Search

OBJECTIVE: Ectopic pregnancy is an emergency frequently requiring laparoscopic intervention. This study aimed to determine whether single-incision laparoscopic surgery is a safe and effective treatment method compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery with multiple ports. DATA SOURCES: This study searched 6 databases from their inception to May 15, 2024, for articles comparing the safety outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery with conventional laparoscopic surgery in managing women with ectopic pregnancy. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: This study included all studies that evaluated the safety outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery in patients with ectopic pregnancy and included at least 1 of our preselected outcomes. In addition, this study included both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. METHODS: Review Manager (version 5.4.1) and OpenMetaAnalyst software were used to analyze the extracted data. In addition, this study used odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes, mean difference for continuous outcomes, a fixed effects model for homogeneous outcomes, and a random effects model for heterogeneous outcomes. Furthermore, heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 and P values. After removing duplicates, this study identified 83 studies. Using a 2-step screening process, this study excluded non-English and animal studies and included randomized controlled trials and observational studies that included at least 1 of our preselected outcomes. Ultimately, 12 studies were included in the final synthesis. RESULTS: Our analysis showed a significant favoring of the single-incision laparoscopic surgery group in the pain visual analog scale score (median difference=−0.57; P

Objective We aimed to investigate trends in residency program application and acceptance rates according to sex and race and ethnicity. Methods We collected data from the Journal of the American Medical Association Graduation Medical Education Reports. We extracted the data for 25 residency programs in the United States from 2005 to 2021 and conducted statistical analyses. Results Men were most matched for orthopedics (84.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 84.2%–85.1%), and women for oncology (78.7%, 95% CI 78.2%–79.2%). The most matched program was orthopedics for the White subgroup (43.5%, 95% CI 43.2%–43.9%), radiology for the Black subgroup (20%, 95% CI 18.9%–20.9%), general surgery for the Hispanic subgroup (11%, 95% CI 10.7%–11.2%), and internal medicine for the Asian subgroup (35.3%, 95% CI 34.9%–35.6%). Conclusion Match rates for women were lower than those for men in all programs except psychiatry, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, and dermatology. Match rates were significantly lower for Black, Hispanic, and Asian subgroups than the White subgroup in all programs except for internal medicine, with the Asian subgroup being higher. We observed a significant increase in both application and acceptance rates for women and racial and ethnic minorities over the past 40 years.

Objective: As the second most common surgery performed on women in the United States, hysterectomy techniques are constantly examined for validity and superiority. The vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) has increased in popularity since the first vNOTES hysterectomy was performed in 2012. We sought out to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of hysterectomy by vNOTES compared to conventional vaginal hysterectomy for various benign indications. Data sources: We searched Scopus, Medline, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and the Cochrane Library. Our search included all studies from each respective database's inception until September 1, 2023. Study eligibility criteria: We included eligible studies that compare vNOTES hysterectomy versus conventional vaginal hysterectomy for various benign indications, and included at least one of our preselected outcomes. The main outcomes were estimated blood loss (mL), operation time (min), length of hospital stay (d), Visual Analogue Scale pain score at Day 1, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: We analyzed data of our continuous outcomes using RevMan 5.4.1. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) under the inverse variance analysis method. We assessed the quality of the studies using the ROBINS-I assessment tool. Results: We found 4 eligible studies to include in our analysis. Surgeon declared estimated blood loss was found to be similar in both groups (MD=−44.70 [−99.97, 10.57]; P=.11). Also, the total length of hospital stay (in days) was found to be comparable in both groups (MD=−0.16 [−1.62, 1.30]; P=.83). We also found no other statistically significant difference between hysterectomy by vNOTES and vaginal hysterectomy in other studied outcomes, including the duration of the operation, the Visual Analogue Scale Pain score after 1 day, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications. Conclusion: vNOTES seems to be associated with a nonsignificant lower surgeon declared estimated blood loss. We found no other significant differences in hospital stay, intraoperative, or postoperative outcomes. Further studies may clarify if other differences in safety or efficacy exist.

