Systematic review and meta-analysis of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy versus vaginal hysterectomy for benign indications.

Objective: As the second most common surgery performed on women in the United States, hysterectomy techniques are constantly examined for validity and superiority. The vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) has increased in popularity since the first vNOTES hysterectomy was performed in 2012. We sought out to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of hysterectomy by vNOTES compared to conventional vaginal hysterectomy for various benign indications. Data sources: We searched Scopus, Medline, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and the Cochrane Library. Our search included all studies from each respective database's inception until September 1, 2023. Study eligibility criteria: We included eligible studies that compare vNOTES hysterectomy versus conventional vaginal hysterectomy for various benign indications, and included at least one of our preselected outcomes. The main outcomes were estimated blood loss (mL), operation time (min), length of hospital stay (d), Visual Analogue Scale pain score at Day 1, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: We analyzed data of our continuous outcomes using RevMan 5.4.1. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) under the inverse variance analysis method. We assessed the quality of the studies using the ROBINS-I assessment tool. Results: We found 4 eligible studies to include in our analysis. Surgeon declared estimated blood loss was found to be similar in both groups (MD=-44.70 [-99.97, 10.57]; P=.11). Also, the total length of hospital stay (in days) was found to be comparable in both groups (MD=-0.16 [-1.62, 1.30]; P=.83). We also found no other statistically significant difference between hysterectomy by vNOTES and vaginal hysterectomy in other studied outcomes, including the duration of the operation, the Visual Analogue Scale Pain score after 1 day, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications. Conclusion: vNOTES seems to be associated with a nonsignificant lower surgeon declared estimated blood loss. We found no other significant differences in hospital stay, intraoperative, or postoperative outcomes. Further studies may clarify if other differences in safety or efficacy exist.

Meta-analysis of residency program application and acceptance according to sex, race and ethnicity.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate trends in residency program application and acceptance rates according to sex and race and ethnicity. METHODS: We collected data from the Journal of the American Medical Association Graduation Medical Education Reports. We extracted the data for 25 residency programs in the United States from 2005 to 2021 and conducted statistical analyses. RESULTS: Men were most matched for orthopedics (84.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 84.2%-85.1%), and women for oncology (78.7%, 95% CI 78.2%-79.2%). The most matched program was orthopedics for the White subgroup (43.5%, 95% CI 43.2%-43.9%), radiology for the Black subgroup (20%, 95% CI 18.9%-20.9%), general surgery for the Hispanic subgroup (11%, 95% CI 10.7%-11.2%), and internal medicine for the Asian subgroup (35.3%, 95% CI 34.9%-35.6%). CONCLUSION: Match rates for women were lower than those for men in all programs except psychiatry, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, and dermatology. Match rates were significantly lower for Black, Hispanic, and Asian subgroups than the White subgroup in all programs except for internal medicine, with the Asian subgroup being higher. We observed a significant increase in both application and acceptance rates for women and racial and ethnic minorities over the past 40 years.

