Single-layer vs double-layer uterine closure during cesarean delivery: 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial (2Close study).

BACKGROUND: The rising rate of cesarean deliveries has led to an increased incidence of long long-term complications, including niche formation in the uterine scar. Niche development is associated with various gynecologic complaints and complications in subsequent pregnancies, such as uterine rupture and placenta accreta spectrum disorders. Although uterine closure technique is considered a potential risk factor for niche development, consensus on the optimal technique remains elusive. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the effect of single-layer vs double-layer closure of the uterine incision on live birth rate at a 3-year follow-up with secondary objectives focusing on gynecologic, fertility, and obstetrical outcomes at the same follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial was performed at 32 hospitals in the Netherlands. Women ≥18 years old undergoing a first cesarean delivery were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either single-layer or double-layer closure of the uterine incision. The primary outcome of the long-term follow-up was the live birth rate; with secondary outcomes, including pregnancy rate, the need for fertility treatment, mode of delivery, and obstetrical and gynecologic complications. This trial is registered on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform www.who.int (NTR5480; trial finished). RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2018, the 2Close study randomly assigned 2292 women, with 830 of 1144 and 818 of 1148 responding to the 3-year questionnaire in the single-layer and double-layer closure. No differences were observed in live birth rates; also there were no differences in pregnancy rate, need for fertility treatments, mode of delivery, or uterine ruptures in subsequent pregnancies. High rates of gynecologic symptoms, including spotting (30%-32%), dysmenorrhea (47%-49%), and sexual dysfunction (Female Sexual Function Index score, 23) are reported in both groups. CONCLUSION: The study did not demonstrate the superiority of double-layer closure over single-layer closure in terms of reproductive outcomes after a first cesarean delivery. This challenges the current recommendation favoring double-layer closure, and we propose that surgeons can choose their preferred technique. Furthermore, the high risk of gynecologic symptoms after a cesarean delivery should be discussed with patients.

Procedural sedation and analgesia versus general anesthesia for hysteroscopic myomectomy (PROSECCO trial): A multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hysteroscopic resection is the first-choice treatment for symptomatic type 0 and 1 fibroids. Traditionally, this was performed under general anesthesia. Over the last decade, surgical procedures are increasingly being performed in an outpatient setting under procedural sedation and analgesia. However, studies evaluating safety and effectiveness of hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation are lacking. This study aims to investigate whether hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol is noninferior to hysteroscopic myomectomy under general anesthesia. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled noninferiority trial conducted in 14 university and teaching hospitals in the Netherlands between 2016 and 2021. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, maximum number of 3 type 0 or 1 fibroids, maximum fibroid diameter 3.5 cm, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 or 2, and having sufficient knowledge of the Dutch or English language. Women with clotting disorders or with severe anemia (Hb < 5.0 mmol/L) were excluded. Women were randomized using block randomization with variable block sizes of 2, 4, and 6, between hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) with propofol or under general anesthesia (GA). Primary outcome was the percentage of complete resections, assessed on transvaginal ultrasonography 6 weeks postoperatively by a sonographer blinded for the treatment arm and surgical outcome. Secondary outcomes were the surgeon's judgment of completeness of procedure, menstrual blood loss, uterine fibroid related and general quality of life, pain, recovery, hospitalization, complications, and surgical reinterventions. Follow-up period was 1 year. The risk difference between both treatment arms was estimated, and a Farrington-Manning test was used to determine the p-value for noninferiority (noninferiority margin 7.5% of incomplete resections). Data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle, including a per-protocol analysis for the primary outcome. A total of 209 women participated in the study and underwent hysteroscopic myomectomy with PSA (n = 106) or GA (n = 103). Mean age was 45.1 [SD 6.4] years in the PSA group versus 45.0 [7.7] years in the GA group. For 98/106 women in the PSA group and 89/103 women in the GA group, data were available for analysis of the primary outcome. Hysteroscopic resection was complete in 86/98 women (87.8%) in the PSA group and 79/89 women (88.8%) in the GA group (risk difference -1.01%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.36 to 8.34; noninferiority, P = 0.09). No serious anesthesiologic complications occurred, and conversion from PSA to GA was not required. During the follow-up period, 15 serious adverse events occurred (overnight admissions). All were unrelated to the intervention studied. Main limitations were the choice of primary outcome and the fact that our study proved to be underpowered. CONCLUSIONS: Noninferiority of PSA for completeness of resection was not shown, though there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes and quality of life. In this study, hysteroscopic myomectomy for type 0 and 1 fibroids with PSA compared to GA was safe and led to shorter hospitalization. These results can be used for counseling patients by gynecologists and anesthesiologists. Based on these findings, we suggest that hysteroscopic myomectomies can be performed under PSA in an outpatient setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered prospectively in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR 5357; registration date: 11 August 2015; Date of initial participant enrollment: 18 February 2016).