Objective First-generation and second-generation endometrial ablation (EA) techniques, along with medical treatment and invasive surgery, are considered successful lines of management for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). We set out to determine the efficacy of first and second-generation ablation techniques compared with medical treatment, invasive surgery and different modalities of the EA techniques themselves.Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis using a frequentist network.Data sources We searched Medline (Ovid), PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, EBSCO and Scopus for all published studies up to 1 March 2021 using relevant keywords.Eligibility criteria We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared premenopausal women with AUB receiving the intervention of second-generation EA techniques.Data extraction and synthesis 49 high-quality RCTs with 8038 women were included. We extracted and pooled the data and then analysed to estimate the network meta-analysis models within a frequentist framework. We used the random-effects model of the netmeta package in R (V.3.6.1) and the ‘Meta-Insight’ website.Results Our network meta-analysis showed many varying results according to specific outcomes. The uterine balloon ablation had significantly higher amenorrhoea rates than other techniques in both short (hydrothermal ablation (risk ratio (RR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.37; 0.72), microwave ablation (RR=0.43, 95% CI 0.31; 0.59), first-generation techniques (RR=0.44, 95% CI 0.33; 0.59), endometrial laser intrauterine therapy (RR=0.18, 95% CI 0.10; 0.32) and bipolar radio frequency treatments (RR=0.22, 95% CI 0.15; 0.31)) and long-term follow-up (microwave ablation (RR=0.11, 95% CI 0.01; 0.86), bipolar radio frequency ablation (RR=0.12, 95% CI 0.02; 0.90), first generation (RR=0.12, 95% CI 0.02; 0.90) and endometrial laser intrauterine thermal therapy (RR=0.04, 95% CI 0.01; 0.36)). When calculating efficacy based only on calculated bleeding scores, the highest scores were achieved by cryoablation systems (p-score=0.98).Conclusion Most second-generation EA systems were superior to first-generation systems, and statistical superiority between devices depended on which characteristic was measured (secondary amenorrhoea rate, treatment of AUB, patient satisfaction or treatment of dysmenorrhoea). Although our study was limited by a paucity of data comparing large numbers of devices, we conclude that there is no evidence at this time that any one of the examined second-generation systems is clearly superior to all others.

Abstract Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is associated with increased pregnancy complications. Despite effective vaccination strategies for the general population, the evidence on the safety and efficacy of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations in pregnancy is limited due to a lack of well-powered studies. The present study compares the maternal, neonatal, and immunological outcomes between vaccinated pregnant and unvaccinated pregnant women using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. We included 37 studies with a total of 141,107 pregnant women (36.8% vaccinated) spread across all outcomes. Our evidence indicates a higher rate of cesarean section in the 1898 vaccinated pregnant women compared to the 6180 women who did not receive vaccination (OR = 1.20, CI = (1.05, 1.38), P = 0.007, I2 = 45%). Regarding immunological outcomes, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy or postpartum was significantly reduced in 6820 vaccinated pregnant women compared to 17,010 unvaccinated pregnant women (OR = 0.25, CI = 0.13–0.48, P

OBJECTIVE: Because vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques both aim to decrease tissue injury and postoperative morbidity and mortality and to improve a patient's quality of life, we sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a hysterectomy by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and compared that with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic diseases. DATA SOURCES: We used Scopus, Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library and searched from database inception to September 1, 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all eligible articles that compared vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery hysterectomy with any conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy technique without robotic assistance for women with benign gynecologic pathology and that included at least 1 of our main outcomes. These outcomes included estimated blood loss (in mL), operation time (in minutes), length of hospital stay (in days), decrease in hemoglobin level (g/dL), visual analog scale pain score on postoperative day 1, opioid analgesic dose required, rate of conversion to another surgical technique, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and requirements for blood transfusion. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Ultimately, 14 studies met our criteria. METHODS: The study quality of the randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane assessment tool, and the quality of the observational studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. We analyzed data using RevMan 5.4.1. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using the mean difference and 95% confidence intervals under the inverse variance analysis method. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using OpenMeta[Analyst] and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were reported. RESULTS: The operative time and length of hospitalization were shorter in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery cohort. We also found lower visual analog scale pain scores, fewer postoperative complications, and fewer blood transfusions in the vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery group. We found no difference in the estimated blood loss, decrease in hemoglobin levels, analgesic usage, conversion rates, or intraoperative complications. CONCLUSION: When evaluating the latest data, it seems that vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery techniques may have some advantages over conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy techniques.