First and second-generation endometrial ablation devices: A network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: First-generation and second-generation endometrial ablation (EA) techniques, along with medical treatment and invasive surgery, are considered successful lines of management for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). We set out to determine the efficacy of first and second-generation ablation techniques compared with medical treatment, invasive surgery and different modalities of the EA techniques themselves. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis using a frequentist network. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline (Ovid), PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, EBSCO and Scopus for all published studies up to 1 March 2021 using relevant keywords. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared premenopausal women with AUB receiving the intervention of second-generation EA techniques. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 49 high-quality RCTs with 8038 women were included. We extracted and pooled the data and then analysed to estimate the network meta-analysis models within a frequentist framework. We used the random-effects model of the netmeta package in R (V.3.6.1) and the 'Meta-Insight' website. RESULTS: Our network meta-analysis showed many varying results according to specific outcomes. The uterine balloon ablation had significantly higher amenorrhoea rates than other techniques in both short (hydrothermal ablation (risk ratio (RR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.37; 0.72), microwave ablation (RR=0.43, 95% CI 0.31; 0.59), first-generation techniques (RR=0.44, 95% CI 0.33; 0.59), endometrial laser intrauterine therapy (RR=0.18, 95% CI 0.10; 0.32) and bipolar radio frequency treatments (RR=0.22, 95% CI 0.15; 0.31)) and long-term follow-up (microwave ablation (RR=0.11, 95% CI 0.01; 0.86), bipolar radio frequency ablation (RR=0.12, 95% CI 0.02; 0.90), first generation (RR=0.12, 95% CI 0.02; 0.90) and endometrial laser intrauterine thermal therapy (RR=0.04, 95% CI 0.01; 0.36)). When calculating efficacy based only on calculated bleeding scores, the highest scores were achieved by cryoablation systems (p-score=0.98). CONCLUSION: Most second-generation EA systems were superior to first-generation systems, and statistical superiority between devices depended on which characteristic was measured (secondary amenorrhoea rate, treatment of AUB, patient satisfaction or treatment of dysmenorrhoea). Although our study was limited by a paucity of data comparing large numbers of devices, we conclude that there is no evidence at this time that any one of the examined second-generation systems is clearly superior to all others.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery vs laparoscopic hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Because vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques both aim to decrease tissue injury and postoperative morbidity and mortality and to improve a patient's quality of life, we sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a hysterectomy by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and compared that with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic diseases. DATA SOURCES: We used Scopus, Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library and searched from database inception to September 1, 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all eligible articles that compared vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy with any conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy technique without robotic assistance for women with benign gynecologic pathology and that included at least 1 of our main outcomes. These outcomes included estimated blood loss (in mL), operation time (in minutes), length of hospital stay (in days), decrease in hemoglobin level (g/dL), visual analog scale pain score on postoperative day 1, opioid analgesic dose required, rate of conversion to another surgical technique, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and requirements for blood transfusion. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Ultimately, 14 studies met our criteria. METHODS: The study quality of the randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane assessment tool, and the quality of the observational studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. We analyzed data using RevMan 5.4.1. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using the mean difference and 95% confidence intervals under the inverse variance analysis method. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using OpenMeta[Analyst] and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were reported. RESULTS: The operative time and length of hospitalization were shorter in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery cohort. We also found lower visual analog scale pain scores, fewer postoperative complications, and fewer blood transfusions in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery group. We found no difference in the estimated blood loss, decrease in hemoglobin levels, analgesic usage, conversion rates, or intraoperative complications. CONCLUSION: When evaluating the latest data, it seems that vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery techniques may have some advantages over conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques.

Vaginal Hysterectomy Compared With Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in Benign Gynecologic Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical efficacy outcomes and complications after laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy performed for benign gynecologic conditions. DATA SOURCES: We performed an online search in major databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov , and the Cochrane Library from 2000 until February 28, 2023. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy in benign gynecologic conditions. We located 3,249 articles. After reviewing titles and abstracts, we identified 32 articles that were eligible for full-text screening. We excluded nine articles as not-RCT or not comparing vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy. Twenty-three articles were included in the final systematic review, with 22 articles included in the meta-analysis. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Twenty-three eligible RCTs included a total population of 2,408, with 1,105 in the vaginal hysterectomy group and 1,303 in the laparoscopic hysterectomy group. Blood loss and postoperative urinary tract infection rates were lower in the vaginal hysterectomy group than in the laparoscopic hysterectomy group (mean difference -68, 95% CI -104.29 to -31.7, P <.01, I2 =95% and odds ratio 1.73, 95% CI 0.92-3.26, P =.03, I2 =0%, respectively). Vaginal hysterectomy was associated with less total operative time, less recovery time, and greater postoperative pain on the day of surgery. Other complications, including conversion to laparotomy, visceral organ damage, or wound dehiscence, were uncommon. Because of insufficient data, we were not able to stratify by surgical indication. CONCLUSION: Vaginal hysterectomy had a shorter total operative time and recovery time but greater postoperative pain on day of surgery compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42023338538.

