Two-Port Laparoscopic Removal of Large Ovarian Cystadenoma.

An ovarian mucinous cystadenoma is a common benign tumour of the ovary that tends to reach very large sizes. Although traditional morcellation in the abdominal cavity is largely avoided in gynaecologic surgery, several authors have proposed other systems and techniques for the removal of large masses without resorting to laparotomy. We proposed an extremely minimally invasive technique to remove a large mass with a very low suspicion of malignancy, and created a video demonstration of the procedure. In this short film we illustrate our novel technique using only 2 laparoscopic ports, which maximizes both cosmesis and speed of recovery. The technique is not a completely closed system, therefore the potential for spreading an undiagnosed malignancy still exists. Accordingly, the authors do not suggest this technique for masses with a high potential for malignancy. However, in properly consented patients where there is very little suspicion for malignancy, our technique may be a reasonable option to promote fast recovery and provide excellent cosmesis.

Salpingectomy vs tubal ligation for sterilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: After strong evidence and major organizations recommending salpingectomy over tubal ligation, we sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the intraoperative attributes and complication rates associated with these 2 procedures. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and clinical trials registries without time or language restrictions. The search was conducted in February 2020. Database searches revealed 74 potential studies, of which 11 were examined at the full-text level. Of these, 6 studies were included in the qualitative analysis and 5 studies were included in the meta-analysis. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing salpingectomy with tubal ligation in women seeking sterilization. We included studies that also had at least 1 outcome listed in the population/patient problem, intervention, comparison, outcome, and time. Articles were excluded if they did not meet the inclusion criteria or if data were not reported and the authors did not respond to inquiries. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Abstracts and full-text articles were assessed by 2 authors independently using the blinded coding assignment function or EPPI-Reviewer 4. Conflicting selections were resolved by consensus. The quality of included studies was determined using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias for each study; disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: There were few differences between the procedures, with no differences in most important clinical outcomes (antimüllerian hormone, blood loss, length of hospital stay, pre- or postoperative complications, or wound infections). A single study reported a reduced rate of pregnancies with salpingectomy (risk ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.02), but this did not reach statistical significance (P=.05). CONCLUSION: We conclude from these data that salpingectomy is as safe and efficacious as tubal ligation for sterilization and may be preferred, where appropriate, to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer.

Complications of Laparoscopic and Transabdominal Cerclage in Patients with Cervical Insufficiency: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical insufficiency is a defect of the cervix that leads to failure to preserve a full-term intrauterine pregnancy. Laparoscopic cerclage and open transabdominal cerclage (TAC) are effective ways to manage patients with cervical insufficiency. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the complications of laparoscopic cerclage and open TAC in the management of cervical insufficiency. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science using our search strategy and screened the results for our criteria. We extracted the results reported and analyzed them using Open Meta-Analyst (OpenMeta[Analyst], Brown School of Public Health, Providence, RI) and Review Manager (Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom) software. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included all randomized controlled and observational trials performed on patients with cervical insufficiency undergoing open TAC or laparoscopic cerclage that matched our search strategy. We excluded letters to the editor, reviews, meetings/conference abstracts, non-English or nonhuman studies, and instances where the full text was not available. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: We included a total of 33 trials. Both interventions of laparoscopic cerclage and open TAC were associated with significantly less total fetal loss (laparoscopic cerclage, relative risk [RR] 0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.08; p <.001, and open TAC, RR 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07-0.51; p <.009). The overall blood loss in open TAC was 110.589 mL (95% CI, 93.737-127.44; p <.001), and in laparoscopic cerclage, it was 24.549 mL (95% CI, 9.892-39.205; p = .001). In addition, open TAC had a positive effect regarding incidence of hemorrhage >400 mL (RR 0.077; 95% CI, 0.033-0.122; p <.001). Preterm premature rupture of membranes was significant in the open TAC (RR 0.037; 95% CI, 0.019-0.055; p <.001) and laparoscopic cerclage groups (RR 0.031; 95% CI, 0.009-0.053; p = .006). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic cerclage may be safer than open TAC in the management of cervical insufficiency because we found a statistically significant lower incidence of fetal loss, blood loss, and rate of hemorrhage in the laparoscopic cerclage group. Clinically, this evidence may help support favoring a laparoscopic approach over an open one in appropriate patients, although it is unclear whether this benefit is limited to cerclages placed either before pregnancy or placed in the first-trimester or both.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Intraoperative Bupivacaine in Gynaecologic Surgery After 24 Hours or 9 Half-Lives.