Abstract Recent evidence has shown an increase in recurrence and a decrease in overall survival in patients treated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) open techniques (ORH). In addition, several high quality trials were recently published regarding the laparoscopic treatment of early stage cervical cancer. We sought out to reassess the recurrence rates, overall survival, complications and outcomes associated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) techniques against open techniques (ORH) when robotic assisted techniques were excluded. We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.Gov and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials and observational studies. We included all studies that compared with early stage cervical cancer receiving LRH compared with ORH. We included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort trials. We included studies that included LRH and RRH as long as data was available to separate the two arms. We excluded studies that combined LRH and RRH without supplying data to differentiate. Of 1244 total studies, we used a manual three step screening process. Sixty studies ultimately met our criteria. We performed this review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We analyzed continuous data using mean difference (MD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous data were analyzed using odds ratio (OR) and a 95% CI. Review Manager and Endnote software were utilized in the synthesis. We found that when excluding RRH, the was no significant difference regarding 5-year overall Survival (OR = 1.24 [0.94, 1.64], (P = 0.12), disease free survival (OR = 1.00 [0.80, 1.26], (P = 0.98), recurrence (OR = 1.01 [0.81, 1.25], (P = 0.95), or intraoperative complications (OR = 1.38 [0.94, 2.04], (P = 0.10). LRH was statistically better than ORH in terms of estimated blood loss (MD = − 325.55 [− 386.16, − 264.94] (P

Objective: Recent data has brought into question the safety of minimally invasive techniques for radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer. After the publication of several new studies, we aimed to compare robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) with open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in the management of women with early stage cervical cancer, while excluding minimally invasive cases performed without robotic assistance. Data Sources: We searched six databases from inception until 11/30/2021. The original search found 233 unique papers, and ultimately 35 studies, comprising 11,888 total radical hysterectomies, met criteria for our final analysis. We included all studies including the intervention of RRH for early stage cervical cancer, with the comparator of ORH. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs), case-control, retrospective cohort, and prospective cohort. We included studies that had robotic and laparoscopic arms, but excluded any studies that did not specifically provide specific data as to each group. We analyzed continuous data using mean difference and a 95% confidence interval, while dichotomous data were analyzed using odds ratio and a 95% confidence interval. Results: We found that there was no significant difference between RRH and ORH regarding five-year Overall Survival (OR=1.28[0.66,2.46], (P = 0.46)), disease free survival (OR=0.94[0.77,1.14], (P = 0.51)), or recurrence (OR=0.92[0.75,1.13], (P = 0.44)) intraoperative complications (OR=0.75[0.55,1.02], (P = 0.07)), or mortality (OR=0.81[0.53,1.22], (P = 0.31)).We found that RRH was better than ORH in terms of estimated blood loss (MD=-397.95[-471.65,-324.24], (P