Response to Dr. Somovilla del Saz's letter to the editor regarding "Risk of all-cause and cardiac-related mortality after vaccination against COVID-19: A meta-analysis of self-controlled case series studies".

This is a response to Dr. Somovilla del Saz's letter to the editor regarding Marchand et al.'s article, "Risk of all-cause and cardiac-related mortality after vaccination against COVID-19: A meta-analysis of self-controlled case series studies." The response is on behalf of all authors clarifying misconceptions about the work.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy vs. Robotic assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Following compelling evidence that open techniques may be related to better survival and disease free survival rates, many gynecologic oncologists in the US have turned away from performing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. While this may be warranted as a safety concern, there is little high-quality data on the head-to-head comparison of LRH and RRH and therefore little evidence to answer the question of where this decrease in patient survival is originating from. In our systematic review, we aimed to compare the complications and outcomes of LRH against those of RRH. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from database inception until February 1st, 2022. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: A total of 676 studies were identified and screened through a manual three-step process. Ultimately 33 studies were included in our final analysis. We included all studies that compared LRH and RRH and included at least one of our selected outcomes. We included retrospective cohorts, prospective cohorts, case-control, and randomized clinical trials. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Data was independently extracted manually by multiple observers and the analysis was performed using Review Manager Software. PRISMA guidelines were followed. We analyzed homogenous data using a fixed-effects model, while a random-effects model was used for heterogeneous outcomes. We found that following RRH, women had a decreased hospital stay (MD = 0.80[0.38,1.21],(P < 0.002). We found no differences in estimated blood loss (MD = 35.24[-0.40,70.89],(P = 0.05), blood transfusion rate ((OR = 1.32[0.86,2.02],(P = 0.20), rate of post-operative complications (OR = 0.84[0.60,1.17],(P = 0.30), the operative time (MD = 6.01[-4.64,16.66],(P = 0.27), number of resected lymph node (MD = -1.22[-3.28,0.84],(P = 0.25) intraoperative complications (OR = 0.78[0.51,1.19],(P = 0.25), five-year overall survival (OR = 1.37[0.51,3.69],(P = 0.53), lifetime disease free survival (OR = 0.89[0.59,1.32],(P = 0.55), intraoperative and postoperative mortality (within 30 days) (OR = 1.30[0.66,2.54],(P = 0.44), and recurrence (OR = 1.14[0.79,1.64],(P = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: RRH seems to result in the patient leaving the hospital sooner after surgery. We were unable to find any differences in our ten other outcomes related to complications or efficacy. These findings suggest that the decreased survival seen in minimally invasive RH in previous studies could be due to factors inherent to both LRH and RRH. PROSPERO PROSPECTIVE REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022273727.

Effect of a 20% intravenous fat emulsion therapy on pregnancy outcomes in women with RPL or RIF undergoing IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy a 20% intravenous fat emulsion therapy in women suffering from recurrent pregnancy loss or recurrent implantation failure (RPL/RIF) who are undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Materials and Methods: We searched Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and Scopus using relevant keywords during February 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the therapy versus placebo or no intervention in women suffering from RPL/RIF and undergoing IVF/ICSI. Results: We included five RCTs with 840 patients. The intravenous fat emulsion therapy was significantly effective in increasing clinical pregnancy rates compared to the control group (risk ratios [RR] = 1.48, 95% confidence intervals [CI] [1.23, 1.79], P < 0.001). Furthermore, ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates were significantly higher with 20% intravenous fat emulsion therapy RR = 1.71, 95% CI [1.27, 2.32], P = 0.005 and RR = 1.85, 95% CI [1.44, 2.38], P < 0.001. Despite the statistically significant differences, the quality of evidence was only considered moderate, and this was primarily due to high risk of bias in the included RCTs. Conclusion: Our review provides a moderate level of evidence that intravenous fat emulsion therapy is effective in improving reproductive outcomes among women with RPL/RIF performing IVF/ICSI techniques. Further, investigation is required to ascertain optimal dosage and timing of administration. Relevance for Patients: Women suffering from RPL or RIF may wish to consider discussing with their reproductive endocrinologist the addition of a 20% fat emulsion therapy to planned IVF or ICSI cycles, which may improve outcomes.

