Incidence and etiology of pelvic floor dysfunction and mode of delivery: an overview.

Elective cesarean section at patient request is becoming common place. Women are requesting the intervention for preservation of the pelvic floor, but there is conflicting evidence to suggest that this mode of delivery has such benefits. The risks vs. benefits of both vaginal delivery and cesarean section need to be well understood before deciding on a surgical delivery. This review outlines the current available evidence of the risks and benefits associated with vaginal delivery and elective cesarean section and the incidence and mechanisms of injury that lead to pelvic floor dysfunction. As in most surgical conditions, a better understanding of causality of pelvic floor dysfunction may help treatment effectiveness.

Rupture of a caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Caesarean scar pregnancy is an uncommon form of ectopic pregnancy characterized by implantation into the site of a caesarean scar. Common clinical features include vaginal bleeding and abdominal pain; however, a significant proportion of cases are asymptomatic. The primary diagnostic modality is transvaginal ultrasound. There is no current consensus on best-practice management. CASE PRESENTATION: A 36-year-old woman, G7P2, presented to an early-pregnancy service with vaginal spotting and an ultrasound scan demonstrating a live caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy at 8 + 5 weeks' gestation. On examination she was hemodynamically stable with a soft abdomen. She was advised to have dilation and curettage (D&C) under ultrasound guidance; however, she was concerned that she might require more extensive surgery, such as a hysterectomy and so requested non-surgical management. On day 1 she underwent ultrasound-guided embryocide with lignocaine followed by inpatient multi-dose systemic methotrexate. Her beta-human gonadotrophic hormone level decreased. Repeat ultrasound on day 18 demonstrated a persistent caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy with increased vascularity, and so uterine artery embolization (UAE) was performed with a view to D&C the following day. This plan was altered to expectant management with ongoing follow-up by a different clinician who had had previous success with UAE alone. On day 35 the patient presented with life-threatening vaginal bleeding that required an emergency total abdominal hysterectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Caesarean scar pregnancies are uncommon. Multiple treatment strategies have been employed, with variable degrees of success. Further research into risk stratification and management are needed to guide clinician and patient decision making.

Willingness of pregnant women and clinicians to participate in a hypothetical randomised controlled trial comparing vaginal delivery and elective caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Elective caesarean section is controversial in the absence of compelling evidence of the relative benefits and harms compared with vaginal delivery. A randomised trial of the two procedures to compare outcomes for women and babies would provide the best quality scientific evidence to confirm this debate but it is not known whether such a trial would be feasible. AIMS: To ascertain the proportion of primiparas and clinicians who would participate in a hypothetical randomised controlled trial comparing vaginal delivery with elective caesarean section. METHODS: Pregnant women (mean 22 weeks gestation) recruited from public and private antenatal clinics at a major tertiary referral centre were interviewed to ascertain their willingness to participate in a hypothetical randomised controlled trial. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to midwives, obstetricians, urogynaecologists and colorectal surgeons, and results between groups were compared. RESULTS: One hundred pregnant women, 84 midwives, 166 obstetricians, 12 urogynaecologists and 87 colorectal surgeons participated. Only 14% (95% confidence interval (CI), 8-22) of pregnant women and 31% (95% CI, 26-36) of clinicians indicated that they would participate in a randomised controlled trial. CONCLUSIONS: A randomised controlled trial comparing vaginal delivery and elective caesarean section may not be feasible due to low levels of willingness to participate, particularly among pregnant women.

A novel cause of postmenopausal bleeding in an immunosuppressed patient.

Malakoplakia is a rare histiocytic disease first described in 1902 by Michaelis and Gutmann. It is associated with host immunocompromise including chronic inflammatory conditions, infectious conditions or malnutrition. Here, we report the case of uterine malakoplakia as a rare cause of postmenopausal bleeding in an immunocompromised patient.

Clinical case presentation: life threatening Group A sepsis secondary to HyCoSy.

Hysterosalpingo contrast sonography (HyCoSy) is a commonly performed procedure in the investigation of infertility. Infection is an uncommon complication of this procedure. Should it occur, it is generally mild and amenable to outpatient treatment with oral antibiotics. We present a case of an immunosuppressed woman who underwent HyCoSy for investigation of secondary infertility and developed life-threatening sepsis with Group A streptococcus.

Paravaginal defects: a comparison of clinical examination and 2D/3D ultrasound imaging.

BACKGROUND: Paravaginal defects are often assumed to be the underlying anatomical abnormality in anterior compartment descent. Neither clinical examination nor ultrasound assessment are generally accepted diagnostic modalities. AIMS: To compare clinical examination and translabial 3D ultrasound in the detection of such defects. METHODS: Fifty-nine women without previous prolapse or incontinence surgery were seen prospectively. Clinical and ultrasound assessments were carried out in blinded fashion. 3D translabial ultrasound was undertaken after voiding and supine. Volumes were acquired at rest, on Valsalva and on levator contraction. Loss of paravaginal support ('tenting') in the axial plane was taken to signify paravaginal defects. RESULTS: Paravaginal defects were reported clinically in 14 cases on the left (24%), 19 times on the right (32%). Two 3D ultrasound examinations did not yield satisfactory volumes, leaving 57 for analysis. Neither midsagittal nor coronal views yielded data that correlated with clinical assessments. In the axial plane there was absence of tenting at rest in 32/57 (57%) patients, but this did not correlate with clinical findings. Loss of tenting on Valsalva was observed less often (21/57, 37%) and was weakly associated with clinically observed lateral defects (P = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic floor ultrasound in midsagittal, axial or coronal planes does not correlate well with clinical assessment for paravaginal defects. This could be due to poor clinical assessment technique or limitations of the ultrasound method. On the other hand, paravaginal defects may be uncommon or clinically irrelevant. On present knowledge, the paravaginal defect has to be regarded as an unproven concept.