Surgery versus physiotherapy for stress urinary incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Physiotherapy involving pelvic-floor muscle training is advocated as first-line treatment for stress urinary incontinence; midurethral-sling surgery is generally recommended when physiotherapy is unsuccessful. Data are lacking from randomized trials comparing these two options as initial therapy. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized trial to compare physiotherapy and midurethral-sling surgery in women with stress urinary incontinence. Crossover between groups was allowed. The primary outcome was subjective improvement, measured by means of the Patient Global Impression of Improvement at 12 months. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 230 women to the surgery group and 230 women to the physiotherapy group. A total of 49.0% of women in the physiotherapy group and 11.2% of women in the surgery group crossed over to the alternative treatment. In an intention-to-treat analysis, subjective improvement was reported by 90.8% of women in the surgery group and 64.4% of women in the physiotherapy group (absolute difference, 26.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 18.1 to 34.5). The rates of subjective cure were 85.2% in the surgery group and 53.4% in the physiotherapy group (absolute difference, 31.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 22.6 to 40.3); rates of objective cure were 76.5% and 58.8%, respectively (absolute difference, 17.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 7.9 to 27.3). A post hoc per-protocol analysis showed that women who crossed over to the surgery group had outcomes similar to those of women initially assigned to surgery and that both these groups had outcomes superior to those of women who did not cross over to surgery. CONCLUSIONS: For women with stress urinary incontinence, initial midurethral-sling surgery, as compared with initial physiotherapy, results in higher rates of subjective improvement and subjective and objective cure at 1 year. (Funded by ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; Dutch Trial Register number, NTR1248.).

Salpingotomy versus salpingectomy in women with tubal pregnancy (ESEP study): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tubal ectopic pregnancy can be surgically treated by salpingectomy, in which the affected Fallopian tube is removed, or salpingotomy, in which the tube is preserved. Despite potentially increased risks of persistent trophoblast and repeat ectopic pregnancy, salpingotomy is often preferred over salpingectomy because the preservation of both tubes is assumed to offer favourable fertility prospects, although little evidence exists to support this assumption. We aimed to assess whether salpingotomy would improve rates of ongoing pregnancy by natural conception compared with salpingectomy. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial, women aged 18 years and older with a laparoscopically confirmed tubal pregnancy and a healthy contralateral tube were randomly assigned via a central internet-based randomisation program to receive salpingotomy or salpingectomy. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy by natural conception. Differences in cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates were expressed as a fecundity rate ratio with 95% CI, calculated by Cox proportional-hazards analysis with a time horizon of 36 months. Secondary outcomes were persistent trophoblast and repeat ectopic pregnancy (expressed as relative risks [RRs] with 95% CIs) and ongoing pregnancy after ovulation induction, intrauterine insemination, or IVF. The researchers who collected data for fertility outcomes were masked to the assigned intervention, but patients and the investigators who analysed the data were not. All endpoints were analysed by intention to treat. We also did a (non-prespecified) meta-analysis that included the findings from the present trial. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN37002267. FINDINGS: 446 women were randomly assigned between Sept 24, 2004, and Nov 29, 2011, with 215 allocated to salpingotomy and 231 to salpingectomy. Follow-up was discontinued on Feb 1, 2013. The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate was 60·7% after salpingotomy and 56·2% after salpingectomy (fecundity rate ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·81-1·38; log-rank p=0·678). Persistent trophoblast occurred more frequently in the salpingotomy group than in the salpingectomy group (14 [7%] vs 1 [<1%]; RR 15·0, 2·0-113·4). Repeat ectopic pregnancy occurred in 18 women (8%) in the salpingotomy group and 12 (5%) women in the salpingectomy group (RR 1·6, 0·8-3·3). The number of ongoing pregnancies after ovulation induction, intrauterine insemination, or IVF did not differ significantly between the groups. 43 (20%) women in the salpingotomy group were converted to salpingectomy during the initial surgery because of persistent tubal bleeding. Our meta-analysis, which included our own results and those of one other study, substantiated the results of the trial. INTERPRETATION: In women with a tubal pregnancy and a healthy contralateral tube, salpingotomy does not significantly improve fertility prospects compared with salpingectomy. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW), Region Västra Götaland Health & Medical Care Committee.

Surgical versus expectant management in women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after treatment with misoprostol for miscarriage: the MisoREST trial.