OBJECTIVE: To review all high quality available evidence regarding the effect of intraoperative bupivacaine 24 hours (or 8.9 half-lives) after intraoperative administration at time of gynaecologic surgery and to ascertain whether a second mechanism of action, beyond the initial prevention of sodium channel depolarization and blockade of nerve impulses, may be occurring. DATA SOURCES: We searched all major databases with an algorithm designed to include all randomized trials that used any form of local bupivacaine, regardless of dose or route of administration, at the time of any gynaecologic surgery and compared its use with saline placebo. RESULTS: As expected, we found that bupivacaine showed a significant improvement for all gynaecologic surgeries with respect to pain intensity at 6 hours after surgery when compared with a saline group (mean difference [MD] -1.28; 95% CI -1.96 to -0.61], P = 0.07). We also found a significant difference at 24 hours after surgery, giving evidence to the possibility of a second mechanism of action (MD -0.57; 95% CI -1.10 to -0.05], P = 0.01). Further subgroup analysis for pain levels at 24 hours showed significant decreases in pain for the laparoscopy (MD -0.74; 95% CI -0.93 to -0.54, P < 0.01) and laparotomy (MD -2.60; 95% CI -2.93 to -2.27, P < 0.01)) subgroups but not for the vaginal hysterectomy (MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.69 to 1.09, P = 0.66) or prolapse surgery (MD -0.11; 95% CI -0.41 to 0.19, P = 0.48) subgroups. There was no significant difference with respect to the length of hospital stay (MD -0.11; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.38, P = 0.67). CONCLUSION: As expected, bupivacaine significantly reduced visual analog pain scores when compared with placebo at 6 hours after surgery, but also showed a significant difference at 24 hours after surgery, giving evidence of a second mechanism of action following the initial sodium channel blockade.

Combination of Laparoscopic Salpingectomy and Endometrial Ablation: A Potentially Underused Procedure.

Despite the advantages of a decreased risk of epithelial-cell ovarian cancer and the extremely minimally invasive nature of the procedure, combined salpingectomy and endometrial ablation is a potentially underused procedure in the United States to treat abnormal uterine bleeding and desired sterilization. The lack of utilization of this combined procedure might be based on factors other than clinical considerations, including slow acceptance and adoption of Committee Opinions expressing the value of salpingectomy over sterilization. Committee Opinions and randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the benefit of salpingectomy for sterilization and epithelial-cancer risk reduction, and there could be an additional protection against postablation tubal sterilization syndrome. This Commentary discusses the advantages and rationale for consideration of expanding usage of the combined approach.

Design and Implementation of an 11mm Improvised Laparoscopic System for Performing a Single-Port Laparoscopic Hysterectomy through the Smallest Incision Ever Reported.

As a major institute in the field of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery, we constantly endeavor to develop and perform the least-invasive surgeries possible. In laparoscopy and robot-assisted laparoscopy, we should expect that complex surgeries that are currently undertaken with the use of many ports of a given diameter will eventually be accomplished with smaller incisions and fewer ports. There will always be clinical scenarios that require a more invasive approach, either because of adhesive tissues or a complex pathology. However, many routine cases will yield themselves to extremely minimally invasive techniques. In this report, we explain how we designed and ultimately used an improvised 11mm laparoscopic single-port system to perform a single-port hysterectomy through a bluntly created 11mm incision. The system was completely devised using currently available and easily obtainable surgical equipment approved in the United States, to maximize the reproducibility of the surgery. The surgery includes the creation of a working incision using an 11mm blunt laparoscopic trocar, to consistently produce a repeatedly small footprint. The surgery was performed successfully and without complication. To the best of our knowledge, this is the smallest reported single-incision hysterectomy.

