Repair of uterine rupture following vaginal delivery: A comparison between minimally invasive and open repair.

OBJECTIVE: To compare operative data and patient satisfaction between open and laparoscopic surgery for postpartum-diagnosed uterine rupture. METHODS: In this questionnaire-based cohort study, the authors collected all cases of postpartum-diagnosed uterine rupture after vaginal delivery between 2016 and 2020 in a single academic tertiary center. The cohort was divided according to surgical method of repair, and demographic, clinical, operative and postoperative data were collected and compared between groups. A phone questionnaire on various satisfaction domains was conducted and satisfaction rates were compared between groups. RESULTS: Eight cases of uterine rupture following vaginal delivery were treated by laparoscopy and eight were treated by laparotomy. The median operative time was 103 min (interquartile range [IQR], 86.3-129.0 min) for the laparoscopy group and 61 min (IQR, 59.0-75.0 min) for the laparotomy group (P = 0.04). Blood transfusion was required in 25% of women who underwent laparoscopy, as compared with 88% of women who underwent laparotomy (P = 0.01 < 0.05). Median hospitalization time was 3 days (IQR, 3-4 days) in the laparoscopy group and 4 days (IQR, 4-4 days) in the laparotomy group (P = 0.2). Overall satisfaction, satisfaction from recovery, satisfaction from scars, satisfaction from ability to care for the neonate, and postoperative pain and mood were all improved in the laparoscopy group, as compared with the laparotomy group. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgery is a viable surgical option for patients with uterine rupture diagnosed after vaginal delivery and may result in better patient recovery and satisfaction.

Urinary tract injuries during cesarean delivery: long-term outcome and management.

OBJECTIVE: Urinary tract injury during cesarean delivery is a rare but severe complication. Due to the high prevalence of cesarean delivery, this injury may pose a high burden of morbidity. We reviewed the cases of lower urinary tract injuries identified during cesarean delivery in a tertiary medical center and identified diagnosis and treatment methods, as well as short and long-term outcomes, to establish a protocol of care for such cases. METHODS: We included women with urinary tract injury during cesarean delivery between 2004 and 2018. The cases were identified according to ICD-9 codes, as well as free text in the medical report and discharge letter. Data were collected retrospectively. Telephone interviews were conducted to obtain additional data regarding long-term outcomes. RESULTS: In14 years, a total of 17,794 cesarean deliveries were performed at our institution (17.5% of all deliveries), 14 cases of bladder injury, and 11 cases of ureteral injury were identified featuring an incidence of 0.08 and 0.06%, respectively. All bladder injuries were diagnosed and repaired intra-operatively. Six (55%) cases of ureteral injury were diagnosed in the post-operative period, and 3 of these patients required further surgery for definitive treatment. None of the patients suffered long-term adverse effects. Most bladder injuries occurred in women with previous cesarean delivery in the presence of abdominal adhesions. In contrast, most ureteral injuries occurred in women with emergency cesarean delivery during the second stage of labor, and were accompanied by an extension of the uterine incision. All women had normal kidney function in follow up and did not suffer from long term sequelae. CONCLUSION: Urinary tract injury is an uncommon complication of cesarean delivery. A high index of suspicion is recommended to avoid late diagnosis and complications. We propose a comprehensive protocol for the management of these injuries.

Repeat Kidney Transplant in a Patient With a Double Inferior Vena Cava and Difficult Venous Access: A Case Report.

Many obstacles may complicate renal transplant, the preferred treatment for end-stage renal disease. Anatomic anomalies are of special importance during surgery. Double inferior vena cava is a rare anomaly reported in 0.2% to 3% of the population and may complicate renal transplant in certain cases. We present a case of a 29-year-old man with end-stage renal disease who was scheduled for repeat kidney renal transplant from a living related donor. His transplant posed many challenges to the transplant team. These included (1) difficult access for dialysis, which required transhepatic insertion of a dialysis catheter, (2) anomalous inferior vena cava anatomy with a double inferior vena cava, (3) a blocked right inferior vena cava, and (4) a small blocked bridging vein connecting the right inferior vena cava to an additional left inferior vena cava. A stent was inserted into the bridging vein to allow venous drainage from the graft. During the transplant procedure, the donated kidney was transplanted into the left iliac fossa and anastomosed to the left external iliac vein. The surgery was successful, without major operative or postoperative complications. The patient was discharged with normal renal function and enjoys normal renal function 6 months after surgery. This case emphasizes the importance of pretransplant evaluation and preparation and the need for high index of suspicion for anatomic variants in donors and recipients.