BACKGROUND: Medical treatment with misoprostol is a non-invasive and inexpensive treatment option in first trimester miscarriage. However, about 30% of women treated with misoprostol have incomplete evacuation of the uterus. Despite being relatively asymptomatic in most cases, this finding often leads to additional surgical treatment (curettage). A comparison of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical management versus expectant management is lacking in women with incomplete miscarriage after misoprostol. METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed study is a multicentre randomized controlled trial that assesses the costs and effects of curettage versus expectant management in women with incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage.Eligible women will be randomized, after informed consent, within 24 hours after identification of incomplete evacuation of the uterus by ultrasound scanning. Women are randomly allocated to surgical or expectant management. Curettage is performed within three days after randomization.Primary outcome is the sonographic finding of an empty uterus (maximal diameter of any contents of the uterine cavity < 10 millimeters) six weeks after study entry. Secondary outcomes are patients' quality of life, surgical outcome parameters, the type and number of re-interventions during the first three months and pregnancy rates and outcome 12 months after study entry. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence for the (cost) effectiveness of surgical versus expectant management in women with incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register: NTR3110.

Levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) versus endometrial ablation (Novasure) in women with heavy menstrual bleeding: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding is an important health problem. Two frequently used therapies are the levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) and endometrial ablation. The LNG-IUS can be applied easily by the general practitioner, which saves costs, but has considerable failure rates. As an alternative, endometrial ablation is also very effective, but this treatment has to be performed by a gynaecologist. Due to lack of direct comparison of LNG-IUS with endometrial ablation, there is no evidence based preferred advice for the use of one of these treatment possibilities. METHOD/DESIGN: A multicenter randomised controlled trial, organised in a network infrastructure in the Netherlands in which general practitioners and gynaecologists collaborate. DISCUSSON: This study, considering both effectiveness and cost effectiveness of LNG-IUS versus endometrial ablation may well improve care for women with heavy menstrual bleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register, number NTR2984.

Cost-effectiveness of cardiotocography plus ST analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram compared with cardiotocography only.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of addition of ST analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (ECG; STAN) to cardiotocography (CTG) for fetal surveillance during labor compared with CTG only. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a randomized clinical trial on ST analysis of the fetal ECG. SETTING: Obstetric departments of three academic and six general hospitals in The Netherlands. Population. Laboring women with a singleton high-risk pregnancy, a fetus in cephalic presentation, a gestational age >36 weeks and an indication for internal electronic fetal monitoring. METHODS: A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a health-care provider perspective. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary health outcome was the incidence of metabolic acidosis measured in the umbilical artery. Direct medical costs were estimated from start of labor to childbirth. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as costs to prevent one case of metabolic acidosis. RESULTS: The incidence of metabolic acidosis was 0.7% in the ST-analysis group and 1.0% in the CTG-only group (relative risk 0.70; 95% confidence interval 0.38-1.28). Per delivery, the mean costs per patient of CTG plus ST analysis (n= 2 827) were €1,345 vs. €1,316 for CTG only (n= 2 840), with a mean difference of €29 (95% confidence interval -€9 to €77) until childbirth. The incremental costs of ST analysis to prevent one case of metabolic acidosis were €9 667. CONCLUSIONS: The additional costs of monitoring by ST analysis of the fetal ECG are very limited when compared with monitoring by CTG only and very low compared with the total costs of delivery.

Medical management for termination of second and third trimester pregnancies: a comparison of strategies.

OBJECTIVE: Misoprostol and sulprostone are prostaglandins that can be used for the termination of second and third trimester pregnancy. The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of both agents for the termination of second and third trimester pregnancy in cases of congenital or genetic abnormalities, and for the induction of labour in cases of intra-uterine foetal death. STUDY DESIGN: We collected data from all women who had been treated with misoprostol in the second or third trimester of pregnancy between January 2001 and July 2002 in cases of congenital or genetic abnormalities, and for the induction of labour in cases of intra-uterine foetal death. In cases where the foetus was alive, misoprostol was usually (77%) combined with mifepristone. Women were matched to women who had been treated with sulprostone for termination of second and third trimester pregnancy before 2001. We matched for hospital, previous vaginal delivery, intra-uterine death and duration of pregnancy. The primary outcome measure was time to delivery. RESULTS: Since the treatment effect was different in patients in whom labour was induced for intra-uterine death and patients in whom labour was induced while the foetus was alive, the analysis was stratified for this parameter. In 94 patients with intra-uterine death, there was no significant difference in time to delivery, blood loss, operative removal of the placenta and need for pain relief between misoprostol and sulprostone. In vital pregnancy (n = 96), time to delivery was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group. The relative risk for haemorrhage exceeding 1000 ml in this group was 0.40 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.13-1.2). We observed no significant differences with respect to operative removal of the placenta or need for pain relief. CONCLUSION: In cases of intra-uterine death, the effectiveness of misoprostol for termination of pregnancy is comparable to that of sulprostone. In vital pregnancy, combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than sulprostone alone.