ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To review the decision aids currently available or being developed to predict a patient's odds that their external cephalic version (ECV) will be successful. STUDY DESIGN: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2015 to 2022. Articles from a pre-2015 systematic review were also included. We selected English-language articles describing or evaluating models (prediction rules) designed to predict an outcome of ECV for an individual patient. Acceptable model outcomes included cephalic presentation after the ECV attempt and whether the ECV ultimately resulted in a vaginal delivery. Two authors independently performed article selection following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Since 2015, 380 unique records underwent title and abstract screening, and 49 reports underwent full-text review. Ultimately, 17 new articles and 8 from the prior review were included. Of the 25 articles, 22 proposed one to two models each for a total of 25 models, while the remaining 3 articles validated prior models without proposing new ones. RESULTS: Of the 17 new articles, 10 were low, 6 moderate, and 1 high risk of bias. Almost all articles were from Europe (11/25) or Asia (10/25); only one study in the last 20 years was from the United States. The models found had diverse presentations including score charts, decision trees (flowcharts), and equations. The majority (13/25) had no form of validation and only 5/25 reached external validation. Only the Newman-Peacock model (United States, 1993) was repeatedly externally validated (Pakistan, 2012 and Portugal, 2018). Most models (14/25) were published in the last 5 years. In general, newer models were designed more robustly, used larger sample sizes, and were more mathematically rigorous. Thus, although they await further validation, there is great potential for these models to be more predictive than the Newman-Peacock model. CONCLUSION: Only the Newman-Peacock model is ready for regular clinical use. Many newer models are promising but require further validation. KEY POINTS: · 25 ECV prediction models have been published; 14 were in the last 5 years.. · The Newman-Peacock model is currently the only one with sufficient validation for clinical use.. · Many newer models appear to perform better but await further validation..
ABSTRACT
Pelvic exams are frequently complicated by collapse of the lateral vaginal walls, obstructing the view of the cervix. To overcome this, physicians frequently repurpose a glove or a condom as a sheath placed over the speculum blades to retract the lateral vaginal walls. Despite their regular use in clinical practice, little research has been done comparing the relative efficacy of these methods. Better visualization of the cervix can benefit patients by decreasing examination-related discomfort, improving cancer screening accuracy, and preventing the need to move the examination to the operating room under general anesthesia. This study presents a physical model that simulates vaginal pressure being exerted around a speculum. Using it, we conduct controlled experiments comparing the efficacy of different condom types, glove materials, glove sizes, and techniques to place gloves on the speculum. The results show that the best sheath is the middle finger of nitrile-material gloves. They provide adequate lateral wall retraction without significantly restricting the opening of the speculum. In comparison, condoms provide a smaller amount of retraction due to loosely fitting the speculum. They may still be a reasonable option for a different speculum size. However, vinyl-material gloves are an impractical option for sheaths; they greatly restrict speculum opening, occasionally even breaking the speculum, which overcome its retraction benefits. Glove size, condom brand, and condom material (latex vs polyisoprene) had minimal impact. This study serves as a guide for clinicians as they use easily accessible tools to perform difficult pelvic exams. We recommend that physicians consider nitrile gloves as the preferred option for a sheath around a speculum. Additionally, this study demonstrates proof-of-concept of a physical model that quantitatively describes different materials on their ability to improve cervical access. This model can be used in future research with more speculum and material combinations, including with materials custom-designed for vaginal retraction.