Comparison of Mechanical Characteristics of Commonly Used Vaginal Packing Materials.

INTRODUCTION: Clinically, vaginal packing provides the benefit of hemostasis and is designed to prevent the formation of postoperative hematomas. Despite the common use of vaginal packing in pelvic surgery, there is limited data to indicate which material has the ideal characteristics for vaginal packing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three packing materials were used: DeRoyal® Fluftex™ (DeRoyal Industries, Inc., Powell, Tennessee), NHP Surgi-Pak™ vaginal packing (NHP Industries, Inc., City of Industry, California), and Curad® Plain Packing Strips (Medline Industries, Inc., Northfield, Illinois). A fluid with similar viscosity to human blood, defibrinated sheep's blood (Remel Laboratories, Nenexa Kansas) was used to saturate the materials. The primary outcome was the amount of fluid absorbance of each product in both the handpacked and unpacked state. The number of drops used to saturate each material were counted and converted to mL/g. Each product was tested three times and the results were measured by counting the number of drops needed to saturate the material in each experiment. Experiment: Three materials were obtained and conducted into two different experiments to test absorbance. The packed trial consisted of 0.1g of material and was compacted in a 146mm standard Pasteur pipette (Sigma-Aldrich Corp., St. Louis, Missouri). Droplets of sheep's blood were dispensed until each material had reached its capacity, which was determined by counting the last sequential drop received onto the respective material before the first of the fluid fell from the material into the collecting container. Trials were conducted three times per material and an average of the three trials was calculated. The second experiment tested 1g of each material unpacked and folded into eight layers. Droplets of blood were placed onto the material until each material leaked, which was defined again as the first fluid to fall from the material into the collecting container that it was suspended above. The number of drops needed to produce this effect was recorded. All droplets were counted and converted to mL/g. Standard deviation was calculated for each material in both experiments and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) single factor test was done. RESULTS: Three trials were conducted per material and there was a difference in absorbance between each packing material (p=0.02 packed, p=0.001 unpacked). Additionally, the plain packing strip absorbed the least amount of blood product in the packed and unpacked state compared to DeRoyal® Fluftex™ and NHP Surgi-Pak™ vaginal packing. The average absorbance of the packed materials was 7.7mL/g for DeRoyal® Fluftex™, 9.8mL/g for NHP Surgi-Pak™ vaginal packing, and 7.5mL/g for the Curad® Plain Packing Strips. There was a standard deviation of 2.08 drops for DeRoyal® Fluftex™, 3.51 drops for NHP Surgi-Pak™ vaginal packing, and 1.73 drops for Curad® Plain Packing Strips. Absorbance for DeRoyal® Fluftex™ unpacked was 8.2mL/g, NHP Surgi-Pak™ vaginal packing unpacked was 7.00mL/g, and Curad® Plain Packing Strips was 4.8mL/g. The standard deviation for the unpacked experiment was 29.02 drops for DeRoyal® Fluftex™, 13.61 drops for NHP Surgi-Pak™ vaginal packing, and 15.59 drops for Curad® Plain Packing Strips. A p-value of less than .05 in a confidence interval of 95% was determined. CONCLUSION: Even though there are studies showing the clinical benefits of vaginal packing after a variety of gynecological surgeries, there is less known about the characteristics of the ideal material. Minimal foreign body reaction, decreased adherence to surgical scars, X-ray visualization, low cost, and easy availability are among the ideal characteristics of the presumed ideal material used for vaginal packing. In this study, we compared the absorbance between three commonly used materials and did not find any statistical differences. Further studies are needed to show the clinical benefits and mechanical characteristics of material used for vaginal packing. Due to the lack of a statistically significant difference in absorbance between the materials, evaluation of mechanical characteristics may be beneficial in determining an ideal vaginal packing product.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy versus vaginal hysterectomy for benign indications.

