Clinical Presentation, Patient Assessment, Anatomy, Pathophysiology, and Imaging of Pelvic Venous Disease.

Pelvic venous disorders (PeVDs) can result in several different clinical presentations, but can be challenging to distinguish from other etiologies of chronic pelvic pain (CPP). Clinical evaluation of CPP patients optimally should be performed in a multidisciplinary fashion and patients who may have PeVD should be referred for consultation with a vascular interventionalist whose evaluation would utilize an imaging workup to search for pelvic varices. Additionally, it is critical to quantify the quality-of-life effects of all CPP to determine the impact on the patient's overall health. Diagnostic imaging, including transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and venography, can be utilized to identify pelvic varices, as well as venous reflux and obstruction leading to CPP. The use of the SVP tool is important to classify PeVD patients based on their clinical symptoms, varicose veins, and pathophysiology for precise clinical communication and for reporting clinical research. The goal of this publication is to delineate the clinical presentation, anatomy, pathophysiology, and imaging evaluation of patients with CPP suspected of having PeVD.

Is there an association between assisted reproductive technologies and time and complications of the third stage of labor?

PURPOSE: To determine if vaginal deliveries exposed to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are associated with an increased time between delivery of the neonate and placenta and select complications. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients enrolled in an infertility practice who had term, singleton, vaginal deliveries at two academic hospitals from 2008 to 2013 was analyzed. Controls were patients with spontaneous conceptions after infertility consultations. The exposure groups were patients with controlled ovarian hyper-stimulation (COH) with in vivo fertilization, COH with in vitro fertilization and fresh embryo transfer (COH/IVF), and frozen embryo transfer or oocyte donation recipients without COH (non-COH ET). Multiple gestations and stillbirths were excluded. Median time of third stage was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Secondary outcomes of retained placenta, manual placental extraction, and post-partum hemorrhage (PPH) were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact analyses. RESULTS: A total of 769 patients met criteria and were analyzed. While there were no differences in time of third stage of labor, retained placenta, or PPH, manual extraction was significantly more common among non-COH ET [age-adjusted OR 5.6 (95 % CI 2.2-13.8); p < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who conceived after non-COH ET were at increased risk for manual placental extraction. This association was not influenced by age differences between groups. Further research must be done to determine which elements of the ART process are responsible for these differences.