Prospective Study Investigating Change in Carboxyhemoglobin Blood Level During Operative Hysteroscopy.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the use of radiofrequency energy during resectoscopy leads to increases in patient blood levels of carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) and investigate procedural variables associated with these elevations. DESIGN: A prospective cross-sectional study of 40 subjects undergoing a hysteroscopic procedure using bipolar radiofrequency energy. SETTING, PATIENTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: The study was conducted at an ambulatory surgery center. Procedures for uterine leiomyoma, septa, products of conception, or a combination of these pathologies were included. We measured blood COHb levels before and immediately after the surgery. Abnormal postoperative COHb level was defined as an increase of plasma COHb ≥3.0%. All patients with abnormal postoperative levels were contacted and screened for carbon monoxide toxicity symptoms. Summary statistics included frequency for categorical variables and averages for continuous variables. p values were reported without modification. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 17.5% of subjects met the criteria for abnormal postoperative COHb levels. None of these subjects reported symptoms of carbon monoxide toxicity. One subject with an elevated postoperative COHb level had intraoperative hemodynamic changes possibly related to COHb elevation. An abnormal postoperative COHb level was associated with a higher fluid deficit (p = .024) and greater myoma volume (p = .04). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that systemic absorption of carbon monoxide is a reproducible phenomenon in hysteroscopic resections using bipolar diathermy. Greater absorption is associated with a higher fluid deficit and greater myoma volume. Although none of the subjects with an abnormal increase screened positive for symptoms in the postoperative setting and only 1 experienced hemodynamic changes intraoperatively, our study looked at a healthy and young patient population. More research is needed on the safety of this COHb exposure in patients with medical comorbidities. Special consideration should be given to the possibility of carbon monoxide absorption and the uncertain long-term effects when planning extensive hysteroscopic resections.

#MIGS: Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery Tag Ontology Project.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The creation of an ontology may enable providers to more definitively engage the public in evidence-based and meaningful discussions about women's health. The goal of this study is to review and analyze the current social media status of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) on Twitter and create a tag ontology. DESIGN: Tag ontologies are lists of hashtags used to standardize searches within a social media platform. We examined trending terms and influencers on Twitter on the basis of the keyword "MIGS." We then compiled a list of top hashtags on the basis of the number of tweets from January 2018 to August 2020. Terms were identified with manual Twitter queries and Symplur Signals and selected for inclusion in the ontology on the basis of frequency of use and clinical relevance. The ontology was then categorized by pelvic disease and intervention and reviewed/supplemented by key social media influencers for inclusivity. SETTING: N/A PATIENTS: N/A INTERVENTIONS: N/A MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 4550 tweets and 1836 users while searching #MIGS in August 2020. Twenty-nine terms were included in our ontology, which were then subcategorized into 6 groups (uterine pathology, adnexal pathology, menstruation, pelvic pathology, pelvic pain, and other). CONCLUSION: Our study has created an ontology specific to the MIGS on the basis of Twitter usage over the last 2 years that may facilitate more effective social media communication.

Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether quality of peer review and reviewer recommendation differ based on reviewer subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology and to determine the role of experience on reviewer recommendation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of reviews submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology between January 2010 and December 2014. Subspecialties were determined based on classification terms selected by each reviewer and included all major obstetrics and gynecology subspecialties, general obstetrics and gynecology, and nonobstetrics and gynecology categories. Review quality (graded on a 5-point Likert scale by the journal's editors) and reviewer recommendation of "reject" were compared across subspecialties using χ, analysis of variance, and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 20,027 reviews from 1,889 individual reviewers. Reviewers with family planning subspecialty provided higher-quality peer reviews compared with reviewers with gynecology only, reproductive endocrinology and infertility, gynecologic oncology, and general obstetrics and gynecology specialties (3.61±0.75 compared with 3.44±0.78, 3.42±0.72, 3.35±0.75, and 3.32±0.81, respectively, P<.05). Reviewers with gynecology-only subspecialty recommended rejection more often compared with reviewers with a nonobstetrics and gynecology subspecialty (57.7% compared with 38.7%, P<.05). Editorial Board members recommended rejection more often than new reviewers (68.0% compared with 41.5%, P<.05). Increased adjusted odds of manuscript rejection recommendation were associated with reproductive endocrinology, female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, and gynecology-only reviewer subspecialty (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23 [1.07-1.41], 1.21 [1.05-1.39], and 1.11 [1.02-1.20]). Manuscript rejection recommendation rate was also increased for reviewers who had completed the highest quintile of peer reviews (greater than 195) compared with the lowest quintile (one to seven) (adjusted OR 2.85 [2.60-3.12]). CONCLUSION: Peer review quality differs based on obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty. Obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty and reviewer experience have implications for manuscript rejection recommendation. Reviewer assignment is pivotal to maintaining a rigorous manuscript selection process.