Objective: As the second most common surgery performed on women in the United States, hysterectomy techniques are constantly examined for validity and superiority. The vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) has increased in popularity since the first vNOTES hysterectomy was performed in 2012. We sought out to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of hysterectomy by vNOTES compared to conventional vaginal hysterectomy for various benign indications. Data sources: We searched Scopus, Medline, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and the Cochrane Library. Our search included all studies from each respective database's inception until September 1, 2023. Study eligibility criteria: We included eligible studies that compare vNOTES hysterectomy versus conventional vaginal hysterectomy for various benign indications, and included at least one of our preselected outcomes. The main outcomes were estimated blood loss (mL), operation time (min), length of hospital stay (d), Visual Analogue Scale pain score at Day 1, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: We analyzed data of our continuous outcomes using RevMan 5.4.1. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) under the inverse variance analysis method. We assessed the quality of the studies using the ROBINS-I assessment tool. Results: We found 4 eligible studies to include in our analysis. Surgeon declared estimated blood loss was found to be similar in both groups (MD=-44.70 [-99.97, 10.57]; P=.11). Also, the total length of hospital stay (in days) was found to be comparable in both groups (MD=-0.16 [-1.62, 1.30]; P=.83). We also found no other statistically significant difference between hysterectomy by vNOTES and vaginal hysterectomy in other studied outcomes, including the duration of the operation, the Visual Analogue Scale Pain score after 1 day, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications. Conclusion: vNOTES seems to be associated with a nonsignificant lower surgeon declared estimated blood loss. We found no other significant differences in hospital stay, intraoperative, or postoperative outcomes. Further studies may clarify if other differences in safety or efficacy exist.

First and second-generation endometrial ablation devices: A network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: First-generation and second-generation endometrial ablation (EA) techniques, along with medical treatment and invasive surgery, are considered successful lines of management for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). We set out to determine the efficacy of first and second-generation ablation techniques compared with medical treatment, invasive surgery and different modalities of the EA techniques themselves. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis using a frequentist network. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline (Ovid), PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, EBSCO and Scopus for all published studies up to 1 March 2021 using relevant keywords. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared premenopausal women with AUB receiving the intervention of second-generation EA techniques. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 49 high-quality RCTs with 8038 women were included. We extracted and pooled the data and then analysed to estimate the network meta-analysis models within a frequentist framework. We used the random-effects model of the netmeta package in R (V.3.6.1) and the 'Meta-Insight' website. RESULTS: Our network meta-analysis showed many varying results according to specific outcomes. The uterine balloon ablation had significantly higher amenorrhoea rates than other techniques in both short (hydrothermal ablation (risk ratio (RR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.37; 0.72), microwave ablation (RR=0.43, 95% CI 0.31; 0.59), first-generation techniques (RR=0.44, 95% CI 0.33; 0.59), endometrial laser intrauterine therapy (RR=0.18, 95% CI 0.10; 0.32) and bipolar radio frequency treatments (RR=0.22, 95% CI 0.15; 0.31)) and long-term follow-up (microwave ablation (RR=0.11, 95% CI 0.01; 0.86), bipolar radio frequency ablation (RR=0.12, 95% CI 0.02; 0.90), first generation (RR=0.12, 95% CI 0.02; 0.90) and endometrial laser intrauterine thermal therapy (RR=0.04, 95% CI 0.01; 0.36)). When calculating efficacy based only on calculated bleeding scores, the highest scores were achieved by cryoablation systems (p-score=0.98). CONCLUSION: Most second-generation EA systems were superior to first-generation systems, and statistical superiority between devices depended on which characteristic was measured (secondary amenorrhoea rate, treatment of AUB, patient satisfaction or treatment of dysmenorrhoea). Although our study was limited by a paucity of data comparing large numbers of devices, we conclude that there is no evidence at this time that any one of the examined second-generation systems is clearly superior to all others.

