Placental Syphilis: A Comprehensive Review of Routine Histomorphology, HIV Co-infection, Penicillin Treatment, Immunohistochemistry, and Polymerase Chain Reaction.

Introduction: Placental examination is valuable for diagnosing congenital syphilis, but the classic histological triad is not always observed. This study aimed to identify additional morphological clues, evaluate the sensitivity of IHC and qPCR, and investigate the impact of HIV co-infection and penicillin treatment on placental morphology. Materials and methods: Two hundred and fifteen placental specimens with treponemal infection were reviewed. Morphological findings, IHC, and qPCR results were analyzed. Results: Chronic villitis (94%), acute chorioamnionitis (91.6%), and villous immaturity (65.6%) were the most common abnormalities. HIV co-infection and penicillin treatment were associated with reduced frequencies of inflammatory lesions. IHC and qPCR exhibited sensitivities of 74.4 and 25.8%, respectively, confirming the diagnosis in 42 cases with negative or unknown serology. Conclusion: Villitis, chorioamnionitis, and villous immaturity were identified as the predominant placental abnormalities. HIV co-infection and penicillin treatment can impact morphology and hamper the diagnosis. IHC and q-PCR are valuable adjuncts when serology is negative.

Laparoscopic versus vaginal native tissue repair in combination with pectopexy. Sub-analysis from an international, prospective, and multi-centre study: short term results.

INTRODUCTION: The use of mesh for vaginal repairs is currently problematic and as a consequence, there is increased interest in native tissue repair. We describe the follow-up data of a sub-analysis of a prospective and multi-center study focusing on the combination of pectopexy and native tissue repair. Patients were followed up for 12-18 months after surgery (+ SD: 15). Two-hundred and sixty-four patients attended the clinics for physical examination and were integrated into the follow-up. Cystocele repair was performed laparoscopically in 84 patients and vaginally in 52 patients. Posterior repair was performed vaginally in 40 patients and laparoscopically in 53 patients. RESULTS: Clinical success rate, patient recommendations and patient satisfaction rates were similar in both groups. The laparoscopic anterior repair resulted in an 89% cure or anatomical improvement rate; this compared to 94.2% for the vaginal approach. In the posterior group, laparoscopy resulted in a 94.3% cure or improvement rate compared to 97.5% in the second group. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of both strategies showed satisfactory results in our study. Consequently, surgeons may choose between the two strategies according to their preference and skill. The two approaches only differed with regard to vaginal scarring. We suggest future research investigating the long-term impact of scarring.

Current Role of Hysterectomy in Pelvic Floor Surgery: Time for Reappraisal? A Review of Current Literature and Expert Discussion.

Since hysterectomy could be performed with low risk, it has been part of the standard of surgical prolapse therapy for decades. This has not been scrutinized for a long time. In this review, we describe the development of this issue in recent years. The current literature suggests that hysterectomy requires its own indication. The article describes the various options for a uterine-preserving surgical technique and the available data.

International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (ISGE) guidelines and recommendations on gynecological endoscopy during the evolutionary phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has raised some important interrogations on minimally invasive gynaecological surgery. The International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (ISGE) has taken upon itself the task of providing guidance and best practice policies for all practicing gynaecological endoscopists. Factors affecting decision making processes in minimal invasive surgery (MIS) vary depending on factors such as the phase of the pandemic, policies on control and prevention, expertise and existing infrastructure. Our responsibility remains ensuring the safety of all health care providers, ancillary staff and patients during this unusual period. We reviewed the current literature related to gynecological and endoscopic surgery during the Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) crisis. Regarding elective surgery, universal testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection should be carried out wherever possible 40 h prior to surgery. In case of confirmed positive case of SARS-CoV-2, surgery should be delayed. Priority should be given to relatively urgent cases such as malignancies. ISGE supports medical optimization and delaying surgery for benign non-life-threatening surgeries. When possible, we recommend to perform cases by laparoscopy and to allow early discharges. Any procedure with risk of bowel involvement should be performed by open surgery as studies have found a high amount of viral RNA (ribonucleic acid) in stool. Regarding urgent surgery, each unit should create a risk assessment flow chart based on capacity. Patients should be screened for symptoms and symptomatic patients must be tested. In the event that a confirmed case of SARS-CoV-2 is found, every attempt should be made to optimize medical management and defer surgery until the patient has recovered and only emergency or life-threatening surgery should be performed in these cases. We recommend to avoid intubation and ventilation in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients and if at all possible local or regional anesthesia should be utilized. Patients who screen or test negative may have general anesthesia and laparoscopic surgery while strict protocols of infection control are upheld. Surgery in screen-positive as well as SARS-CoV-2 positive patients that cannot be safely postponed should be undertaken with full PPE with ensuring that only essential personnel are exposed. If available, negative pressure theatres should be used for patients who are positive or screen high risk. During open and vaginal procedures, suction can be used to minimize droplet and bioaerosol spread. In a patient who screens low risk or tests negative, although carrier and false negatives cannot be excluded, laparoscopy should be strongly considered. We recommend, during minimal access surgeries, to use strategies to reduce production of bioaerosols (such as minimal use of energy, experienced surgeon), to reduce leakage of smoke aerosols (for example, minimizing the number of ports used and size of incisions, as well as reducing the operating pressures) and to promote safe elimination of smoke during surgery and during the ports' closure (such as using gas filters and smoke evacuation systems). During the post-peak period of pandemic, debriefing and mental health screening for staff is recommended. Psychological support should be provided as needed. In conclusion, based on the existent evidence, ISGE largely supports the current international trends favoring laparoscopy over laparotomy on a case by case risk evaluation basis, recognizing the different levels of skill and access to minimally invasive procedures across various countries.