Cost-effectiveness of single-layer versus double-layer uterine closure during caesarean section on postmenstrual spotting: economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of double-layer compared with single-layer uterine closure after a first caesarean section (CS) from a societal and healthcare perspective. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 32 hospitals in the Netherlands, 2016-2018. PARTICIPANTS: 2292 women ≥18 years undergoing a first CS were randomly assigned (1:1). Exclusion criteria were: inability for counselling, previous uterine surgery, known menstrual disorder, placenta increta or percreta, pregnant with three or more fetuses. 1144 women were assigned to single-layer and 1148 to double-layer closure. We included 1620 women with a menstrual cycle in the main analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Single-layer unlocked uterine closure and double-layer unlocked uterine closure with the second layer imbricating the first. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Spotting days, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and societal costs at 9 months of follow-up. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between single-layer versus double-layer closure in mean spotting days (1.44 and 1.39 days; mean difference (md) -0.056, 95% CI -0.374 to 0.263), QALYs (0.663 and 0.658; md -0.005, 95% CI -0.015 to 0.005), total healthcare costs (€744 and €727; md €-17, 95% CI -273 to 143), and total societal costs (€5689 and €5927; md €238, 95% CI -624 to 1108). The probability of the intervention being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay of €0, €10 000 and €20 000/QALY gained was 0.30, 0.27 and 0.25, respectively, (societal perspective), and 0.55, 0.41 and 0.32, respectively, (healthcare perspective). CONCLUSION: Double-layer uterine closure is not cost-effective compared with single-layer uterine closure from both perspectives. If this is confirmed by our long-term reproductive follow-up, we suggest to adjust uterine closure technique guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR5480/NL5380.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects the physical functioning and social well-being of many women. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and endometrial ablation are 2 frequently applied treatments in women with heavy menstrual bleeding. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system with endometrial ablation in women with heavy menstrual bleeding. STUDY DESIGN: This multicenter, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial was performed in 26 hospitals and in a network of general practices in the Netherlands. Women with heavy menstrual bleeding, aged 34 years and older, without a pregnancy wish or intracavitary pathology were randomly allocated to treatment with either the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) or endometrial ablation, performed with a bipolar radiofrequency device (NovaSure). The primary outcome was blood loss at 24 months, measured with a Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart score. Secondary outcomes included reintervention rates, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and sexual function. RESULTS: We registered 645 women as eligible, of whom 270 women provided informed consent. Of these, 132 women were allocated to the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (baseline Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart score, 616) and 138 women to endometrial ablation (baseline Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart score, 630). At 24 months, mean Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart scores were 64.8 in the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group and 14.2 in the endometrial ablation group (difference, 50.5 points; 95% confidence interval, 4.3-96.7; noninferiority, P=.87 [25 Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart point margin]). Compared with 14 women (10%) in the endometrial ablation group, 34 women (27%) underwent a surgical reintervention in the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group (relative risk, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-4.68). There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction and quality of life between the groups. CONCLUSION: Both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and endometrial ablation strategies lead to a large decrease in menstrual blood loss in women with heavy menstrual bleeding, with comparable quality of life scores after treatment. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference in menstrual blood loss in favor of endometrial ablation, and we could not demonstrate noninferiority of starting with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Women who start with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, a reversible and less invasive treatment, are at an increased risk of needing additional treatment compared with women who start with endometrial ablation. The results of this study will enable physicians to provide women with heavy menstrual bleeding with the evidence to make a well-informed decision between the 2 treatments.

Niche-related outcomes after caesarean section and quality of life: a focus group study and review of literature.

BACKGROUND: A niche in the uterus, present in 60% of women after caesarean section (CS), is associated with several gynaecological symptoms and possibly with subfertility. Studies that focus on quality of life (QoL) in relation to a niche are lacking. PURPOSE: To identify niche-related outcomes that influence QoL and to compare patient-reported outcomes with outcomes studied in the literature. METHODS: Two focus group discussions (FGDs, N = 8 and 5) were conducted in Amsterdam UMC-location VUmc. Participants were Dutch patients with a large niche, with (planned) surgical treatment for their symptoms. Niche-related symptoms and impact on functioning or participation were fixed topics. The transcripts of the FGDs were coded into outcomes, themes and domains of QoL according to the WHOQOL model. Additionally, participants created a top five important outcomes. Next, we performed a systematic review (SR) on niche-related outcomes and compared the FGDs with niche-related outcomes from the SR. RESULTS: In four domains (physical health, psychological domain, social relationships and environment), fifteen themes were reported in the FGDs. Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), subfertility, sexual activity, abdominal pain and self-esteem were themes prioritised by participants. In the literature, gynaecological symptoms and reproductive outcomes were predominantly studied. Sexuality and self-esteem were prioritised in the FGDs but hardly or never studied in the literature. CONCLUSION: We found a broad range of niche-related outcomes influencing QoL. Apart from symptoms evaluated in the literature such as AUB, abdominal pain and subfertility, clinicians and researchers should be more aware of sexual activity and self-esteem in this population.