Risk of all-cause and cardiac-related mortality after vaccination against COVID-19: A meta-analysis of self-controlled case series studies.

Self-controlled case series (SCCS) is a novel study design uniquely equipped to ethically quantify the safety of vaccination. We sought out to perform a meta-analysis on all SCCS assessing mortality associated with COVID-19 vaccination in the immediate post-vaccination period. We included SCCS investigating the safety of COVID-19 vaccination and reporting all-cause and cardiac-related mortality. Three SCCS were located, totaling approximately 750,000 patients. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) revealed no significant association of COVID-19 vaccination with all-cause mortality (HR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.71, 1.10], p = .28). Regarding cardiac-related mortality, the pooled HR suggests that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with an increased risk of cardiac-related mortality (HR = 1.06, 95% CI [1.02, 1.11], p = .007). Subgroup analysis showed that the male gender is significantly associated with an increased incidence of cardiac-related deaths (HR = 1.09, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15], p = .006). In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination may be associated with a small increase in cardiac-related mortality, especially among males. Prospero Prospective Registration Number: CRD42022372256.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is associated with increased pregnancy complications. Despite effective vaccination strategies for the general population, the evidence on the safety and efficacy of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations in pregnancy is limited due to a lack of well-powered studies. The present study compares the maternal, neonatal, and immunological outcomes between vaccinated pregnant and unvaccinated pregnant women using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. We included 37 studies with a total of 141,107 pregnant women (36.8% vaccinated) spread across all outcomes. Our evidence indicates a higher rate of cesarean section in the 1898 vaccinated pregnant women compared to the 6180 women who did not receive vaccination (OR = 1.20, CI = (1.05, 1.38), P = 0.007, I2 = 45%). Regarding immunological outcomes, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy or postpartum was significantly reduced in 6820 vaccinated pregnant women compared to 17,010 unvaccinated pregnant women (OR = 0.25, CI = 0.13-0.48, P < 0.0001, I2 = 61%), as evident from qualitative assessment indicating significantly higher postpartum antibody titers compared to that observed in both unvaccinated mothers and mothers who have recently recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our analysis represents high quality evidence showing that COVID-19 vaccination effectively raises antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2. This may confer protection against infection during pregnancy and the postpartum period. In addition to being protective against SARS-CoV-2, the vaccine was associated with decreased odds of preterm delivery. Furthermore, COVID-19 vaccination may also be associated with higher odds of cesarean section.

