The impact of epidural analgesia on delivery mode in Robson class 1 women: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The use of epidural analgesia represents the gold standard for pain management during labor, but the influence of the use of epidural analgesia on delivery mode is not fully understood. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the impact of epidural analgesia on the delivery mode, namely, cesarean delivery, vaginal delivery, and operative vaginal delivery rates, in Robson class 1 women. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on all Robson class 1 women who delivered from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, in the University Hospital of Modena. The primary outcome was the delivery mode (cesarean delivery, vaginal delivery, and operative vaginal delivery rates), and the secondary outcomes were maternal, anesthesiologic, and neonatal effects of epidural analgesia (duration of labor, duration of the second stage of labor, Apgar score, and neonatal intensive care unit admission). RESULTS: A total of 744 women were included in the final analysis, of which 198 (26.6%) underwent epidural analgesia on request and 546 (73.4%) did not. In women with and without epidural analgesia, the cesarean delivery rate was 8.1% vs 7%, the vaginal delivery rate was 79.3% vs 81.1%, and the operative vaginal delivery rate was 12.6% vs 11.9%, respectively. A significant increase in both the first stage of labor (66.3±38.5 vs 43.8±38.8 minutes; P<.0001) and total duration of labor (328.0±206.7 vs 201.7±168.3 minutes; P<.0001) was found in women receiving epidural analgesia. No change was recorded in the second stage of labor. A shorter duration of labor was observed (P<.0001) when epidural analgesia was started earlier (dilation: 2-4 cm vs >4 cm). No significant difference in Apgar score and neonatal intensive care unit admission was found. CONCLUSION: The use of epidural analgesia was not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery or operative vaginal delivery in Robson class 1 women. Further investigations are needed to evaluate its impact on the duration of labor, namely the duration of the first stage of labor, and on the possible advantages of starting epidural analgesia at an early stage.

Prevalence of uterine rupture among women with one prior low transverse cesarean and women with unscarred uterus undergoing labor induction with PGE2: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As uterine rupture may affect as many as 11/1000 women with 1 prior cesarean birth and 5/10.000 women with unscarred uterus undergoing labor induction, we intended to estimate the prevalence of such rare outcome when PGE2 is used for cervical ripening and labor induction. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane library up to September 1st 2020. Retrospective and prospective cohort studies, as well as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on singleton viable pregnancies receiving PGE2 for cervical ripening and labor induction were reviewed. Prevalence of uterine rupture was meta-analyzed with Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation among women with 1 prior low transverse cesarean section and women with unscarred uterus. RESULTS: We reviewed 956 full text articles to include 69 studies. The pooled prevalence rate of uterine rupture is estimated to range between 2 and 9 out of 1000 women with 1 prior low transverse cesarean (5/1000; 95%CI 2-9/1000, 122/9000). The prevalence of uterine rupture among women with unscarred uterus is extremely low, reaching at most 0.7/100.000 (<1/100.000.000; 95%CI <1/100.000.000-0.7/100.000, 8/17.684). CONCLUSIONS: Uterine rupture is a rare event during cervical ripening and labor induction with PGE2.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes between standard laparoscopic and robot-assisted approach in patients with rectosigmoid endometriosis.

INTRODUCTION: Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) has gained widespread application in several surgical specialties. Previous studies on the feasibility and safety of RALS vs standard laparoscopy (S-LPS) for rectosigmoid endometriosis are limited and reported conflicting data. This study aims to compare S-LPS and RALS in patients with rectosigmoid endometriosis in terms of perioperative surgical and clinical data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a multicentric, observational, prospective cohort study including 44 patients affected by rectosigmoid endometriosis referred to two tertiary referral centers for endometriosis from September 2018 to September 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: 22 patients underwent S-LPS, and 22 underwent RALS. Our primary outcome was to compare operative time (from skin incision to suture) between the two groups. Secondary outcomes included: operative room time (patient entry into operative room and patient out), estimated blood loss, laparotomic conversion rate, length of hospital stay, perioperative complications, and evaluation of endometriosis-related symptoms at 12-month follow up. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable regarding preoperative and surgical data, except for higher rates of hysterectomies and bilateral uterosacral ligament removal procedures in the RALS group. Also after adjusting for these discrepancies, operative time was similar between S-LPS and RALS. Operative room time was statistically longer in the RALS group compared with that of S-LPS. No statistically significant difference was found concerning other study outcomes. Pain and bowel symptoms improved in both groups at 12-month follow up. CONCLUSIONS: If performed by expert teams, RALS provides similar perioperative outcomes compared with S-LPS in rectosigmoid endometriosis surgical treatment, except for longer operative room time.