[Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy]. / Nausées et vomissements gravidiques.

NAUSEA AND VOMITING IN PREGNANCY. Nausea and vomiting during pregnancy are common symptoms experienced by pregnant women. In more severe cases, known as hyperemesis gravidarum, these symptoms can become a pathological condition that can lead to significant complications in both the short and long term. Short-term complications include hydro-electrolyte imbalances, pregnancy termination, and growth retardation. Long-term complications may include anxiety disorders, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Mild cases can often be alleviated through lifestyle and dietary adjustments or non-pharmacological treatments like ginger, acupuncture, or acupressure. However, moderate to severe cases require specific psychological support, anti-emetic treatments, and sometimes hospitalization with intravenous treatment and parenteral rehydration. Managing these cases is complex and challenging because it does not guarantee the complete disappearance of symptoms, which can pose difficulties for caregivers.

NAUSÉES ET VOMISSEMENTS GRAVIDIQUES. Les nausées et vomissements de la grossesse sont un symptôme classique chez la femme enceinte. Le plus souvent sans gravité, les formes modérées à sévères, appelées hyperémèse gravidique, constituent une pathologie qui peut être invalidante, source de complications de la grossesse à court terme (troubles hydroélectrolytiques, arrêt de grossesse, retard de croissance) mais aussi à long terme (troubles anxiodépressifs, état de stress post-traumatique). Les formes minimes peuvent être atténuées par des règles hygiénodiététiques ou des traitements non médicamenteux (gingembre, acupuncture, acupression). Les formes modérées à sévères nécessitent un accompagnement psychologique spécifique, des traitements antiémétiques et, parfois, une hospitalisation avec traitement par voie intraveineuse et réhydratation parentérale. Leur prise en charge est complexe et difficile car elle ne permet pas toujours une disparition des symptômes, ce qui peut mettre en difficulté les soignants.

[Pelvic exam in gynecology and obstetrics: Guidelines for clinical practice]. / Examen pelvien en gynécologie et obstétrique : recommandations pour la pratique clinique.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines for the pelvic clinical exam in gynecology and obstetrics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary experts consensus committee of 45 experts was formed, including representatives of patients' associations and users of the health system. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any funding. The authors were advised to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. METHODS: The committee studied 40 questions within 4 fields for symptomatic or asymptomatic women (emergency conditions, gynecological consultation, gynecological diseases, obstetrics, and pregnancy). Each question was formulated in a PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format and the evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® methodology. RESULTS: The experts' synthesis work and the application of the GRADE method resulted in 27 recommendations. Among the formalized recommendations, 17 present a strong agreement, 7 a weak agreement and 3 an expert consensus agreement. Thirteen questions resulted in an absence of recommendation due to lack of evidence in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The need to perform clinical examination in gynecological and obstetrics patients was specified in 27 pre-defined situations based on scientific evidence. More research is required to investigate the benefit in other cases.

Normal delivery: physiologic support and medical interventions. Guidelines of the French National Authority for Health (HAS) with the collaboration of the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) and the French College of Midwives (CNSF).

OBJECTIVE: To define for women at low obstetric risk methods of management that respect the rhythm and the spontaneous course of giving birth as well as each woman's preferences. METHODS: These clinical practice guidelines were developed through professional consensus based on an analysis of the literature and of the French and international guidelines available on this topic. RESULTS: Labor should be monitored with a partograph (professional consensus). Digital cervical examination should be offered every 4 h during the first stage of labor, hourly during the second. The choice between continuous (cardiotocography) or discontinuous (by cardiotocography or intermittent auscultation) monitoring should be left to the woman (professional consensus). In the active phase of the first stage of labor, dilation speed is considered abnormal if it is less than 1 cm/4 h between 5 and 7 cm or less than 1 cm/2 h after 7 cm. In those cases, an amniotomy is recommended if the membranes are intact, and the administration of oxytocin if the membranes are already broken and uterine contractions are judged insufficient (professional consensus). It is recommended that pushing not begin when full dilation has been reached; rather, the fetus should be allowed to descend (grade A). Umbilical cord clamping should be delayed beyond the first 30 s in newborns who do not require resuscitation (grade C). CONCLUSION: The establishment of these clinical practice guidelines should enable women at low obstetric risk to receive better care in conditions of optimal safety while supporting physiologic birth.

A core outcome set development for a French national prospective study about the effect of mediolateral episiotomy on obstetric anal sphincter injury during operative vaginal delivery (INSTRUMODA).

BACKGROUND: We aimed at developing a core outcome and variables of interest set to investigate the effects of mediolateral episiotomy on Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury (OASI) during and after operative delivery in nulliparous women in a large-scale one-year observational French study including 15,000 women (INSTRUMODA). METHODS: A list of outcomes and variables of interest was suggested to obstetricians participating in the INSTRUMODA study using online questionnaires divided into 7 categories: the woman's history and course of pregnancy, course of labor, modalities of operative delivery, episiotomy characteristics, immediate maternal morbidity, one-year maternal morbidity, immediate neonatal morbidity. We used a three-round DELPHI method to reach a consensus. In the first round, outcomes and variables considered as essential by 70% or more of obstetricians were included in the corpus whereas they were excluded when 70% rated them as "not important". In the second round, non-consensual outcomes and variables were reassessed and excluded or definitively included if considered as "not important" or essential by 50% or more of the obstetricians. During the first round, obstetricians were invited to suggest new outcomes and/or variables that were then assessed in the second and third round. We used the same method to develop a core outcome and variables of interest set in a population of women in the community recruited via an association of patients. At the end of the procedure the core outcome and variables of interest sets were merged to provide the final core outcome set for the INSTRUMODA study. RESULTS: Fifty-three obstetricians and 16 women filled out questionnaires. After the 3 rounds of Delphi procedure in each population, 74 outcomes and variables were consensually reported by obstetricians and 92 by women in the community. By mixing these two consensual corpora we reported a final consensual list of 114 variables of interest and outcomes for both obstetricians and women. CONCLUSION: We established a core outcome and variables of interest set among obstetricians and women in the community to investigate the association between mediolateral episiotomy and OASI during operative delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The INSTRUMODA study was registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov on June 25, 2020 ( NCT04446780 ).