Social media trends in obstetrics and gynecology residency programs on Instagram and X (Twitter).

BACKGROUND: During the COVID pandemic, residency program's social media presence increased to aid in residency recruitment by attempting to increase engagement and readily available information for applicants across specialties. However, little information exists on what characteristics and content on obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) residency program accounts attract more followers or engagement. OBJECTIVES: To identify social media trends in OBGYN residencies and determine which aspects of programs influence the number of followers and interaction with content posted. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of ACGME accredited OBGYN programs and determined their presence on Instagram and X in the fall of 2021. Content from the thirty programs with the most followers was analyzed independently by two authors. Multivariate analysis and a linear mixed model were used to characterize and evaluate content on Instagram and X. RESULTS: Most programs utilized Instagram (88.5%, N = 262/296) and were managed solely by residents (84.4%, N = 108/128). Number of followers on Instagram positively correlated with features such as program size, Instagram profile duration, and Doximity rankings (p < 0.0x01). Programs on X had more followers if their profile had a longer duration, followed more individuals, or were ranked higher on Doximity. The most posted Instagram content was biographical and social in nature. Instagram posts with the highest engagement were awards and/or the Match. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding what social media content attracts more followers and increases engagement is crucial as it likely impacts OBGYN resident recruitment. Professional groups should establish guidelines for social media use in recruitment for the protection of both residents and applicants.

Perception and Comfort with Endometriosis Management Among OB/GYN Residents.

Purpose: The diagnosis of endometriosis often takes several years, delaying appropriate care while patients suffer from pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and dyspareunia. Understanding whether residents in obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) are being adequately exposed to and trained in the diagnosis and management of the disease is important for improving care. Methods: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey of OB/GYN residents to investigate their comfort level and familiarity with endometriosis diagnosis and management. Residency program directors and coordinators of 20 OB/GYN residency programs in California, USA were emailed to disseminate the 31-question, anonymous survey in January to February 2023. Responses were collected using Redcap and analysis was conducted using STATA. Results: 67 residents answered at least one non-demographic question and were included. A resident response rate was not calculated because we were unable to determine how many programs distributed the survey. 84% of residents felt they could recognise symptoms of endometriosis but over 30% of senior residents were not comfortable with sonographic diagnosis of endometrioma. Approximately one third of residents felt comfortable managing hypoestrogenic symptoms, osteoporotic risks, and add-back progestin for certain hormonal therapies. Academic-hospital based residents had significantly more exposure to attendings prescribing long-acting reversible contraception, GnRH antagonists, and GnRH agonists but there were no significant differences in trainee prescribing practices or comfort. More respondents would feel comfortable medically managing endometriosis (52%) than surgically managing the disease (26%) if they were in practice today, with only 39% of PGY3-4 residents feeling comfortable surgically managing endometriosis. Conclusion: There is considerable room for improvement in the education of residents in the diagnosis and medical and surgical management of endometriosis.

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are five major approaches to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease: abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) and vaginal natural orifice hysterectomy (V-NOTES). Within the LH category we further differentiate the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) from the total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (from their inception to December 2022): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the trial registries and relevant reference lists, and communicated with experts in the field for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction and quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvic-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction). MAIN RESULTS: We included 63 studies with 6811 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate certainty. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (12 RCTs, 1046 women) Return to normal activities was probably faster in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -10.91 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.95 to -3.87; 4 RCTs, 274 women; I2 = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after AH is assumed to be 42 days, then after VH it would be between 24 and 38 days. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (28 RCTs, 3431 women) Return to normal activities may be sooner in the LH group (MD -13.01 days, 95% CI -16.47 to -9.56; 7 RCTs, 618 women; I2 = 68%, low-certainty evidence), but there may be more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.16, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.93; 18 RCTs, 2594 women; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 37 days, then after laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 22 and 25 days. It also suggests that if the rate of ureter injury during abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 0.2%, then during laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 0.2% and 2%. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (22 RCTs, 2135 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for any of our primary outcomes. Both short- and long-term complications were rare in both groups. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (three RCTs, 296 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for our other primary outcomes. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH) versus LH (seven RCTs, 621 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates, quality of life or major long-term complications. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) versus laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) (three RCTs, 233 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury or major long-term complications. Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (V-NOTES) versus LH (two RCTs, 96 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of bladder injury. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. Overall, adverse events were rare in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to AH. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because it is associated with faster return to normal activities, fewer wound/abdominal wall infections and shorter hospital stay. Where VH is not possible, LH has advantages over AH including faster return to normal activities, shorter hospital stay, and decreased risk of wound/abdominal wall infection, febrile episodes or unspecified infection, and transfusion. These advantages must be balanced against the increased risk of ureteric injury and longer operative time. When compared to LH, VH was associated with no difference in time to return to normal activities but shorter operative time and shorter hospital stay. RH and V-NOTES require further evaluation since there is a lack of evidence of any patient benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed with the patient and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. Surgical expertise is difficult to quantify and poorly reported in the available studies and this may influence outcomes in ways that cannot be accounted for in this review. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH has multiple advantages over AH, but at the cost of more ureteric injuries. Evidence is limited for RH and V-NOTES.

A laparoscopic approach to cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy.

Cesarean scar pregnancies confer serious risk and severe morbidity. Appropriate management is the key to preventing complications. Although expectant management is usually contraindicated, the ideal combination of medical or surgical treatments is unclear and must be tailored to the patient's preferences and stability, provider skill, and the available resources. In this article, we present a combined medical and surgical approach that was successfully employed for the termination and excision of a cesarean scar pregnancy at 12 weeks' gestation in a patient desiring uterine preservation. A video is included, demonstrating the surgical steps of a laparoscopic approach used to safely resect the pregnancy and cesarean delivery scar with minimal blood loss. The management technique described can be utilized to effectively resolve cesarean scar pregnancy, to possibly decrease the risk of recurrence, and preserve future fertility with a minimally invasive outpatient surgery.