Meta-analysis of residency program application and acceptance according to sex, race and ethnicity.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate trends in residency program application and acceptance rates according to sex and race and ethnicity. METHODS: We collected data from the Journal of the American Medical Association Graduation Medical Education Reports. We extracted the data for 25 residency programs in the United States from 2005 to 2021 and conducted statistical analyses. RESULTS: Men were most matched for orthopedics (84.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 84.2%-85.1%), and women for oncology (78.7%, 95% CI 78.2%-79.2%). The most matched program was orthopedics for the White subgroup (43.5%, 95% CI 43.2%-43.9%), radiology for the Black subgroup (20%, 95% CI 18.9%-20.9%), general surgery for the Hispanic subgroup (11%, 95% CI 10.7%-11.2%), and internal medicine for the Asian subgroup (35.3%, 95% CI 34.9%-35.6%). CONCLUSION: Match rates for women were lower than those for men in all programs except psychiatry, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, and dermatology. Match rates were significantly lower for Black, Hispanic, and Asian subgroups than the White subgroup in all programs except for internal medicine, with the Asian subgroup being higher. We observed a significant increase in both application and acceptance rates for women and racial and ethnic minorities over the past 40 years.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery vs laparoscopic hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Because vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques both aim to decrease tissue injury and postoperative morbidity and mortality and to improve a patient's quality of life, we sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a hysterectomy by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and compared that with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic diseases. DATA SOURCES: We used Scopus, Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library and searched from database inception to September 1, 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all eligible articles that compared vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy with any conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy technique without robotic assistance for women with benign gynecologic pathology and that included at least 1 of our main outcomes. These outcomes included estimated blood loss (in mL), operation time (in minutes), length of hospital stay (in days), decrease in hemoglobin level (g/dL), visual analog scale pain score on postoperative day 1, opioid analgesic dose required, rate of conversion to another surgical technique, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and requirements for blood transfusion. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Ultimately, 14 studies met our criteria. METHODS: The study quality of the randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane assessment tool, and the quality of the observational studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. We analyzed data using RevMan 5.4.1. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using the mean difference and 95% confidence intervals under the inverse variance analysis method. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using OpenMeta[Analyst] and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were reported. RESULTS: The operative time and length of hospitalization were shorter in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery cohort. We also found lower visual analog scale pain scores, fewer postoperative complications, and fewer blood transfusions in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery group. We found no difference in the estimated blood loss, decrease in hemoglobin levels, analgesic usage, conversion rates, or intraoperative complications. CONCLUSION: When evaluating the latest data, it seems that vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery techniques may have some advantages over conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques.

Response to Dr. Somovilla del Saz's letter to the editor regarding "Risk of all-cause and cardiac-related mortality after vaccination against COVID-19: A meta-analysis of self-controlled case series studies".

This is a response to Dr. Somovilla del Saz's letter to the editor regarding Marchand et al.'s article, "Risk of all-cause and cardiac-related mortality after vaccination against COVID-19: A meta-analysis of self-controlled case series studies." The response is on behalf of all authors clarifying misconceptions about the work.

Risk of all-cause and cardiac-related mortality after vaccination against COVID-19: A meta-analysis of self-controlled case series studies.

