Impact of emerging virus pandemics on cause-specific maternal mortality time series: a population-based natural experiment using national vital statistics, Argentina 1980-2017.

Background: Emerging pandemic viruses may have multiple deleterious effects on maternal health. This study examines the effects of a pandemic influenza virus on cause-specific maternal mortality time series, using Argentinian vital statistics. Methods: We conducted a population-based natural experiment from national vital records of maternal deaths between 1980 and 2017. Joinpoint regression models were used to model time series of the maternal mortality ratio (MMR). The sensitivity of the registry to detect the effects of the pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza virus on cause-specific MMR was analysed using a panel of parallel interrupted time series (ITS). Findings: Over this 38-year study, the MMR decreased by 58·6% (69·5 to 28·8 deaths/100,000 live births), transitioning from direct obstetric causes (67·0 to 21·1/100,000 live births; 68·4% decrease) to indirect causes (2·6 to 7·7/100,000 live births; 196·2% increase). The regression analysis showed an average reduction of -2·2%/year (95% CI: -2·9 to -1·4) with 2 join points in the total trend (1998 and 2009). Parallel ITS analyses revealed the pandemic H1N1 virus had an increasing effect on mortality from the respiratory system- and sepsis-related complications (level change 4·7 and 1·6/100,000 live births respectively), reversing after the outbreak. No effect was found on MMR from hypertensive disorders, haemorrhage, abortive outcomes, other direct obstetric causes, and indirect non-respiratory comorbidities. Interpretation: The Argentinian maternal death registry appears sensitive to detect different effects of emerging infectious epidemics on maternal health. In a population-based natural experiment, pandemic H1N1 virus impacted maternal mortality almost exclusively from the respiratory system- and sepsis-related complications. Funding: Supported by FISAR www.fisarchile.org.

Laparoscopic promontory sacral colpopexy: is the posterior, recto-vaginal, mesh mandatory?

OBJECTIVE(S): The aim of our retrospective study was to determine if systematic placement of a posterior mesh, in addition to an anterior vesico-vaginal mesh, is necessary for laparoscopic treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: A laparoscopic promontory sacral colpopexy was performed in 108 patients, including 55 patients with a concurrent laparoscopic Burch procedure (50.9%). We compared 33 patients treated with a single anterior mesh (SAM) and 71 treated with a double, anterior and posterior, mesh (DM). RESULTS: The difference between the SAM and DM groups was statistically significant in terms of posterior compartment failure (rectocele and/or enterocele): 31.3% and 5.9%, respectively (p=0.0006). This significant difference persisted in the Burch (B) group (p=0.001), but not in the non-Burch (NB) group (p=0.98). Among the SAM group, this difference between the B and NB groups, was significant (57.1% versus 0%; p=0.0015) and above all not a single posterior failure was observed in the NB group. CONCLUSION(S): The placement of a posterior mesh, if highly effective, appeared unnecessary in the absence of an associated Burch procedure or a patent posterior prolapse. The posterior mesh also increased risk of postoperative complications and side effects.

Complete solo laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the feasibility of "complete solo" (CS) laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) performed solely with robotic manipulation of the laparoscope and without any human assistant at all. A comparison was made between CS LRP and the standard technique to identify the advantages and drawbacks. METHODS: Sixteen consecutive patients undergoing CS LRP were compared with the last 16 patients undergoing standard LRP. The standard procedure was performed with five trocars and one human assistant. Therefore, the surgeon had three instruments immediately available and could switch quickly from one to another, while the assistant held the laparoscope and a retractor. The CS method used a voice-controlled robotic arm to manipulate the laparoscope and a mechanical arm for the assisting instrument. RESULTS: The mean operative time in the CS and standard groups was 324 and 347 minutes, respectively (P >0.5). An additional human assistant was required, for 1 hour, in 3 patients of each group. No significant difference was noted between the two groups in terms of catheterization time, hospital stay, positive margin rate, complications, short-term cancer control, or functional results. The CS method has been demonstrated to be highly cost-effective compared with the standard technique. CONCLUSIONS: The CS LRP is feasible and compares favorably with the standard technique. It offers unique advantages in terms of direct control of the operative view, standardization of the assistance, and higher stability of the laparoscope, thus greatly enhancing the surgeon's comfort. The diminished need for human operative assistance provides significant economic and organizational benefits.