Prophylactic vasopressin to reduce intraoperative blood loss and associated morbidities during myomectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To collate evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (NCTs) on the efficacy and safety of vasopressin versus passive control (placebo/no treatment) during myomectomy. METHODS: Six information sources were screened until 25-June-2022. The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the risk of bias. Data were summarized as mean difference or risk ratio with 95% confidence interval in a random-effects model. RESULTS: Eleven studies, comprising 1067 patients (vasopressin=567 and control=500) were analyzed. For RCTs (n = 8), the overall quality included 'high risk' (n = 4), 'low risk' (n = 2), and 'some concerns' (n = 2). For NCTs (n = 3), the overall quality included 'good' (n = 2) and 'fair' (n = 1). The mean intraoperative blood loss, mean difference in hemoglobin level, mean difference in hematocrit level, rate of perioperative blood transfusion, and mean operative time were significantly reduced in favor of the vasopressin group compared with the control group. However, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean hospital stay. Pertaining to safety endpoints, after omission of an outlier study, the rate of drug-related cardiovascular adverse events did not significantly differ between both groups. There was no quantitative evidence of publication bias for the endpoint of intraoperative blood loss. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing myomectomy, prophylactic administration of vasopressin was largely safe and correlated with significant reductions in intraoperative blood loss and associated morbidities compared with a passive control intervention. Nonetheless, the conclusions should be cautiously interpreted owing to the low-evidence quality and the used doses varied greatly between studies.

Prophylactic tranexamic acid to reduce blood loss and related morbidities during hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of prophylactic tranexamic acid (TXA) versus a control (placebo or no treatment) during hysterectomy for benign conditions. Six databases were screened from inception to January 23, 2022. Eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Outcomes were summarized as weighted mean differences and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals in a random-effects model. Five studies, comprising six arms and 911 patients were included in the study. Two and three studies had an overall unclear and low risk of bias, respectively. Estimated intraoperative blood loss, requirement for postoperative blood transfusion, and requirement for intraoperative topical hemostatic agents were significantly reduced in a prophylactic TXA group when compared with a control group. Moreover, postoperative hemoglobin level was significantly higher in the prophylactic TXA group than in the control group. Conversely, the frequency of self-limiting nausea and vomiting was significantly higher in the prophylactic TXA group than in the control group. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of surgery duration, hospital stay, and diarrhea rate. All the RCTs reported no incidence of major adverse events in either group, such as mortality, thromboembolic events, visual disturbances, or seizures. There was no publication bias for any outcome, and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses demonstrated stability of the findings. Among patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign conditions, prophylactic TXA appeared largely safe and correlated with substantial reductions in estimated intraoperative blood loss and related morbidities.

Prophylactic tranexamic acid during myomectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the clinical efficacy and safety of prophylactic tranexamic acid (TXA) versus control (normal saline/no treatment) during myomectomy. METHODS: Six databases were screened from inception until 21-February-2022. The eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. The outcomes were summarized as mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in a random-effects model. RESULTS: Seven studies, comprising eight arms and 571 patients (TXA = 304 patients, control = 267 patients) were analyzed. The included studies had an overall low risk of bias. The mean intraoperative blood loss (MD = -224.34 ml, 95% CI [-303.06, -145.61], p < 0.001), mean postoperative blood loss, and mean total blood loss were significantly reduced in favor of the prophylactic TXA group. Additionally, the mean postoperative hemoglobin (MD = 0.4 mg/dl, 95% CI [0.11, 0.68], p = 0.006) and mean postoperative hematocrit levels were significantly higher in favor of the prophylactic TXA group. While the mean hospital stay was significantly reduced in favor of the prophylactic TXA group (MD = -0.39 d, 95% [-0.74, -0.04], p = 0.03), there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean operation time and rate of blood transfusion. None of the participants in both groups developed any incidence of thromboembolic events. The rate of nausea was significantly higher in disfavor of the prophylactic TXA group (RR = 2.68, 95% CI [1.11, 6.43], p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing myomectomy, prophylactic TXA was largely safe and linked to substantial reductions in perioperative blood loss and related morbidities.

Titrated oral misoprostol versus static regimen of oral misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of titrated oral misoprostol versus static oral misoprostol for labour induction. We searched for the available randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, ISI web of science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included RCTs compared titrated oral misoprostol versus static regimen of oral misoprostol during labour induction. Our main outcomes were vaginal and caesarean delivery rates, uterine tachysystole, misoprostol side effects, and neonatal adverse events. Three RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total number of 360 patients. The vaginal delivery rate did not significantly differ between both groups (p = 0.49). Titrated oral misoprostol was associated with significant increase in the caesarean delivery rate compared to static oral misoprostol (p = 0.04). Moreover, titrated oral misoprostol led to significant increase in the uterine tachysystole and misoprostol side effects (p = 0.01 & p = 0.003, respectively). There were no differences among both groups regarding different neonatal adverse events. In conclusion, titrated oral misoprostol increases the incidence of caesarean delivery, uterine tachysystole, and misoprostol side effects with a similar vaginal delivery rate compared to static dose misoprostol. Thus, static oral misoprostol should be used instead of titrated oral misoprostol during labour induction. Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? Different studies have evaluated titrated oral misoprostol administration for induction of labour and proved their efficacy in comparison with other induction methods. However, there is controversy among the published studies between titrated oral misoprostol and static oral misoprostol during induction of labour. A recent study concluded that hourly titrated misoprostol and static oral misoprostol are equally safe and effective when utilised for induction of labour with no fear of any adverse events. However, another study recommended static oral misoprostol administration for labour induction as it was linked to a lower caesarean section incidence, fewer drug side effects, and decline in complication rates in comparison with titrated oral misoprostol.What the results of this study add? Titrated oral misoprostol increases the incidence of caesarean delivery, uterine tachysystole, and misoprostol side effects with a similar vaginal delivery rate compared to static dose misoprostol.What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Static oral misoprostol should be used instead of titrated oral misoprostol during labour induction. More future trials are required to confirm our findings.