Self-controlled case series (SCCS) is a novel study design uniquely equipped to ethically quantify the safety of vaccination. We sought out to perform a meta-analysis on all SCCS assessing mortality associated with COVID-19 vaccination in the immediate post-vaccination period. We included SCCS investigating the safety of COVID-19 vaccination and reporting all-cause and cardiac-related mortality. Three SCCS were located, totaling approximately 750,000 patients. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) revealed no significant association of COVID-19 vaccination with all-cause mortality (HR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.71, 1.10], p = .28). Regarding cardiac-related mortality, the pooled HR suggests that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with an increased risk of cardiac-related mortality (HR = 1.06, 95% CI [1.02, 1.11], p = .007). Subgroup analysis showed that the male gender is significantly associated with an increased incidence of cardiac-related deaths (HR = 1.09, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15], p = .006). In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination may be associated with a small increase in cardiac-related mortality, especially among males. Prospero Prospective Registration Number: CRD42022372256.

Effect of the decision to perform hysteroscopy on asymptomatic patients before undergoing assisted reproduction technologies-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Routine hysteroscopic evaluation before assisted reproductive technology treatment is a novel approach with the potential to reduce assisted reproductive technology failure even in the absence of evidence of uterine pathology. Following the publication of several relatively high-quality trials on this topic, we sought to determine if this practice is beneficial. DATA SOURCES: We searched Web of Science, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from each database's inception until May 31, 2022 with our search strategy, attempting to locate all randomized controlled trials assessing the use of hysteroscopy in otherwise asymptomatic women undergoing assisted reproductive technology. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included only randomized controlled trials that included at least one of our selected outcomes, and we excluded any studies with suspicion of pathology before the time of hysteroscopy, other than knowledge of the patient's infertility. We included all the aforementioned studies regardless of procedures or modifications performed as a result of hysteroscopic findings. Our initial search yielded 1802 results, which were reduced to 1421 after removal of duplicates. Ultimately, 11 studies were found to meet our criteria and were included in our quantitative synthesis. METHODS: We used ReviewManager software, version 5.4.1 to analyze the data, which we imported after manually gathering from the 11 studies. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were imported as standard deviations. Pooled analysis was described as a mean difference, relative to 95 % confidence interval in cases of continuous data. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. In homogeneous outcomes, we used a fixed-effects model, and in heterogeneous outcomes we used a random-effects model. RESULTS: Our results showed that hysteroscopy was associated with significant improvement in the clinical pregnancy rate (risk ratio, 1.27 [1.11-1.45]; P<.001). We found no differences between the hysteroscopy group and the control group in live birth rate (risk ratio, 1.26 [0.99-1.59]; P=.06), miscarriage rate (risk ratio, 0.99 [0.81-1.19]; P=.88), fertilization rate (risk ratio, 1.01 [0.93-1.09]; P=.88), incidence of multiple gestations (risk ratio, 1.29 [0.98-1.71]; P=.07), number of embryos transferred (mean difference, 0.04 [-0.18 to 0.26]; P=.73), chemical pregnancy rate (risk ratio, 1.01 [0.86-1.17]; P=.93), and number of oocytes retrieved (mean difference, 0.44 [-0.11 to 0.98]; P=.11). CONCLUSION: We observed an improvement in the clinical pregnancy rate, but no significant improvement in the live birth rate with routine hysteroscopy before assisted reproductive technology treatment. We believe this does not represent sufficient evidence to recommend routine hysteroscopy for otherwise asymptomatic patients before assisted reproductive technology treatment at this time.

Vaginal Hysterectomy Compared With Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in Benign Gynecologic Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical efficacy outcomes and complications after laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy performed for benign gynecologic conditions. DATA SOURCES: We performed an online search in major databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov , and the Cochrane Library from 2000 until February 28, 2023. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy in benign gynecologic conditions. We located 3,249 articles. After reviewing titles and abstracts, we identified 32 articles that were eligible for full-text screening. We excluded nine articles as not-RCT or not comparing vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy. Twenty-three articles were included in the final systematic review, with 22 articles included in the meta-analysis. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Twenty-three eligible RCTs included a total population of 2,408, with 1,105 in the vaginal hysterectomy group and 1,303 in the laparoscopic hysterectomy group. Blood loss and postoperative urinary tract infection rates were lower in the vaginal hysterectomy group than in the laparoscopic hysterectomy group (mean difference -68, 95% CI -104.29 to -31.7, P <.01, I2 =95% and odds ratio 1.73, 95% CI 0.92-3.26, P =.03, I2 =0%, respectively). Vaginal hysterectomy was associated with less total operative time, less recovery time, and greater postoperative pain on the day of surgery. Other complications, including conversion to laparotomy, visceral organ damage, or wound dehiscence, were uncommon. Because of insufficient data, we were not able to stratify by surgical indication. CONCLUSION: Vaginal hysterectomy had a shorter total operative time and recovery time but greater postoperative pain on day of surgery compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42023338538.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.