Effect of the decision to perform hysteroscopy on asymptomatic patients before undergoing assisted reproduction technologies-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Routine hysteroscopic evaluation before assisted reproductive technology treatment is a novel approach with the potential to reduce assisted reproductive technology failure even in the absence of evidence of uterine pathology. Following the publication of several relatively high-quality trials on this topic, we sought to determine if this practice is beneficial. DATA SOURCES: We searched Web of Science, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from each database's inception until May 31, 2022 with our search strategy, attempting to locate all randomized controlled trials assessing the use of hysteroscopy in otherwise asymptomatic women undergoing assisted reproductive technology. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included only randomized controlled trials that included at least one of our selected outcomes, and we excluded any studies with suspicion of pathology before the time of hysteroscopy, other than knowledge of the patient's infertility. We included all the aforementioned studies regardless of procedures or modifications performed as a result of hysteroscopic findings. Our initial search yielded 1802 results, which were reduced to 1421 after removal of duplicates. Ultimately, 11 studies were found to meet our criteria and were included in our quantitative synthesis. METHODS: We used ReviewManager software, version 5.4.1 to analyze the data, which we imported after manually gathering from the 11 studies. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were imported as standard deviations. Pooled analysis was described as a mean difference, relative to 95 % confidence interval in cases of continuous data. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. In homogeneous outcomes, we used a fixed-effects model, and in heterogeneous outcomes we used a random-effects model. RESULTS: Our results showed that hysteroscopy was associated with significant improvement in the clinical pregnancy rate (risk ratio, 1.27 [1.11-1.45]; P<.001). We found no differences between the hysteroscopy group and the control group in live birth rate (risk ratio, 1.26 [0.99-1.59]; P=.06), miscarriage rate (risk ratio, 0.99 [0.81-1.19]; P=.88), fertilization rate (risk ratio, 1.01 [0.93-1.09]; P=.88), incidence of multiple gestations (risk ratio, 1.29 [0.98-1.71]; P=.07), number of embryos transferred (mean difference, 0.04 [-0.18 to 0.26]; P=.73), chemical pregnancy rate (risk ratio, 1.01 [0.86-1.17]; P=.93), and number of oocytes retrieved (mean difference, 0.44 [-0.11 to 0.98]; P=.11). CONCLUSION: We observed an improvement in the clinical pregnancy rate, but no significant improvement in the live birth rate with routine hysteroscopy before assisted reproductive technology treatment. We believe this does not represent sufficient evidence to recommend routine hysteroscopy for otherwise asymptomatic patients before assisted reproductive technology treatment at this time.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.

Recent evidence has shown an increase in recurrence and a decrease in overall survival in patients treated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) open techniques (ORH). In addition, several high quality trials were recently published regarding the laparoscopic treatment of early stage cervical cancer. We sought out to reassess the recurrence rates, overall survival, complications and outcomes associated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) techniques against open techniques (ORH) when robotic assisted techniques were excluded. We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.Gov and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials and observational studies. We included all studies that compared with early stage cervical cancer receiving LRH compared with ORH. We included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort trials. We included studies that included LRH and RRH as long as data was available to separate the two arms. We excluded studies that combined LRH and RRH without supplying data to differentiate. Of 1244 total studies, we used a manual three step screening process. Sixty studies ultimately met our criteria. We performed this review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We analyzed continuous data using mean difference (MD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous data were analyzed using odds ratio (OR) and a 95% CI. Review Manager and Endnote software were utilized in the synthesis. We found that when excluding RRH, the was no significant difference regarding 5-year overall Survival (OR = 1.24 [0.94, 1.64], (P = 0.12), disease free survival (OR = 1.00 [0.80, 1.26], (P = 0.98), recurrence (OR = 1.01 [0.81, 1.25], (P = 0.95), or intraoperative complications (OR = 1.38 [0.94, 2.04], (P = 0.10). LRH was statistically better than ORH in terms of estimated blood loss (MD = - 325.55 [- 386.16, - 264.94] (P < 0.001), blood transfusion rate (OR = 0.28 [0.14, 0.55], (P = 0.002), postoperative complication rate (OR = 0.70 [0.55, 0.90], (P = 0.005), and length of hospital stay (MD = - 3.64[- 4.27, - 3.01], (P < 0.001). ORH was superior in terms of operating time (MD = 20.48 [8.62, 32.35], (P = 0.007) and number of resected lymph nodes (MD = - 2.80 [- 4.35, - 1.24], (P = 0.004). The previously seen increase recurrence and decrease in survival is not seen in LRH when robotic assisted techniques are included and all new high quality is considered. LRH is also associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower complication rate.Prospero Prospective Registration Number: CRD42022267138.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of acupuncture as an adjunct to IVF cycles in China and the world.

