Comparison between the modified French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section and standard cesarean technique-a randomized double-blind controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section is a cesarean delivery technique, which includes a vertical fascial incision to the left of the linea alba and an extraperitoneal approach to the uterus. The presumed benefits of this technique are decreased postoperative pain and accelerated recovery. However, evidence supporting these impressions is scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare maternal recovery after French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section vs standard cesarean delivery technique. STUDY DESIGN: In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, women undergoing elective cesarean delivery at term were allocated into French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section vs standard cesarean delivery technique. A modified French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section technique was used, adhering to all French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section operative steps except for the extraperitoneal approach. In both groups, the use of intravenous hydration, intrathecal morphine, and bladder catheter was avoided, and all women were encouraged to stand and walk 3 to 4 hours after the operation. The primary adverse composite outcome included either of the following: a visual analog scale score of >6 at 3 to 4 hours after the operation, an inability to stand up and walk to the restroom 3 to 4 hours after the operation, and a 15-Item Quality of Recovery (QoR) questionnaire score of <90 at 24 hours after the operation. The women were followed up for 6 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, 116 women were included in the trial (58 in each group). The adverse composite outcome did not differ between the 2 groups (38.9% for the French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section group vs 53.8% for the regular cesarean delivery group; P=.172). In both groups, more than 90% of the women were able to get up and walk 3 to 4 hours after the operation. Compared with the standard cesarean delivery group, the French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section group had a longer duration of the operation (43.7±11.2 vs 54.4±11.3 minutes; P<.001), a higher rate of intraoperative complications (0.0% vs 13.8%; P=.006), and a higher rate of umbilical cord pH level of <7.2 (3.4% vs 17.2%; P=.029) were noted. Evaluation via phone call 1 week after the operation showed better quality of recovery scores in the French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section group than in the standard cesarean delivery group (27.1±8.4 vs 24.6±8.0; P=.043). Other secondary outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: As excellent maternal recovery was noted in both groups, we believe that the main factor affecting this recovery is the perioperative management (including avoidance of the use of intraoperative intravenous hydration, intrathecal morphine, and bladder catheter, with early postoperative mobilization). The maternal and neonatal safety outcomes of the French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section technique remain to be proven by larger-scale high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Is it time to abandon episiotomy use? A randomized controlled trial (EPITRIAL).

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this trial was to evaluate whether avoidance of episiotomy can decrease the risk of advanced perineal tears. METHODS: In this randomized (1:1) parallel-group superiority trial, primiparous women underwent randomization into "avoidance of episiotomy" (the study group in which episiotomy was allowed only in cases of fetal distress) or "standard care." The primary outcome was the incidence of advanced (3rd- and 4th-degree) perineal tears. RESULTS: The participants were randomized into "standard care" (n = 337) vs. "no episiotomy" (n = 339) groups, not differing in any demographic or obstetric characteristics. Episiotomy rates were significantly lower in the study group (19.6%) compared with the standard care group (29.8%, p = 0.004). Five (1.5%) advanced tears were diagnosed in the study group vs. ten = 3.0% in the controls, yielding an odds ratio of 0.50 (95% CI 0.17-1.50) in favor of the "no episiotomy" group (p = 0.296). No differences were noted in any secondary outcomes. By per protocol analysis (omitting cases in which episiotomy was performed for indications other than fetal distress in the study group), a trend to decreased risk of advanced tears in the study group was noted (p = 0.0956). By per protocol analyses, no severe tears were noted in the 53 vacuum deliveries in the study group vs. 4/65 (6.2%) tears in the controls (p = 0.126). CONCLUSIONS: Since decreased use of episiotomy was not associated with higher rates of severe tears or any other adverse outcomes, we believe this procedure can be avoided in spontaneous as well as vacuum-assisted deliveries. Trial registration no. NCT02356237.

No episiotomy versus selective lateral/mediolateral episiotomy (EPITRIAL): an interim analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this trial was to evaluate whether avoiding episiotomy can decrease the risk of advanced perineal tears. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this randomized (1:1) parallel-group superiority trial, primiparous women underwent randomization into standard care (155 cases) vs. no episiotomy (154 cases) groups. The primary endpoint was the incidence of advanced (3rd- and 4th-degree) perineal tears. Secondary outcomes included perineal integrity, suturing characteristics, second-stage duration, incidence of postpartum hemorrhage, neonatal variables, and various postpartum symptoms 2 days and 2 months after delivery. RESULTS: At prespecified 1-year interim analysis, the groups did not differ in terms of baseline demographic and obstetric characteristics. Six advanced perineal tears (3.9%) were diagnosed in the standard care group vs. two in no episiotomy group (1.3%), yielding a calculated odds ratio (OR) of 0.33 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06-1.65). Unexpectedly, rates of episiotomy performance also did not significantly vary between groups: 26.5% (41 cases) vs. 21.4% (33 cases), respectively, p = 0.35. No significant differences were noted in any secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in the rates of advanced perineal tears was found between groups; however, the main limitation of our study was unexpectedly high rates of episiotomy in the nonepisiotomy group. Thus, the main conclusion is that investigator monitoring and education should be continuously practiced throughout the trial duration, stressing the importance of adherence to the protocol.

Functional and oncological outcomes of open nephron-sparing surgery for complex renal masses.

OBJECTIVE: To present our long-term functional and oncological outcomes in open nephron-sparing surgery for complex renal masses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled 584 patients who underwent open partial nephrectomy between January 1995 and May 2014 at our institution; 108 (18.4%) patients had hilar or completely intraparenchymal tumors or both. We compared change in renal function, perioperative complications, and survival outcomes between complex and noncomplex renal masses. RESULTS: Mean tumor diameter was 4.3 and 3.5cm in patients with hilar and completely intraparenchymal lesions, respectively. R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores were significantly higher in patients with complex tumors as compared with patients with exophytic tumors. There was no significant difference between mean estimated glomerular filtration rate at last follow-up compared with preoperative mean estimated glomerular filtration rate in any of the groups. The incidence of perioperative complications was similar across all patients groups. Estimated 10-year cancer-specific survival probabilities were 100% in patients with hilar and intraparenchymal tumors. The 10-year recurrence-free survival probabilities were 96% and 95% in patients with hilar and intraparenchymal tumors, respectively. The main limitations include retrospective design and the lack of kidney-specific functional scan. CONCLUSION: Open nephron-sparing surgery should be considered for complex renal masses yielding excellent functional and oncological outcomes without higher incidence of complications.