Sexual and reproductive health education for patients with myelomeningocele.

AIM: To evaluate the sexual and reproductive health education received by patients with myelomeningocele, the most severe form of spina bifida. METHOD: A survey designed to assess the sexual and reproductive health education given by a healthcare provider to patients with myelomeningocele was offered to all English-speaking patients aged 12 years or older with a myelomeningocele clinic visit. RESULTS: In total, 67 surveys were completed. Menstruation and menstrual management were discussed at a rate of 85% in females. Few patients had discussions with a provider about fertility (42%), sexuality (37%), risk of sexually transmitted infections (45%), or had a relationship with a reproductive healthcare provider (54%). Differences by sex were observed for contraceptive education. The rate of discussions increased with age. A total of 67% of female patients and 33% of male patients requested a referral to a reproductive healthcare provider. INTERPRETATION: Sexual and reproductive health education is part of comprehensive care for all patients and those with disabilities should not be excluded. The lack of consistent education received by patients supports the need for increased attention to this topic. We encourage multidisciplinary myelomeningocele clinics to establish a process for delivering complete and patient-specific sexual and reproductive health education.

Laser Epilation as an Adjunct to Standard Care in Reducing Pilonidal Disease Recurrence in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Recurrence continues to be a significant challenge in the treatment and management of pilonidal disease. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of laser epilation (LE) as an adjunct to standard care vs standard care alone in preventing recurrence of pilonidal disease in adolescents and young adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a single-institution, randomized clinical trial with 1-year follow-up conducted from September 2017 to September 2022. Patients aged 11 to 21 years with pilonidal disease were recruited from a single tertiary children's hospital. Intervention: LE and standard care (improved hygiene and mechanical or chemical depilation) or standard care alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the rate of recurrence of pilonidal disease at 1 year. Secondary outcomes assessed during the 1-year follow-up included disability days, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), health care satisfaction, disease-related attitudes and perceived stigma, and rates of procedures, surgical excisions, and postoperative complications. Results: A total of 302 participants (median [IQR] age, 17 [15-18] years; 157 male [56.1%]) with pilonidal disease were enrolled; 151 participants were randomly assigned to each intervention group. One-year follow-up was available for 96 patients (63.6%) in the LE group and 134 (88.7%) in the standard care group. The proportion of patients who experienced a recurrence within 1 year was significantly lower in the LE treatment arm than in the standard care arm (-23.2%; 95% CI, -33.2 to -13.1; P < .001). Over 1 year, there were no differences between groups in either patient or caregiver disability days, or patient- or caregiver-reported HRQOL, health care satisfaction, or perceived stigma at any time point. The LE group had significantly higher Child Attitude Toward Illness Scores (CATIS) at 6 months (median [IQR], 3.8 [3.4-4.2] vs 3.6 [3.2-4.1]; P = .01). There were no differences between groups in disease-related health care utilization, disease-related procedures, or postoperative complications. Conclusions and Relevance: LE as an adjunct to standard care significantly reduced 1-year recurrence rates of pilonidal disease compared with standard care alone. These results provide further evidence that LE is safe and well tolerated in patients with pilonidal disease. LE should be considered a standard treatment modality for patients with pilonidal disease and should be available as an initial treatment option or adjunct treatment modality for all eligible patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03276065.

Use and Accuracy of Intraoperative Frozen Section Analysis for Ovarian Masses in Children and Adolescents.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Describe the current practice patterns and diagnostic accuracy of frozen section (FS) pathology for children and adolescents with ovarian masses DESIGN: Prospective cohort study from 2018 to 2021 SETTING: Eleven children's hospitals PARTICIPANTS: Females age 6-21 years undergoing surgical management of an ovarian mass INTERVENTIONS: Obtaining intraoperative FS pathology MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Diagnostic accuracy of FS pathology RESULTS: Of 691 patients who underwent surgical management of an ovarian mass, FS was performed in 27 (3.9%), of which 9 (33.3%) had a final malignant pathology. Among FS patients, 12 of 27 (44.4%) underwent ovary-sparing surgery, and 15 of 27 (55.5%) underwent oophorectomy with or without other procedures. FS results were disparate from final pathology in 7 of 27 (25.9%) cases. FS had a sensitivity of 44.4% and specificity of 94.4% for identifying malignancy, with a c-statistic of 0.69. Malignant diagnoses missed on FS included serous borderline tumor (n = 1), mucinous borderline tumor (n = 2), mucinous carcinoma (n = 1), and immature teratoma (n = 1). FS did not guide intervention in 10 of 27 (37.0%) patients: 9 with benign FS underwent oophorectomy, and 1 with malignant FS did not undergo oophorectomy. Of the 9 patients who underwent oophorectomy with benign FS, 5 (55.6%) had benign and 4 (44.4%) had malignant final pathology. CONCLUSIONS: FSs are infrequently utilized for pediatric and adolescent ovarian masses and could be inaccurate for predicting malignancy and guiding operative decision-making. We recommend continued assessment and refinement of guidance before any standardization of use of FS to assist with intraoperative decision-making for surgical resection and staging in children and adolescents with ovarian masses.

Variability in the management of adhesive small bowel obstruction in children.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed inter-hospital variability in operative-vs-nonoperative management of pediatric adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO). METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective study was performed examining patients 1-21 years-of-age presenting with ASBO from 2010 to 2019 utilizing the Pediatric Health Information System. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was performed assessing inter-hospital variability in operative-vs-nonoperative management of ASBO. RESULTS: Among 6410 pediatric ASBO admissions identified at 46 hospitals, 3,239 (50.5%) underwent surgery during that admission. The hospital-specific rate of surgery ranged from 35.3% (95%CI: 28.5-42.6%) to 74.7% (66.3-81.6%) in the unadjusted model (p < 0.001), and from 35.1% (26.3-45.1%) to 73.9% (66.7-79.9%) in the adjusted model (p < 0.001). Factors associated with operative management for ASBO included admission to a surgical service (OR 2.8 [95%CI: 2.4-3.2], p < 0.001), congenital intestinal and/or rotational anomaly (OR 2.5 [2.1-3.1], p < 0.001), diagnostic workup including advanced abdominal imaging (OR 1.7 [1.5-1.9], p < 0.001), non-emergent admission status (OR 1.5 [1.3-1.8], p < 0.001), and increasing number of complex chronic comorbidities (OR 1.3 [1.2-1.4], p < 0.001). Factors associated with nonoperative management for ASBO included increased hospital-specific annual ASBO volume (OR 0.98 [95%CI: 0.97-0.99], p = 0.002), older age (OR 0.97 [0.96-0.98], p < 0.001), public insurance (OR 0.87 [0.78-0.96], p = 0.008), and presence of coinciding non-intestinal congenital anomalies, neurologic/neuromuscular disease, and/or medical technology dependence (OR 0.57 [95%CI: 0.47-0.68], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of surgical intervention for ASBO vary significantly across tertiary children's hospitals in the United States. The variability was independent of patient and hospital characteristics and is likely due to practice variation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.