Recent evidence has shown an increase in recurrence and a decrease in overall survival in patients treated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) open techniques (ORH). In addition, several high quality trials were recently published regarding the laparoscopic treatment of early stage cervical cancer. We sought out to reassess the recurrence rates, overall survival, complications and outcomes associated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) techniques against open techniques (ORH) when robotic assisted techniques were excluded. We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.Gov and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials and observational studies. We included all studies that compared with early stage cervical cancer receiving LRH compared with ORH. We included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort trials. We included studies that included LRH and RRH as long as data was available to separate the two arms. We excluded studies that combined LRH and RRH without supplying data to differentiate. Of 1244 total studies, we used a manual three step screening process. Sixty studies ultimately met our criteria. We performed this review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We analyzed continuous data using mean difference (MD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous data were analyzed using odds ratio (OR) and a 95% CI. Review Manager and Endnote software were utilized in the synthesis. We found that when excluding RRH, the was no significant difference regarding 5-year overall Survival (OR = 1.24 [0.94, 1.64], (P = 0.12), disease free survival (OR = 1.00 [0.80, 1.26], (P = 0.98), recurrence (OR = 1.01 [0.81, 1.25], (P = 0.95), or intraoperative complications (OR = 1.38 [0.94, 2.04], (P = 0.10). LRH was statistically better than ORH in terms of estimated blood loss (MD = - 325.55 [- 386.16, - 264.94] (P < 0.001), blood transfusion rate (OR = 0.28 [0.14, 0.55], (P = 0.002), postoperative complication rate (OR = 0.70 [0.55, 0.90], (P = 0.005), and length of hospital stay (MD = - 3.64[- 4.27, - 3.01], (P < 0.001). ORH was superior in terms of operating time (MD = 20.48 [8.62, 32.35], (P = 0.007) and number of resected lymph nodes (MD = - 2.80 [- 4.35, - 1.24], (P = 0.004). The previously seen increase recurrence and decrease in survival is not seen in LRH when robotic assisted techniques are included and all new high quality is considered. LRH is also associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower complication rate.Prospero Prospective Registration Number: CRD42022267138.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy vs. Robotic assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Following compelling evidence that open techniques may be related to better survival and disease free survival rates, many gynecologic oncologists in the US have turned away from performing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. While this may be warranted as a safety concern, there is little high-quality data on the head-to-head comparison of LRH and RRH and therefore little evidence to answer the question of where this decrease in patient survival is originating from. In our systematic review, we aimed to compare the complications and outcomes of LRH against those of RRH. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from database inception until February 1st, 2022. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: A total of 676 studies were identified and screened through a manual three-step process. Ultimately 33 studies were included in our final analysis. We included all studies that compared LRH and RRH and included at least one of our selected outcomes. We included retrospective cohorts, prospective cohorts, case-control, and randomized clinical trials. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Data was independently extracted manually by multiple observers and the analysis was performed using Review Manager Software. PRISMA guidelines were followed. We analyzed homogenous data using a fixed-effects model, while a random-effects model was used for heterogeneous outcomes. We found that following RRH, women had a decreased hospital stay (MD = 0.80[0.38,1.21],(P < 0.002). We found no differences in estimated blood loss (MD = 35.24[-0.40,70.89],(P = 0.05), blood transfusion rate ((OR = 1.32[0.86,2.02],(P = 0.20), rate of post-operative complications (OR = 0.84[0.60,1.17],(P = 0.30), the operative time (MD = 6.01[-4.64,16.66],(P = 0.27), number of resected lymph node (MD = -1.22[-3.28,0.84],(P = 0.25) intraoperative complications (OR = 0.78[0.51,1.19],(P = 0.25), five-year overall survival (OR = 1.37[0.51,3.69],(P = 0.53), lifetime disease free survival (OR = 0.89[0.59,1.32],(P = 0.55), intraoperative and postoperative mortality (within 30 days) (OR = 1.30[0.66,2.54],(P = 0.44), and recurrence (OR = 1.14[0.79,1.64],(P = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: RRH seems to result in the patient leaving the hospital sooner after surgery. We were unable to find any differences in our ten other outcomes related to complications or efficacy. These findings suggest that the decreased survival seen in minimally invasive RH in previous studies could be due to factors inherent to both LRH and RRH. PROSPERO PROSPECTIVE REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022273727.