The (cost) effectiveness of procedural sedation and analgesia versus general anaesthesia for hysteroscopic myomectomy, a multicentre randomised controlled trial: PROSECCO trial, a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: In women with abnormal uterine bleeding, fibroids are a frequent finding. In case of heavy menstrual bleeding and presence of submucosal type 0-1 fibroids, hysteroscopic resection is the treatment of first choice, as removal of these fibroids is highly effective. Hysteroscopic myomectomy is currently usually performed in the operating theatre. A considerable reduction in costs and a higher patient satisfaction are expected when procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol (PSA) in an outpatient setting is applied. However, both safety and effectiveness - including the necessity for re-intervention due to incomplete resection - have not yet been evaluated. METHODS: This study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design and will be performed in the Netherlands. Women > 18 years with a maximum of 3 symptomatic type 0 or 1 submucosal fibroids with a maximum diameter of 3.5 cm are eligible to participate in the trial. After informed consent, 205 women will be randomised to either hysteroscopic myomectomy using procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol in an outpatient setting or hysteroscopic myomectomy using general anaesthesia in a clinical setting in the operating theatre. Primary outcome will be the percentage of complete resections, based on transvaginal ultrasonography 6 weeks postoperatively. Secondary outcomes are cost effectiveness, menstrual blood loss (Pictorial blood assessment chart), quality of life, pain, return to daily activities/work, hospitalization, (post) operative complications and re-interventions. Women will be followed up to one year after hysteroscopic myomectomy. DISCUSSION: This study may demonstrate comparable effectiveness of hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation and analgesia versus general anaesthesia in a safe and patient friendly environment, whilst achieving a significant cost reduction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register, number NTR5357 . Registered 11th of August 2015.

Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound for the measurement of a niche in a caesarean scar and assessment of its shape.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the inter- and intraobserver agreement for measurement of the size and volume of a niche and assessment of the shape, with the use of three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound. STUDY DESIGN: In this reproducibility study, 20 3D ultrasound volumes of uteri with a niche were selected, based on complete visualisation of the uterus and niche in both the longitudinal and transversal plane. Niche measurements were performed off-line twice by one observer and once by another observer. Niche measurements and assessment of shape were performed in the longitudinal and transversal plane, and niche volume in the longitudinal plane. The mean difference, 95% limits of agreement, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen's kappa were calculated to assess the inter- and intraobserver agreement. RESULTS: The interobserver agreement was excellent for all niche measurements (ICC >0.86), including depth and residual myometrial thickness (RMT), except for width at niche base in the transversal plane (ICC 0.74) and niche volume (ICC 0.79), which were classified as good agreement. Wide limits of agreement and a high mean difference were found for maximal width in the transversal plane. The intraobserver agreement was excellent for all measurements (ICC >0.80), except for RMT in the longitudinal and transversal plane, which were classified as good agreement (ICC 0.73 and 0.62, respectively). Wide limits of agreement were found for maximal width and width at niche base in the transversal plane. The overall agreement in the transversal plane was lower than in the longitudinal plane, but still all in the range of good agreement. The inter- and intraobserver agreement was good to poor for the assessment of niche shape. CONCLUSION: Using 3D ultrasound, various niche parameters, including depth (both perpendicular to niche base and maximal depth), maximal width, width at niche base, RMT and volume, can be measured with a high level of agreement, in particular if measured in the longitudinal plane.

Levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) versus endometrial ablation (Novasure) in women with heavy menstrual bleeding: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding is an important health problem. Two frequently used therapies are the levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) and endometrial ablation. The LNG-IUS can be applied easily by the general practitioner, which saves costs, but has considerable failure rates. As an alternative, endometrial ablation is also very effective, but this treatment has to be performed by a gynaecologist. Due to lack of direct comparison of LNG-IUS with endometrial ablation, there is no evidence based preferred advice for the use of one of these treatment possibilities. METHOD/DESIGN: A multicenter randomised controlled trial, organised in a network infrastructure in the Netherlands in which general practitioners and gynaecologists collaborate. DISCUSSON: This study, considering both effectiveness and cost effectiveness of LNG-IUS versus endometrial ablation may well improve care for women with heavy menstrual bleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register, number NTR2984.