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, with a bichorial and biamniotic twin pregnancy, whom we have followed throughout the pregnancy. The low prevalence of this disease makes the management of the pregnancy a challenge for the obstetrician. Although the published cases suggest that gestation does not modify the natural course of the disease, it is recommended that these pregnancies are monitored by a multidisciplinary team. Some published cases describe vaginal delivery. Nevertheless, it is not clear that this should be the first choice.

Papel de la ansiedad preoperatoria en la percepción de dolor en pacientes sometidas a histeroscopia quirurgica en consulta / Impact of preprocedural anxiety levels on pain perception in patients undergoing office surgical hysteroscopy

OBJETIVO: Determinar si la ansiedad preoperatoria supone un factor de riesgo independiente para la percepción de dolor severo durante la realización de una histeroscopia quirúrgica ambulatoria. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio de cohortes en el que incluimos179 pacientes. Se ha aplicado el formulario STAI-S para valorar la ansiedad preoperatoria de las pacientes y distribuirlas en dos cohortes: Pacientes con ansiedad (STAI-S >50) y pacientes sin ansiedad (STAI-S7. Se ha calculado la asociación y el riesgo entre ambas variables mediante el Test X2 y el Riesgo Relativo (RR). Se ha utilizado el test de correlación de Pearson para valorar la correlación entre ambas variables. Se ha considerado estadísticamente significativo un valor de p<0.05. RESULTADOS: Las pacientes que percibieron dolor severo durante la entrada a la cavidad uterina (78,3% vs 29,5%; p<0,001) y durante la realización del proceso quirúrgico (78,8% vs 26,2%; p<0,001) fueron en su mayoría pacientes con ansiedad preoperatoria. El RR de las pacientes con ansiedad para percibir dolor severo es de 6,46 (IC 95%; 2,52 -16,60) durante la entrada y de 6,61 (IC 95%; 3,04 -14,38) durante la resección. Existe una correlación moderada y positiva entre las puntuaciones obtenida en la escala STAI-S y la puntuación EVA, tanto durante la entrada a la cavidad (r = 0,629; p = 0,042) como durante el proceso quirúrgico (r = 0'661; p =0'021). CONCLUSIONES: Las pacientes con ansiedad preoperatoria tienen más riesgo de percibir dolor severo durante la entrada en la cavidad uterina y durante la realización de la intervención histeroscópica.

OBJECTIVE: Determine if preprocedural anxiety is an independent risk factor for the perception of severe pain during an outpatient surgical hysteroscopy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: There were 179 patients included in this cohort study. The STAI-S questionnaire has been applied to assess the preoperative anxiety of the patients and distribute them into two cohorts: Patients with anxiety (STAI-S>50) and patients without anxiety (STAI-S 7. The association and the risk between both variables have been calculated using X2 test and relative risk (RR). Pearson's correlation test was used to assess the correlation between both variables. A p value < 0,05 has been considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Patients who perceived severe pain during access to the uterine cavity (78,3% vs 29,5%; p<0,001) and during the surgical procedure (78,8% vs 26,2%; p<0,001) were mostly patients with preoperative anxiety. The RR of patients with anxiety to perceive severe pain is 6.46 (95% CI; 2,52-16,60) during access to the uterine cavity and 6,61 (95% CI; 3,04-14,38) during resection. We have found a moderate and positive correlation between the scores obtained on the STAI-S questionnaire and VAS score during access to the uterine cavity (r=0,629; p=0,042) and during the surgical process (r=0,661; p=0,021) CONCLUSIONS: Patients with preprocedural anxiety are more at risk of perceiving severe pain during access into the uterine cavity and during the hysteroscopic intervention.