Acupuncture has been introduced as an adjuvant therapy to in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles in many randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, there has been a debate among trials regarding the effectiveness and safety of the procedure. To determine how effective and safe acupuncture is as an adjunct to IVF cycles for primary and secondary female infertility. We conducted a literature search for relevant RCTs and ultimately included nine studies. The main selected outcomes included the rates of clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, live birth, and side effects. Patients receiving acupuncture were grouped together regardless of the acupuncture points used or the protocol for the insertion of needles. We performed a subgroup analysis according to whether studies originated inside and outside China to investigate the results of the different RCTs. We pooled outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The analysis revealed that in China, acupuncture led to lower clinical [RR=0.80, 95% CI (0.66, 0.97), p=0.02] and ongoing [RR=0.78, 95% CI (0.63, 0.97), p=0.03] pregnancy rates than placebo. Outside China, acupuncture increased clinical pregnancy rates [RR=1.38, 95% CI (1.11, 1.71), p=0.003] and ongoing [RR=1.73, 95% CI (1.29, 2.31), p<0.001] pregnancy rates. Rates of live birth and miscarriage did not significantly differ between the arms. Regarding side effects, acupuncture groups had a significantly higher rate of puncture site itching compared to control groups [RR=1.51, 95% CI (1.12, 2.04), p=0.007]. Overall analysis does not show a statistically significant increase in clinical pregnancy rates worldwide when using acupuncture as an adjunct therapy to IVF. There were no issues regarding patient safety from any included study. Subgroup results indicated that better rates for clinical pregnancy seem to be occurring more often in RCTs performed outside China than within.

Treatment of Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy in China with Uterine Artery Embolization-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSP) is a rare form of ectopic pregnancy, and treatment of CSP with uterine artery embolization (UAE) is a novel approach. With increasing numbers of cesarean sections being performed annually, the incidence of this condition is likely to increase. The authors became aware of an unusually high number of published studies originating in mainland China regarding this unusual treatment and sought to perform a meta-analysis to provide comprehensive evidence on this novel practice. METHODS: We performed a thorough search and included all forms of quality studies on this topic that reported UAE as a part of first-line management of CSP. We included only studies originating in China. Ultimately, 37 studies were included for qualitative and quantitative synthesis of evidence. After screening retrieved records and extracting data from eligible studies, we pooled continuous data as a mean estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI), and dichotomous data as proportion and 95% CI. RESULTS: CSP patients treated with protocols including UAE had a mean time of 30 days for serum ß-hCG normalization, 95% CI [26.816, 33.881]. They had a mean estimated intraprocedural blood loss of 4.19 ± 3.76 mL, a mean hospital stay of nine days, 95%CI [7.914, 9.876], and a success rate of 93.4%, 95%CI [0.918, 0.951]. The severe complication rate was 1.2%, 95%CI [0.008, 0.017]. CONCLUSION: UAE, in combination with other procedures is being used effectively for the treatment of CSP in China. Protocols including UAE have a success rate of approximately 93.4%, and a severe complication rate of approximately 1.2%. This data's utility is limited by vast differences in the studied protocols and questionable feasibility outside of China.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of gabapentin in chronic female pelvic pain without another diagnosis.

Background: While widely used for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain, limited data exists on efficacy of gabapentin, especially in the subgroup of women suffering from chronic pelvic pain without a known diagnosis, such as endometriosis. Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of gabapentin when administered to women with chronic pelvic pain without another diagnosis. Study Design: We performed a Systematic Review and Meta Analysis including all controlled clinical trials addressing the use of gabapentin for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain without another diagnosis. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library from inception of each database to April 30, 2021. We included all the studies that fulfilled the following criteria: (1) population: women suffering from chronic pelvic pain without another identified diagnosis (such as endometriosis); (2) intervention: gabapentin (regardless of the dosage); (3) comparator:placebo; (4) outcomes: pain score (visual analog scale) after 3 months and pain score (visual analog scale) after 6 months as primary outcomes; and (5) study design: we only included randomized or controlled clinical trials. Our exclusion criteria included (1) uncontrolled clinical trials, (2) studies that did not report data or measures for any of our selected outcomes, (3) studies that included patients with surgically or clinically diagnosed endometriosis, or (4) studies with no full-text manuscript available. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We analyzed dichotomous outcomes as percentages and totals, whereas continuous outcomes were analyzed using mean difference, standard deviations, and relative 95% confidence intervals using the inverse variance method. Results: We included 4 placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials. Analysis was hindered because half of the studies (n=2) used the visual analog scale pain score and the other half (n=2) used the numerical rating scale. The analysis showed that when compared with the placebo, gabapentin significantly lowered the visual analog scale pain score at 3 months (mean difference, 0.79; 1.23 to 0.35; P=.005) and 6 months (mean difference, 1.68; 2.30 to 1.05; P=.001) and the numerical rating scale pain score at 3 months (mean difference, 0.20; 0.25 to 0.15; P=.001). However, in terms of the numerical rating scale pain score after 6 months, the 2 groups showed no significant difference (mean difference, 0.27; 0.80 to 0.26; P=.32). CONCLUSION: Gabapentin may hold benefit for the management of chronic pelvic pain, with significant improvement in pain seen in both scales at 3 months when compared with the placebo, but only in the visual analog scale group at 6 months of usage. Secondary to the differences in the nature of the 2 scales, a further weighted combined analysis was not possible.

