Management of non-tubal ectopic pregnancies analysis of a large tertiary center case series.

PURPOSE: Ectopic pregnancies include cesarean scar (CSP), cornual and cervical pregnancies. Various treatment modalities have been- described, but no standardized procedure has been defined so far. The aim of our analysis was to evaluate the diagnostics and treatment at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, LMU University Hospital, Munich. METHODS: In this retrospective, single-center analysis, 24 patients treated between 2015 and 2020 were analyzed. After verification of the diagnosis by imaging and HCG-analysis, the treatment was individually determined: therapy with methotrexate (MTX) locally with or without simultaneous systemic treatment, surgical treatment via curettage, excision with uterine reconstruction even hemi hysterectomy. RESULTS: Ten patients presented with CSP, six with cervical and eight with cornual pregnancies. Median age was 34.6 years. CSP was treated with local MTX in six cases; five required additional treatment with systemic MTX or curettage. Primary curettage or surgery was performed in four cases. In cervical pregnancies the primary therapy with local MTX injection and systemic treatment was performed in 50%. One patient was treated with MTX and insertion of a Bakri balloon. Trachelectomy was required in one case. 50% of cornual pregnancies were treated with MTX locally and intramuscularly and 50% received surgery. CONCLUSION: Treatment strategies were based on the patient's individual risk parameters. The results of this study show, that simultaneous treatment with local and systemic MTX had good outcomes and could avoid surgeries.

Amniotic fluid embolism: A comparison of two classification systems in a retrospective 8-year analysis from two tertiary hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: Amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) is a rare life-threatening complication in obstetrics, but the diagnosis lacks a consensual definition. The objective of this study was to compare two different AFE classification systems by analysing the AFE cases from two university hospitals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, all patients with a strong suspicion of AFE between 2014 and 2021 at two university hospitals, LMU Women's University Hospital Munich, and Women's University Hospital Basel, were included. Patient records were checked for the ICD-10 code O88.1 (AFE). Diagnoses were confirmed through clinical findings and/or autopsy. The presence of the diagnostic criteria of the Society of Maternal foetal Medicine (SMFM) and the AFE Foundation (AFEF) and of a new framework by Ponzio-Klijanienko et al. from Paris, France, were checked and compared using Chi-square-test. RESULTS: Within our study period, 38,934 women delivered in the two hospitals. Six patients had a strong suspicion of AFE (0.015%). Only three of six patients (50%) presented with all the four diagnostic criteria of the SMFM/AFEF framework. All six patients met the criteria of the modified "Paris AFE framework". CONCLUSION: Using the "Paris AFE framework" based exclusively on clinical criteria can help clinicians to diagnose AFE, anticipate the life-threatening condition of the patient and prepare immediately for best clinical care.

HPV Vaccination: Attitude and Knowledge among German Gynecologists.

Purpose: In order to achieve a higher vaccination rate, education on HPV as well as options for prophylaxis performed by doctors is of great importance. One opportunity to increase the protection against HPV would be vaccinating boys. This study evaluated attitude and knowledge among German gynecologists regarding HPV vaccination, especially in boys. Material and Methods: A questionnaire with 42 questions about demographics, attitude and knowledge about HPV and HPV vaccination was sent to members of the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG). Results: 998 out of 6567 addressed gynecologists participated. Knowledge about HPV, associated diseases and possible HPV vaccines was high among participants. The attitude towards vaccination in boys as well as girls was positive. Only 8.2 % refused to vaccinate their sons whereas 2.2 % refused to do this for their daughters. However, only few gynecologists vaccinated their daughters and sons against HPV. Main reason for girls was an age outside of vaccination guidelines; for boys it was the lack of cost coverage. Conclusion: The willingness of gynecologists to perform HPV vaccination in boys is as high as for girls. However, sons of gynecologists are only rarely vaccinated against HPV. Main reason is the lack of cost coverage. Vaccinating boys could decrease the disease burden in males, as well as protect women by interrupting ways of transmission. Since the main argument against vaccination of boys is only of financial nature, the necessity of a vaccination recommendation for boys needs to be re-evaluated taking into account the cost-reduced 2-dose vaccination scheme.