See-and-treat in-office hysteroscopy versus operative hysteroscopy for the treatment of retained products of conception: A retrospective study.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of in-office hysteroscopy with a see-and-treat approach with that of operative hysteroscopy for the treatment of retained products of conception (RPOC). METHODS: We retrospectively identified all consecutive patients who underwent hysteroscopic treatment of RPOC between 2015 and 2019. We excluded patients with RPOC larger than 2 cm at preoperative transvaginal ultrasounds. Between 2015 and 2017, all hysteroscopic removals of RPOC were performed by operative hysteroscopy. Between 2018 and 2019, all cases of RPOC less than 2 cm in size were hysteroscopically removed by the see-and-treat approach in the office setting. Sociodemographic, clinical, and procedure characteristics along with complications were retrieved from medical records. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2019, 119 women underwent hysteroscopic removal of RPOC equal to or smaller than 2 cm: 53 patients by in-office hysteroscopy, and 66 by operative hysteroscopy. The two groups were similar in preoperative characteristics. Although the time required to complete the RPOC removal was similar, the total procedure and assistant time were significantly higher in the operative hysteroscopy group (p < 0.001). Moreover, operative hysteroscopy was associated with a higher proportion of cases complicated by excessive bleeding, cervical tear, or uterine perforation (p = 0.016). Failure to complete the procedure was similarly reported in the two groups (p = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: In-office hysteroscopy with the see-and-treat approach for RPOC equal to or smaller than 2 cm appears as effective as operative hysteroscopy, but safer. In-office hysteroscopy may be considered the first choice for treating RPOC equal to or smaller than 2 cm.

MUM-1 immunohistochemistry has high accuracy and reliability in the diagnosis of chronic endometritis: a multi-centre comparative study with CD-138 immunostaining.

PURPOSE: The current gold standard for chronic endometritis (CE) diagnosis is immunohistochemistry (IHC) for CD-138. However, IHC for CD-138 is not exempt from diagnostic limitations. The aim of our study was to evaluate the reliability and accuracy of MUM-1 IHC, as compared with CD-138. METHODS: This is a multi-centre, retrospective, observational study, which included three tertiary hysteroscopic centres in university teaching hospitals. One hundred ninety-three consecutive women of reproductive age were referred to our hysteroscopy services due to infertility, recurrent miscarriage, abnormal uterine bleeding, endometrial polyps or myomas. All women underwent hysteroscopy plus endometrial biopsy. Endometrial samples were analysed through histology, CD138 and MUM-1 IHC. The primary outcome was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MUM-1 IHC for CE, as compared with CD-138 IHC. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of CD-138 and MUM-1 IHC were respectively 89.13%, 79.59% versus 93.48% and 85.03%. The overall diagnostic accuracy of MUM-1 and CD-138 IHC were similar (AUC = 0.893 vs AUC = 0.844). The intercorrelation coefficient for single measurements was high between the two techniques (ICC = 0.831, 0.761-0.881 95%CI). However, among CE positive women, MUM-1 allowed the identification of higher number of plasma cells/hpf than CD-138 (6.50 [SD 4.80] vs 5.05 [SD 3.37]; p = 0.017). Additionally, MUM-1 showed a higher inter-observer agreement as compared to CD-138. CONCLUSION: IHC for MUM-1 and CD-138 showed a similar accuracy for detecting endometrial stromal plasma cells. Notably, MUM-1 showed higher reliability in the paired comparison of the individual samples than CD-138. Thus, MUM-1 may represent a novel, promising add-on technique for the diagnosis of CE.

Endometrial polyps: diagnosis and treatment options - a review of literature.

INTRODUCTION AND AIM: Endometrial polyps (EPs) are a common gynecologic condition, associated with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), infertility, and premalignant and malignant conditions. Technologies for diagnosis and treatment of EPs are constantly evolving. We aim to provide an updated review on diagnosis and management options for patients with EPs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted an electronic search in databases including MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register and others. We included 68 publications regarding EPs, their clinical burden, diagnostic modalities, treatment options and new technologies. RESULTS: Transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) is the common modality for EP detection and color doppler increases its diagnostic accuracy. Dilation and curettage (D&C) should be avoided for diagnosis and treatment of EPs. Hysteroscopy shows high diagnostic value in EPs and allows for both histological diagnosis and effective treatment. Office hysteroscopy and see and treat hysteroscopy without anesthesia is feasible and safe for EP diagnosis and treatment, gaining more trained surgeons globally. Effective and safe technological tools for EP resection include Laser, resectoscopes, morcellators, MyoSure, Truclear and scissors\graspers. CONCLUSIONS: EPs are safely and effectively diagnosed and treated with the hysteroscopic tools reviewed in this article. More research is needed to define the best treatment modality.

Risk of Mesh Erosion after Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair with or without Concomitant Vaginal Hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Hysterectomy is common in the management of symptomatic uterine prolapse. Vaginal wall repair is often necessary, for which vaginal mesh remains a popular option. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the risk of mesh erosion following mesh-augmented vaginal prolapse repair, with or without concomitant vaginal hysterectomy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort comprised 70 women who underwent vaginal mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repair from 2007 to 2010. Of the participants, 36 (51.4%) had a vaginal hysterectomy concomitant to the anterior and/or posterior vaginal mesh repair (hysterectomy group) and 34 (48.6%) underwent mesh repair without vaginal hysterectomy (no hysterectomy group). RESULTS: There were no inter-group differences in age, parity, menopausal state, hormonal use, or presenting symptoms. Previous prolapse repair surgery was much more common in the no hysterectomy group (29.4% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.01). Eleven patients (32.3%) in the no hysterectomy group had previously undergone hysterectomy. Anterior mesh repair was performed in 77.7% and 67.6% of hysterectomy and no hysterectomy patients, respectively. Posterior mesh repair was performed in 27.7% and 44.1%, respectively. One patient in the hysterectomy group underwent immediate removal of mesh due to infection. Surgically treated mesh erosion (limited local excision) occurred in three patients (8.3%) in the hysterectomy group (3, 16, and 18 months following surgery) and in two patients (5.8%) in the no hysterectomy group at 6 months following surgery (P = 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal mesh-augmentation concomitant with vaginal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse repair does not carry an increased risk of erosion.

Comparison of maternal outcomes from primary cesarean section during the second compared with first stage of labor by indication for the operation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare maternal outcomes when cesarean sections were performed in the second stage of labor to those performed in the first stage of labor by indication for the operation. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort (n=383) of term parturient women who underwent primary cesarean section during active labor. Cases were drawn from the Obstetrics Department, E. Wolfson Medical Center, a tertiary health care university facility, during a 24 month period. All cases were term singleton pregnancies in vertex presentation following unremarkable pregnancy. Maternal morbidity was assessed. RESULTS: A significantly higher rate of unintentional uterine incision extensions was observed in cesarean sections performed during second stage compared to first stage (17.1% vs. 4.6%, p=0.001). It was higher whenever (at first or second stage) the fetal head was pushed (20.0% vs. 5.4%, p=0.0024). Unintentional uterine incision extensions were significantly more frequent when the cesarean section was performed for non-progressive labor during the second stage compared to first stage (16.1% vs. 3.6%, p=0.0052). Uterine atonia was more frequent among parturient women who underwent cesarean section for non-progressive labor during the first stage compared to second stage (16.7% vs. 4.8%, p=0.0382). CONCLUSION: Uterine atony during first stage cesarean section and unintentional uterine incision extensions during second stage cesarean section were significantly more frequent when the operation was performed for non-progressive labor.