The impact of virtual reality on pain management during normal labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of virtual reality on pain management during normal labor. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in September 2021 through PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ISI web of science. We selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared virtual reality in the intervention group versus placebo or no intervention in the control group among laboring women during their normal delivery. Revman software was used for performing our meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was the pain score evaluated during the labor process by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Our secondary outcomes were anxiety and satisfaction scores during childbirth in addition to the duration of the first and second stages of labor. RESULTS: Eight RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total number of 466 patients. We found virtual reality was linked to a significant reduction in the VAS pain score during labor compared to the control group (MD = -1.40, 95% CI [-1.83, -0.96], p < 0.001). The anxiety score during labor was significantly reduced among the virtual reality group (SMD = -1.15, 95% CI [-2.18, -0.12], p = 0.03). Moreover, virtual reality significantly improved the satisfaction score during labor (MD = 15.58, 95% CI [4.93, 26.22], p = 0.004). However, there were no significant differences between virtual reality and control groups regarding the duration of the first and second stages of labor. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual reality is an effective technique for reducing anxiety, increasing satisfaction, and improving pain management during normal labor.

Prophylactic tranexamic acid among women undergoing vaginal delivery to reduce postpartum blood loss and related morbidities: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that inspected the efficacy and safety of prophylactic TXA compared with control (placebo/no treatment) among women undergoing vaginal delivery on reducing postpartum blood loss and related morbidities. METHODS: Six databases were screened from inception until 06-December-2021. The pooled data were summarized as mean difference or risk ratio, respectively, with 95% confidence interval in a fixed- or random-effects model. RESULTS: Sixteen studies comprising 17 RCT treatment arms were included. There were 7122 patients; 3611 and 3511 patients were allocated to prophylactic TXA and control groups, respectively. Overall, the included RCTs had a low risk of bias. Prophylactic TXA correlated with a significant decrease in mean postpartum blood loss and mean change in hemoglobin/hematocrit. Moreover, prophylactic TXA was linked to decreased incidence rates of postpartum hemorrhage, need for blood transfusion, and need for additional uterotonic agents. Nevertheless, prophylactic TXA culminated in significantly higher incidence rates of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, all of which were well-tolerated. There was no increased risk of thromboembolic events. Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of efficacy endpoints. There was no publication bias for the endpoint of mean postpartum blood loss. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing vaginal delivery, prophylactic TXA during active management of third stage of labor (AMTSL) appeared largely safe and correlated with a significant decrease in postpartum blood loss and related morbidities compared with control intervention. Prophylactic TXA should be integrated as a "formal" component of AMTSL among women undergoing vaginal delivery.

Value of intrauterine platelet-rich concentrates in patients with intrauterine adhesions after hysteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of intrauterine platelet-rich concentrates among patients with intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. METHODS: Four different databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ISI web of science) were searched for the available studies from inception to November 2021. We selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared platelet-rich concentrates in the intervention group versus no injection of platelet-rich concentrates in the control group among women with intrauterine adhesions after operative hysteroscopy. Revman software was utilized for performing our meta-analysis. Our primary outcomes were the adhesion score and incidence of recurrence of severe intrauterine adhesions postoperatively. Our secondary outcomes were the clinical pregnancy rate, menstrual flow duration in days, and menstrual flow amount (number of pads). RESULTS: Five RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total number of 329 patients. We found that platelet-rich concentrates were linked to a significant reduction in the postoperative adhesion score (MD = -1.00, 95% CI [-1.68, -0.32], p = 0.004). Moreover, there was a significant reduction in the incidence of severe IUAs recurrence among the platelet-rich concentrates group (7.6%) compared to the control group (23.4%) after hysteroscopy (p = 0.001). The clinical pregnancy rate was significantly increased among the platelet-rich concentrates group (37.1%) in comparison with the control group (20.7%) after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis (p = 0.008). There were significant improvements in the menstrual flow duration and amount among the platelet-rich concentrates group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Intrauterine placement of platelet-rich concentrates is an effective method for the treatment of intrauterine adhesions after hysteroscopy.

Intraperitoneal lidocaine instillation during abdominal hysterectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials.

AIM: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) that inspected the analgesic benefits of intraperitoneal lidocaine instillation among patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. METHODS: Five electronic databases were inspected from till August 5, 2021. The eligible RCTs were evaluated for risk of bias. The pooled endpoints were summarized as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria comprising 263 patients (119 and 117 patients were allocated to lidocaine and control group, respectively). The included RCTs demonstrated a low risk of bias. The postoperative pain score at rest was significantly lower in favor of the lidocaine group (MD=-1.01, 95% CI [-1.20, -0.81], p<0.001), and subgroup analysis demonstrated the same at 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively. Moreover, the postoperative pain score at moving was significantly lower in favor of the lidocaine group (MD=-0.67, 95% CI [-1.01, -0.33], p<0.001), and subgroup analysis demonstrated the same at 2 and 48 h postoperatively. The postoperative morphine consumption during 0-24 h was significantly lower in favor of the lidocaine group (n = 5 RCTs, MD=-7.29 mg, 95% CI [-13.22, -1.37], p = 0.02). The rate of postoperative vomiting was significantly lower in favor of the lidocaine group (n = 4 RCTs, RR=0.54, 95% CI [0.31, 0.95], p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy, intraperitoneal lidocaine instillation is feasible, cheap, safe, and associates with effective analgesia in terms of reduced postoperative pain score and morphine consumption.