OBJECTIVE: Routine hysteroscopic evaluation before assisted reproductive technology treatment is a novel approach with the potential to reduce assisted reproductive technology failure even in the absence of evidence of uterine pathology. Following the publication of several relatively high-quality trials on this topic, we sought to determine if this practice is beneficial. DATA SOURCES: We searched Web of Science, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from each database's inception until May 31, 2022 with our search strategy, attempting to locate all randomized controlled trials assessing the use of hysteroscopy in otherwise asymptomatic women undergoing assisted reproductive technology. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included only randomized controlled trials that included at least one of our selected outcomes, and we excluded any studies with suspicion of pathology before the time of hysteroscopy, other than knowledge of the patient's infertility. We included all the aforementioned studies regardless of procedures or modifications performed as a result of hysteroscopic findings. Our initial search yielded 1802 results, which were reduced to 1421 after removal of duplicates. Ultimately, 11 studies were found to meet our criteria and were included in our quantitative synthesis. METHODS: We used ReviewManager software, version 5.4.1 to analyze the data, which we imported after manually gathering from the 11 studies. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were imported as standard deviations. Pooled analysis was described as a mean difference, relative to 95 % confidence interval in cases of continuous data. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. In homogeneous outcomes, we used a fixed-effects model, and in heterogeneous outcomes we used a random-effects model. RESULTS: Our results showed that hysteroscopy was associated with significant improvement in the clinical pregnancy rate (risk ratio, 1.27 [1.11–1.45]; P

Objective Although many studies have been performed, no consensus exists as to the ideal entry for laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. We sought out to compare the safety of direct trocar insertion with that of the Veress needle entry technique in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.Design Systematic review with meta-analysis.Setting We searched Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from their inception through 31 July 2021 for relevant studies. We included only controlled trials and ultimately seven trials were included in our meta-analysis.Participants Inclusion criteria included women undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.Intervention The intervention of direct trocar insertion technique compared with Veress needle entry technique.Main outcome measures We compared five different outcomes associated with the efficacy and complications of laparoscopic entry.Results The pooled analysis showed that Veress needle entry was associated with a significant increase in the incidences of extraperitoneal insufflation (RR=0.177, 95% Cl (0.094 to 0.333), p

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.

Background: While widely used for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain, limited data exists on efficacy of gabapentin, especially in the subgroup of women suffering from chronic pelvic pain without a known diagnosis, such as endometriosis. Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of gabapentin when administered to women with chronic pelvic pain without another diagnosis. Study Design: We performed a Systematic Review and Meta Analysis including all controlled clinical trials addressing the use of gabapentin for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain without another diagnosis. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library from inception of each database to April 30, 2021. We included all the studies that fulfilled the following criteria: (1) population: women suffering from chronic pelvic pain without another identified diagnosis (such as endometriosis); (2) intervention: gabapentin (regardless of the dosage); (3) comparator:placebo; (4) outcomes: pain score (visual analog scale) after 3 months and pain score (visual analog scale) after 6 months as primary outcomes; and (5) study design: we only included randomized or controlled clinical trials. Our exclusion criteria included (1) uncontrolled clinical trials, (2) studies that did not report data or measures for any of our selected outcomes, (3) studies that included patients with surgically or clinically diagnosed endometriosis, or (4) studies with no full-text manuscript available. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We analyzed dichotomous outcomes as percentages and totals, whereas continuous outcomes were analyzed using mean difference, standard deviations, and relative 95% confidence intervals using the inverse variance method. Results: We included 4 placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials. Analysis was hindered because half of the studies (n=2) used the visual analog scale pain score and the other half (n=2) used the numerical rating scale. The analysis showed that when compared with the placebo, gabapentin significantly lowered the visual analog scale pain score at 3 months (mean difference, 0.79; 1.23 to 0.35; P=.005) and 6 months (mean difference, 1.68; 2.30 to 1.05; P=.001) and the numerical rating scale pain score at 3 months (mean difference, 0.20; 0.25 to 0.15; P=.001). However, in terms of the numerical rating scale pain score after 6 months, the 2 groups showed no significant difference (mean difference, 0.27; 0.80 to 0.26; P=.32). CONCLUSION: Gabapentin may hold benefit for the management of chronic pelvic pain, with significant improvement in pain seen in both scales at 3 months when compared with the placebo, but only in the visual analog scale group at 6 months of usage. Secondary to the differences in the nature of the 2 scales, a further weighted combined analysis was not possible.