Salpingectomy, tubal ligation and hysteroscopic occlusion for sterilization.

INTRODUCTION: Sterilization of females is considered one of the most prevalent contraceptive techniques among women in the United States. There are many surgical sterilization procedures including salpingectomy, tubal ligation, and hysteroscopic occlusion of the fallopian tubes. We provide an overview of these methods from the clinical data and latest studies available on this topic. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: In order to review the latest literature on the topic, we searched electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane library for all eligible studies from May 1st 2018 until May 1st 2022 using the following strategy: ("fallopian tube removal" OR Salpingectomy OR "fallopian tube excision" OR "tubal sterilization") AND ("tubal ligation" OR "bipolar coagulation" OR "tubal clip" OR "tubal ring" OR fimbriectomy). We reviewed every study that met our criteria and subjectively considered their results and methodology into this narrative review. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In addition to reviewing major guidelines in the United States, 19 recent studies met our eligibility criteria and were included in this review. We grouped the findings under the following headings: anatomical and physiological considerations, sterilization, salpingectomy, tubal ligation, and hysteroscopic tubal occlusion. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral salpingectomy and techniques of tubal ligation or occlusion continue to be effective procedures with good safety profiles. All techniques have similar surgical outcomes and long-term success rates. As salpingectomy has the advantage of reducing the risk of occurrence of ovarian cancer, this is preferential when feasible. Hysteroscopic occlusion techniques may be more minimally invasive but have the disadvantages of delayed efficacy, the need for a second invasive diagnostic procedure, and limited availability.

Analgesic Efficacy of Multiple Single-Shot Peripheral Nerve Blocks on Postoperative Short-Term Opioid Usage and Clinical Outcomes in a Suburban Hospital Setting.

Background: Preoperative single-shot peripheral nerve blocks (sPNBs) represent promising candidates for controlling postoperative pain, reducing dependence on opioid medications, and reducing postoperative constipation and ileus. However, there is not yet complete consensus regarding their efficacy. The primary aim of this study was to assess the impact of various sPNBs on patient short-term opioid demands and pain management parameters. Methods: This single-center study retrospectively reviewed a cohort of 94 adult, elective surgery inpatients (ASA physical status I-III) scheduled for different operations. Sixty-four (68.1%) were selected for sPNB administration (group 1) and compared to the untreated group (group 0) for different clinical parameters. Results: Contrary to the starting hypothesis, a higher proportion of group 1 patients experienced increasing pain intensities during the immediate postoperative period (P < 0.05, Fisher's exact test), while requiring more bowel care medications (P < 0.05, χ2 test). Multiple linear regression modeling, however, showed that recovery time positively correlated with the opioid amount consumed (P < 0.01). Although limited, the results obtained in this study do not support an analgesic efficacy for sPNBs. Conclusion: In conclusion, even though our data must be viewed within the limitations of our retrospective study and small group size, we did not find any compelling evidence for the efficacy of sPNB administration in the perioperative period.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of Veress needle entry versus direct trocar entry in gynecologic surgery.