Effect of a 20% intravenous fat emulsion therapy on pregnancy outcomes in women with RPL or RIF undergoing IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy a 20% intravenous fat emulsion therapy in women suffering from recurrent pregnancy loss or recurrent implantation failure (RPL/RIF) who are undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Materials and Methods: We searched Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and Scopus using relevant keywords during February 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the therapy versus placebo or no intervention in women suffering from RPL/RIF and undergoing IVF/ICSI. Results: We included five RCTs with 840 patients. The intravenous fat emulsion therapy was significantly effective in increasing clinical pregnancy rates compared to the control group (risk ratios [RR] = 1.48, 95% confidence intervals [CI] [1.23, 1.79], P < 0.001). Furthermore, ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates were significantly higher with 20% intravenous fat emulsion therapy RR = 1.71, 95% CI [1.27, 2.32], P = 0.005 and RR = 1.85, 95% CI [1.44, 2.38], P < 0.001. Despite the statistically significant differences, the quality of evidence was only considered moderate, and this was primarily due to high risk of bias in the included RCTs. Conclusion: Our review provides a moderate level of evidence that intravenous fat emulsion therapy is effective in improving reproductive outcomes among women with RPL/RIF performing IVF/ICSI techniques. Further, investigation is required to ascertain optimal dosage and timing of administration. Relevance for Patients: Women suffering from RPL or RIF may wish to consider discussing with their reproductive endocrinologist the addition of a 20% fat emulsion therapy to planned IVF or ICSI cycles, which may improve outcomes.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is associated with increased pregnancy complications. Despite effective vaccination strategies for the general population, the evidence on the safety and efficacy of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations in pregnancy is limited due to a lack of well-powered studies. The present study compares the maternal, neonatal, and immunological outcomes between vaccinated pregnant and unvaccinated pregnant women using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. We included 37 studies with a total of 141,107 pregnant women (36.8% vaccinated) spread across all outcomes. Our evidence indicates a higher rate of cesarean section in the 1898 vaccinated pregnant women compared to the 6180 women who did not receive vaccination (OR = 1.20, CI = (1.05, 1.38), P = 0.007, I2 = 45%). Regarding immunological outcomes, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy or postpartum was significantly reduced in 6820 vaccinated pregnant women compared to 17,010 unvaccinated pregnant women (OR = 0.25, CI = 0.13-0.48, P < 0.0001, I2 = 61%), as evident from qualitative assessment indicating significantly higher postpartum antibody titers compared to that observed in both unvaccinated mothers and mothers who have recently recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our analysis represents high quality evidence showing that COVID-19 vaccination effectively raises antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2. This may confer protection against infection during pregnancy and the postpartum period. In addition to being protective against SARS-CoV-2, the vaccine was associated with decreased odds of preterm delivery. Furthermore, COVID-19 vaccination may also be associated with higher odds of cesarean section.