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.

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.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Intraperitoneal Bupivacaine in Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We set out to evaluate whether the instillation of bupivacaine versus a saline solution into the peritoneal cavity at time of laparoscopic gynecologic surgery will reduce postoperative pain and postoperative opioid consumption. DATA SOURCES: We searched six databases: Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE and PubMed. Our search strategy had no restriction on time or languages and included all studies that met our search algorithm up to March of 2021. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included only randomized trials that met our search strategy for the outcomes of 1) pain intensity 24 hours after surgery, 2) pain intensity 6 hours after surgery, and 3) length of hospital stay. TABULATION INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: We analyzed continuous data using mean difference (MD) with relative 95% confidence interval (CI). We included 8 randomized clinical trials. We found that intraperitoneal bupivacaine showed significant difference from the saline group regarding pain intensity 24 hours after surgery (MD= -0.73 [-1.10, -0.36]) (P = 0.01) and pain intensity 6 hours after surgery (MD= -1.12 [-2.22, -0.02]) (P = 0.05). Overall, patients allocated to the placebo group seemed to need other analgesics earlier than patients allocated to the bupivacaine group (MD=145.08 [51.37, 238.79] (P = 0.02)). There was no significant difference regarding the length of hospital stay (MD= -0.44 [-1.44, 0.56]) (P = 0.39). CONCLUSION: Bupivacaine significantly reduced the visual analog pain score for pain compared with that of the placebo at 6 and 24 hours postoperatively. There was no significant difference in hospital stay. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021254268.

Efficacy and safety of mirogabalin treatment in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

AIM: We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and safety of mirogabalin in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). METHODS: We searched four databases from inception to 1st July 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which assessed the effectiveness and safety of mirogabalin in patients with DPNP. We evaluated the quality of the included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. We pooled dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios and continuous outcomes as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals, both under the random- or fixed-effects model. RESULTS: Three RCTs matched our inclusion criteria with a total of 1732 patients with DPNP: 1057, 534 and 141 patients received mirogabalin, placebo and pregabalin, respectively. The quality of included RCTs was marked as moderate-to-high. Mirogabalin treatment was significantly associated with a significant reduction in the average daily pain score (ADPS) compared with placebo over 7 weeks. Compared with pregabalin, mirogabalin was significantly associated with more decrease in ADPS only after 3, 4 and 5 weeks. The proportion of patients with ≥30% and ≥50% reduction in the ADPS was significantly higher in the mirogabalin vs placebo and pregabalin groups. Compared with placebo, mirogabalin was significantly associated with more adverse events of dizziness, increased weight, peripheral oedema and somnolence. The safety profile was comparable between mirogabalin and pregabalin. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that in patients with DPNP, mirogabalin treatment was superior to placebo and pregabalin in decreasing the ADPS over time. Besides, mirogabalin was largely safe and associated with some adverse events that could be managed conservatively.

Outcome comparison between wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) eye surgery is widely used for patients at risk for corneal ectasia to maintain an aspheric corneal shape. Wavefront-guided (WFG) ablation profile was designed to reduce pre-existing higher-order aberrations (HOA). We aimed to compare the corneal aberrations and visual outcomes between WFG and Wavefront Optimized (WFO) PRK in patients with myopia. Eight randomized clinical trials were included. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL at March 2020, and updated the search in September 2020 using relevant keywords, The data were extracted and pooled as Mean Difference (MD) with a 95% Confidence Interval (CI), using Review Manager software (version 5.4). Pooled results showed no significance between Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity (UDVA) and Corrected Distance Visual Acuity (CDVA) between both groups underwent WFG and WFO PPR after three months follow up (MD = -0.03; 95% CI: [-0.06, 0.00]; P = 0.07), (MD = -0.02; 95% CI: [-0.04, 0.01]; P = 0.22) respectively. Although, no significant difference between mean manifest cylinder after three and 12 months follow up, but the total MD for mean manifest cylinder difference was significantly lower with the WFG treatment method (MD = -0.12, (95% CI: [0.23:-0.01], P = 0.03). This shows a slight advantage of the WFG over the WFO method. The visual performance showed similarity and excellent refractive outcomes in both WFO and WFG PRK. No significant statistical differences between the two approaches. On further comparison, there was a slight advantage of the WFG over the WFO method.