Objective: Although many studies have been performed, no consensus exists as to the ideal entry for laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. We sought out to compare the safety of direct trocar insertion with that of the Veress needle entry technique in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Setting: We searched Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from their inception through 31 July 2021 for relevant studies. We included only controlled trials and ultimately seven trials were included in our meta-analysis. Participants: Inclusion criteria included women undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Intervention: The intervention of direct trocar insertion technique compared with Veress needle entry technique. Main outcome measures: We compared five different outcomes associated with the efficacy and complications of laparoscopic entry. Results: The pooled analysis showed that Veress needle entry was associated with a significant increase in the incidences of extraperitoneal insufflation (RR=0.177, 95% Cl (0.094 to 0.333), p<0.001), omental injury (RR=0.418, 95% Cl (0.195 to 0.896), p<0.001), failed entry (RR=0.173, 95% Cl (0.102 to 0.292), p<0.001), and trocar site infection (RR=0.404, 95% Cl (0.180 to 0.909), p<0.029). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the visceral injury (RR=0.562, 95% Cl (0.047 to 6.676), p<0.648). Conclusions: When excluding all data apart from gynecologic surgery, the Veress needle entry technique may have an increased incidence of some, but not all complications of laparoscopic entry. It may also have a higher incidence of failed entry compared with direct entry techniques. Care should be taken in extrapolating these general results to specific surgeon experience levels. Trial registration number: CRD42021273726.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of COVID-19 maternal and neonatal clinical features and pregnancy outcomes up to June 3, 2021.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 is a rapidly changing and developing emergency that requires constant re-evaluation of available data. We report a systematic review and meta-analysis based on all published high-quality data up to and including June 3, 2021 on the maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women infected with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science databases were queried from inception up to June 3, 2021. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all clinical studies (prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, case series, and rapid communications) that reported data on any maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women with COVID-19. METHODS: The data were analyzed as pooled proportions or odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals in meta-analysis models. RESULTS: We included 111 studies enrolling 42,754 COVID-19-positive pregnant women. From COVID-19-positive pregnant women, the incidence rates were 53.2% (95% confidence interval, 48-58.4) for cesarean delivery, 41.5% (95% confidence interval, 36.3-46.8) for spontaneous vaginal delivery, and 6.4% (95% confidence interval, 4.5-9.2) for operative delivery. The rates of some adverse neonatal events, including premature delivery (16.7%; 95% confidence interval, 12.8-21.5) and low birthweight (16.7%; 95% confidence interval, 12.8-21.5) were relatively high in mothers infected with COVID-19. Vertical transmission (3.5%; 95% confidence interval, 2.7-4.7), neonatal death (3%; 95% confidence interval, 2-4), stillbirth (1.9%; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.4), and maternal mortality (0.012%; 95% confidence interval, 0.010-0.014) were rare adverse events. The mean birthweight was 3069.7 g (95% confidence interval, 3009.7-3129.8 g). In the comparative analysis, COVID-19 significantly increased the risk of premature delivery (odds ratio, 1. 48 [95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.8]), preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.6 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.1]), stillbirth (odds ratio, 2.36 [95% confidence interval, 1.24-4.462]), neonatal mortality (odds ratio, 3.35 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-10.5]), and maternal mortality (odds ratio, 3.08 [95% confidence interval, 1.5-6.3]). The pooled analyses were homogenous, with mild heterogeneity in premature delivery and preeclampsia outcomes. CONCLUSION: The data must be interpreted with caution as limited data are available, and no complete assessment of bias is possible at this time. Our data suggest that pregnant women who test positive for COVID-19 seem to be at a higher risk of lower birth weights and premature delivery. There is no evidence at this time of the sharply increased maternal mortality that was seen previously with both the 2003 SARS and 2012 MERS pandemics.