The Effect of Patient Positioning on Ureteral Efflux During Intraoperative Cystoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To identify the relationship between patient position during surgery and time to confirmation of ureteral patency on cystoscopy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Academic tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: A total of 91 adult women undergoing laparoscopic (either conventional or robotic) hysterectomy between February 2021 and February 2022 were randomized to intervention (n = 45) or control (n = 46). Exclusion criteria included known kidney disease or urinary tract anomaly, current ureteral stent, pregnancy, malignancy, and recognized intraoperative urinary tract injury. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects in the control group were placed in a 0° supine position during cystoscopy. Subjects in the intervention group were placed in a 20° angle in reverse Trendelenburg (RT) position during cystoscopy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome, time to confirmation of bilateral ureteral patency, was measured at the time the second ureteral jet was viewed during intraoperative cystoscopy. There was no significant difference in mean time to confirmation (66.5 seconds in supine vs 67 seconds in RT, p = .2) nor in total cystoscopy time (111 seconds in supine vs 104.5 seconds in RT, p = .39). There were no significant differences in need for alternative modalities to aid in ureteral efflux visualization, delayed diagnosis of ureteric injury, and operative time. RT position seemed to have reduced the time to confirmation for the small group of patients with longer confirmation time (>120 seconds). CONCLUSION: RT position does not change time to confirmation of bilateral ureteral patency compared with supine position. However, there may be a benefit in position change if time to confirmation is >120 seconds.

Impact of pneumoperitoneum pressure during laparoscopic hysterectomy: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive hysterectomy is a commonly performed gynecologic procedure with associated postoperative pain managed with opioid medications. Uncontrolled postoperative pain leads to increased opioid use/abuse, longer hospital stays, increase in healthcare visits, and may negatively affect patient satisfaction. Current data suggests that reduced pneumoperitoneum insufflation pressure during laparoscopic surgery may impact postoperative pain. Given the current opioid epidemic, surgeons are proactively finding ways to reduce postoperative pain. It is unclear how reduced pneumoperitoneum pressure impacts the surgeon. We investigated the impact of reduced pneumoperitoneum insufflation pressure on surgeon satisfaction. STUDY DESIGN: This was a pilot, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial from March 2020 to July 2021 comparing pneumoperitoneum pressure of 15 mmHg to reduced pressures of 12 mmHg and 10 mmHg during laparoscopic hysterectomy. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were randomized (13 - 15 mmHg, 13 - 12 mmHg, and 14 - 10 mmHg). The primary outcome was surgeon satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, operative time, blood loss, postoperative pain, opioid usage, and discharge timing. There were no differences in baseline demographics or perioperative characteristics. Surgeon satisfaction was negatively impacted with lower pneumoperitoneum pressures greatest with 10 mmHg, including overall satisfaction (p =.01), overall effect of the pneumoperitoneum (p =.04), and quality of visualization (p =.01). There was an apparent although not statistically significant difference in operative time (p =.06) and blood loss (p =.054). There was no difference in patient satisfaction, postoperative pain scores, opioid usage, or time to discharge. CONCLUSION(S): Reduced pneumoperitoneum insufflation pressure during laparoscopic hysterectomy negatively impacted surgeon satisfaction with a trend towards longer operative times and greater blood loss, and did not positively impact patient satisfaction, postoperative pain, opioid demand, or discharge timing.

The surgical gender gap: the impact of surgeon gender in medicine and gynecologic surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to summarize the current literature evaluating the effect of surgeon gender on patient outcomes and satisfaction, and the impact of gender bias on female surgeons. RECENT FINDINGS: The proportion of female physicians has increased in recent years, especially in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Recent literature assessing this impact supports equivalent or superior medical and surgical outcomes for women surgeons and physicians. It also reveals superior counseling and communication styles as perceived by patients. However, women in medicine receive lower patient ratings in competence, medical knowledge, and technical skills despite the existing evidence. Additionally, female physicians experience pay inequality, limited advancement opportunities, higher prevalence of microaggressions, and higher rates of burnout. SUMMARY: Recognition of gender bias is essential to correcting this issue and improving the negative impact it has on female physicians, our patients, and the field of women's health.

Assessment of Obstetric and Gynecologic Food and Drug Administration Device Approvals and Recalls.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the recall rates of obstetric and gynecologic devices approved via the Food and Drug Administration's 510(k) and premarket approval (PMA) processes. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: Clinical settings in the United States that use obstetric and gynecologic devices. SUBJECTS: Two thousand two hundred forty-nine Food and Drug Administration-approved obstetric and gynecologic devices that were recalled between November 1, 2002, and December 31, 2017. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The class of device, class of recall, date of recall, and original approval process were obtained for each device. These were compared against the total number of approved devices during this time period in the PMA and 510(k) processes. Recall proportions of each process were calculated and compared. A total of 685 devices were approved via the PMA process, and 1564 devices were approved via the 510(k) process in the observed time period. Of these, 1.17% of the PMA-approved devices and 15.98% of the 510(k)-approved devices were recalled (p < .001). There was an overall increase in absolute device recall numbers over time in the 510(k) process, whereas the number of recalls in the PMA process did not change with time. CONCLUSION: The recall event rate for the 510(k) approval process is 13.6 times the rate for the PMA approval process for obstetric and gynecologic devices. Analysis of the results suggests improper device risk classification, inappropriate assignment of the approval process, increased device malfunctions, recalls by the 510(k) process and, therefore, increased risk to patients by these devices. This warrants a call for improvement and increased scrutiny in the 510(k) approval process for devices used in obstetrics and gynecology.