Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus systemic progestins in management of endometrial hyperplasia: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Endometrial hyperplasia is associated with varying risk of endometrial cancer. The aim of this review is to assess effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), compared to systemic progestins, in management of endometrial hyperplasia MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search on studies comparing LNG-IUS to systemic progestins was conducted on Scopus, Web of science, Cochrane, PubMed and Embase databases, from the date of inception to September 20th, 2020. Studies were excluded if they were non-comparative, animal studies, review articles, case reports, case series, and conference papers. Primary outcomes include resolution/regression rate, failure rate, and hysterectomy rate. Analysis was pooled using random effect model and was expressed as pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Quality assessment was performed using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessment tool. MOGGE Meta-analysis Matrix was used to illustrate multiple subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Out of 341 studies retrieved from literature search, 12 were eligible. LNG-IUS yielded significantly higher resolution/regression rate (91.3% vs 68.6%, OR 3.42, 95% CI 1.86-6.30). Failure and hysterectomy rates were significantly lower in LNG-IUS group compared to systemic progestins' group (19.2% vs. 32.3%, OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20-0.57 and 9.3% vs. 24.1%, OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.29-0.57, respectively). Subgroup analysis of studies including complex hyperplasia only did not show significant difference in resolution/regression rate was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: LNG-IUS is associated with high success rate in management of women with endometrial hyperplasia. However, specific effectiveness of LNG-IUS on more advanced histologic subtypes is less studied.

Middle-East OBGYN graduate education (MOGGE) foundation practice guidelines: use of labor charts in management of labor. Practice guideline no. 04-O-21.

Since the 50 s of the last century, labor charts have been proposed and appraised as a tool to diagnose labor abnormalities and guide decision-making. The partogram, the most widely adopted form of labor charts, has been endorsed by the world health organization (WHO) since 1994. Nevertheless, recent studies and systematic reviews did not support clinical significance of application of the WHO partogram. These results have led to further studies that investigate modifications to the structure of the partogram, or more recently, to reconstruct new labor charts to improve their clinical efficacy. This guideline appraises current evidence on use of labor charts in management of labor specially in low-resource settings.

Placenta accreta risk-antepartum score in predicting clinical outcomes of placenta accreta spectrum: A multicenter validation study.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the use of placenta accreta risk-antepartum (PAR-A) score as a predictive tool of clinical outcomes of placenta accreta spectrum (PAS). METHODS: This is a prospective study, conducted in six PAS specialized centers in six different countries. The study was conducted between October 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021. Women who were provisionally diagnosed with PAS during pregnancy were considered eligible. A machine-learning-based PAR-A score was calculated. Diagnostic performance of the PAR-A score was evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic curve, for perioperative massive blood loss and admission to intensive care unit (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04525001). RESULTS: Of 97 eligible women, 86 were included. PAS-associated massive blood loss occurred in 10 patients (11.63%). Median PAR-A scores of massive blood loss in the current cohort were 8.9 (interquartile range 6.9-14.1). In predicting massive blood loss, the area under the curve of PAR-A scores was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.95), which was not significantly different from the original cohort (P = 0.2). PAR-A score prediction of intensive care unit admission was slightly higher compared with the original cohort (0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.95; P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: PAR-A score is a novel scoring system of PAS outcomes, which showed external validity based on current data.

Prognostic value of systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To appraise clinical outcomes of systematic lymphadenectomy in women with ovarian cancer based on stage, control group and type of chemotherapy. STUDY DESIGN: A literature search was conducted on SCOPUS, PUBMED, COCHRANE, MEDLINE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases. All comparative studies that assess outcomes of systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with ovarian cancer were eligible. Overall survival was analyzed by pooling log hazard ratio (HR) and standard error of multivariable Cox regression models. MOGGE Meta-analysis Matrix is a novel illustration tool that was used to demonstrate multiple subgroup analyses of included studies. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were eligible. Systematic lymphadenectomy was associated with better overall survival, that was close to significance, compared to control group (HR 0.93, 95 %CI 0.86-1.00). Among women treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, overall survival improved in women with stage IIB-IV who underwent systematic lymphadenectomy (HR 0.91, 95 %CI 0.84-0.99) and was most significant among patients with stage III to IV (HR 0.85, 95 %CI 0.73-0.99). Systematic lymphadenectomy did not improve survival in women who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.97, 95 %CI 0.73-1.29). Systematic lymphadenectomy was associated with improved progress-free survival compared to control group (HR 0.88, 95 %CI 0.79-0.99). CONCLUSION: Although data from clinical trials do not support role of systematic lymphadenectomy in advanced ovarian cancer, overall data conveys stage-specific survival benefit. Further clinical trials may be warranted to assess substage survival outcomes in women with advanced stages.

High-intensity focused ultrasound in management of placenta accreta spectrum: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is a non-invasive procedure that has been studied in the management of placenta accreta spectrum (PAS). OBJECTIVE: To appraise HIFU in the management of PAS and highlight the restrictions on converting uterus-preserving studies into evidence-based practice. SEARCH STRATEGY: A search on Scopus, Cochrane, PubMed and Web of Science was conducted from date of inception to January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies on using HIFU in the management of PAS were eligible. Review articles, conference papers, and case reports were excluded. DATA COLLECTION: A standardized sheet was used to abstract data from eligible studies. CON-PAS registry was used to include studies on other conservative modalities. RESULTS: Four studies were eligible (399 patients). Average residual placental volume was 61.74 cm3 (6.01-339 cm3 ). Treatment was successful in all patients. Normal menstruation recovered after 48.8 days (15-150 days). No major complications were encountered. Sixty-one studies were retrieved from the CON-PAS registry; uterine artery embolization (23 studies), balloon placement (15 studies), compression sutures (10 studies), placenta in situ (7 studies), and uterine resection (6 studies) were successful in 83.7%, 92.9%, 87.9%, 85.2%, and 79.3% of cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: HIFU may fit certain clinical situations in the management of PAS. A global research strategy is recommended to incorporate conservative approaches within a comprehensive management protocol.