Minimally invasive removal of deep contraceptive implants under continuous ultrasound guidance is effective, quick, and safe.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, performance, and complications of a non-surgical, minimally-invasive procedure of deep contraceptive implant removal under continuous ultrasound guidance. METHODS: The ultrasound-guided procedure consisted of local anesthesia using lidocaine chlorhydrate 1% (10 mg/mL) with a 21-G needle, followed by hydrodissection using NaCl 0.9% (9 mg/mL) and implant extraction using a Hartmann grasping microforceps. The parameters studied were the implant localization, success and complication rates, pain throughout the intervention, volumes of lidocaïne and NaCl used, duration of the procedure, and size of the incision. Between November 2019 and January 2021, 45 patients were referred to the musculoskeletal radiology department for ultrasound-guided removal of a deep contraceptive implant and were all retrospectively included. RESULTS: All implants were successfully removed en bloc (100%). The mean incision size was 2.7 ± 0.5 mm. The mean duration of the extraction procedure was 7.7 ± 6.3 min. There were no major complications (infection, nerve, or vessel damage). As a minor complication, 21 patients (46.7%) reported a benign superficial skin ecchymosis at the puncture site, spontaneously regressing in less than 1 week. The procedure was very well-tolerated, with low pain rating throughout (1.0 ± 1.5/10 during implant extraction). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive removal of deep contraceptive implants under continuous ultrasound guidance alone is feasible, effective, and safe. In the present cohort, all implants were successfully removed, whatever the location, with short procedural time, small incision size, low pain levels, and no significant complications. This procedure could become a gold standard in this indication. KEY POINTS: • Minimally invasive removal of deep contraceptive implants under continuous ultrasound guidance alone is feasible, which led to a success rate of 100% whatever the location (even close to neurovascular structures), with only a small skin incision (2.7 ± 0.5 mm). • The procedure was safe, quick, without any major complications, and very well tolerated in terms of pain. • This minimally invasive ultrasound-guided procedure could become the future gold standard for the removal of deep contraceptive implants, as an alternative to surgical extraction, even for implants in difficult locations such as subfascial ones or those close to neurovascular structures.

Update on the management of endometriosis-associated pain in France.

The French National College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (CNGOF) published guidelines for managing endometriosis-associated pain in 2018. Given the development of new pharmacological therapies and a review that was published in 2021, most national and international guidelines now suggest a new therapeutic approach. In addition, a novel validated screening method based on patient questionnaires and analysis of 109-miRNA saliva signatures, which combines biomarkers and artificial intelligence, opens up new avenues for overcoming diagnostic challenges in patients with pelvic pain and for avoiding laparoscopic surgery when sonography and MRI are not conclusive. Dienogest (DNG) 2 mg has been a reimbursable healthcare expense in France since 2020, and, according to recent studies, it is at least as effective as combined hormonal contraception (CHC) and can be used as an alternative to CHC for first-line treatment of endometriosis-associated pain. Since 2018, the literature concerning the use of DNG has grown considerably, and the French guidelines should be modified accordingly. The levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG IUS) and other available progestins per os, including DNG, or the subcutaneous implant, can be offered as first-line therapy, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists with add-back therapy (ABT) as second-line therapy. Oral GnRH antagonists are promising new medical treatments for women with endometriosis-associated pain. They competitively bind to GnRH receptors in the anterior pituitary, preventing native GnRH from binding to GnRH receptors and from stimulating the secretion of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone. Consequently, estradiol and progesterone production is reduced. Oral GnRH antagonists will soon be on the market in France. Given their mode of action, their efficacy is comparable to that of GnRH agonists, with the advantage of oral administration and rapid action with no flare-up effect. Combination therapy with ABT is likely to allow long-term treatment with minimal impact on bone mass. GnRH antagonists with ABT may thus be offered as second-line treatment as an alternative to GnRH agonists with ABT. This article presents an update on the management of endometriosis-associated pain in women who do not have an immediate desire for pregnancy.

[Pelvic exam in gynecology and obstetrics: Guidelines for clinical practice]. / Examen pelvien en gynécologie et obstétrique : recommandations pour la pratique clinique.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines for the pelvic clinical exam in gynecology and obstetrics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary experts consensus committee of 45 experts was formed, including representatives of patients' associations and users of the health system. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any funding. The authors were advised to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. METHODS: The committee studied 40 questions within 4 fields for symptomatic or asymptomatic women (emergency conditions, gynecological consultation, gynecological diseases, obstetrics, and pregnancy). Each question was formulated in a PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format and the evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® methodology. RESULTS: The experts' synthesis work and the application of the GRADE method resulted in 27 recommendations. Among the formalized recommendations, 17 present a strong agreement, 7 a weak agreement and 3 an expert consensus agreement. Thirteen questions resulted in an absence of recommendation due to lack of evidence in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The need to perform clinical examination in gynecological and obstetrics patients was specified in 27 pre-defined situations based on scientific evidence. More research is required to investigate the benefit in other cases.