Search

We sought to analyze all high-quality studies available regarding the possible differences in contained and uncontained techniques for morcellation of fibroids and uteri. We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Central, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE and Web of Science from September 2010 to September 2020 for our search terms. We included studies that specifically enrolled patients undergoing power morcellation myomectomy or power morcellation hysterectomy procedures. In our search, we had no restriction to age, country, or publication date. We extracted data related to study design, baseline characteristics of patients, and perioperative outcomes such as total operative time, total blood loss, and duration of hospital stay. We found no substantial difference in total operative time between contained power morcellation and uncontained manual morcellation myomectomy (p=0.52), but contained power morcellation had a significantly longer total operative time than uncontained power morcellation for hysterectomy and myomectomy [135.50 vs. 93.33 minutes, (p=0.003)]. Total blood loss was comparable for contained power morcellation versus uncontained manual morcellation myomectomy (p=0.32) and contained power morcellation versus uncontained power morcellation myomectomy or hysterectomy (p=0.91). Contained power morcellation and uncontained manual morcellation myomectomy had comparable hospital stay periods (p=0.5). Contained power morcellation leads to a longer operating time than uncontained power morcellation for both hysterectomy and myomectomy. No differences were found in comparisons of blood loss, operative time, or comparison to manual methods of morcellation.

Background Several authors have recently compared the outcomes and complications of surgical procedures that preserve or remove the uterus in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Following the publication of several high quality randomized control trials on this topic we performed a new systematic review and meta analysis of this data. Methods We performed a systematic literature search in ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, EBSCO host, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled and cohort trials of uterine sparing prolapse repair (hysteropexy) versus hysterectomy with suspension. A total of 1285 patients from 14 studies were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis. Results Uterine sparing procedures (hysteropexy) were comparable to hysterectomy with suspension for recurrence rates (RR = 0.908, 95% CI [0.385, 2.143]), reoperation rates (RR = 1.517, 95% CI [0.802, 2.868]), length of hospital stay, (SMD = − 0.159 days, 95% CI [−0.375, 0.057]), voiding dysfunction (RR = 1.089, 95% CI [0.695, 1.706]), and intraoperative blood loss (SMD = − 0.339, 95% CI [−0.631, 0.047]). However, hysteropexy had shorter operative time than hysterectomy with suspension (SMD = − 1.191 h, 95% CI [−1.836, −0.545]), and fewer visceral injuries (RR = 0.421, 95% CI [0.244, 0.725]). Conclusion We found no significant differences in the outcomes or major complications of uterine preserving surgical procedures versus those which include hysterectomy in the treatment of POP. Hysteropexy procedures may be associated with a shorter operative time and fewer visceral injuries. This is consistent with older analyses.

OBJECTIVE Following the publication of several high quality randomized controlled trials regarding the comparison of similar laparoscopic gynecologic procedures being performed with or without robotic assistance, we aimed to perform a systematic review to identify any differences in patient safety and expected incidence of complications in these procedures. DATA SOURCES Articles on ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were retrieved and screened for eligibility up to April 1st 2021. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION In addition to meeting our screening algorithm, we included studies that met all the following: randomized control trials (RCT), enrolling patients for indicated laparoscopic gynecologic procedures, and comparing Robotic Surgery (RS) with Laparoscopic Surgery (LS) in terms of safety or complications. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS Data was pooled as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Ultimately, six studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data revealed that RS and LS have similar risk for intraoperative complications (RR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.23, 3.36], P = 0.84), postoperative complications (RR = 1.07; 95% CI [0.57, 2.01], P = 0.83), significant intraoperative hemorrhage (RR = 1.40; 95% CI [0.59, 3.34], P = 0.44), postoperative hemorrhage (RR = 0.43; 95% CI [0.15, 1.22], P = 0.11), vaginal cuff dehiscence (RR = 1.13; 95% CI [0.24, 5.41], P = 0.88), postoperative wound infection, urinary tract infection, and urinary bladder or ureteral injury. RS had "surgeon declared" lower estimated blood loss (MD = 85.27; 95% CI [46.45, 124.09], P

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.

Office hysteroscopy (OH) is a common procedure in gynecology. Pain is the most frequently reported problem in OH. In this study, we aimed to investigate the role of tramadol administration in relieving pain in women undergoing OH. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for relevant clinical trials based on our search terms. We included randomized controlled trials and included all published trials in all six searched databases from their inception until February 28th 2021. We included pain as the primary outcome, and the incidence of adverse events of tramadol as secondary outcomes. We performed the analysis of continuous data using mean difference (MD) and dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR). We found that tramadol led to significantly less pain during the actual procedure [MD=-1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI): (-1.66, -0.88); p

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 P = 0.002), postoperative complication rate (OR = 0.70 [0.55, 0.90], (P = 0.005), and length of hospital stay (MD = − 3.64[− 4.27, − 3.01], (P P = 0.007) and number of resected lymph nodes (MD = − 2.80 [− 4.35, − 1.24], (P = 0.004). The previously seen increase recurrence and decrease in survival is not seen in LRH when robotic assisted techniques are included and all new high quality is considered. LRH is also associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower complication rate.Prospero Prospective Registration Number: CRD42022267138.

This systematic review and meta-analysis compares adverse neonatal outcomes among mothers exposed to marijuana during pregnancy vs mothers not exposed to marijuana during pregnancy in 16 cohort studies., Key Points Question Are adverse neonatal outcomes associated with exposure to marijuana among mothers during pregnancy? Findings In this meta-analysis of 16 studies including 59 138 patients, maternal marijuana exposure during pregnancy was associated with increased risk of preterm deliveries and neonatal intensive care unit admission and decreased mean birth weight, 1-minute Apgar score, and head circumference of babies. There were no differences in mean 5-minute Apgar score or total infant length. Meaning This study found that women using marijuana during pregnancy may be at increased risk of some adverse neonatal outcomes., Importance While some studies have found an association between marijuana use and adverse neonatal outcomes, results have not been consistent across all trials. Objective To assess available data on neonatal outcomes in marijuana-exposed pregnancies. Data Sources PubMed, Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from each database's inception until August 16, 2021. Study Selection All interventional and observational studies that included pregnant women who were exposed to marijuana compared with pregnant women who were not exposed to marijuana and that reported neonatal outcomes were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline. Data were extracted by 2 authors for all outcomes, which were pooled using a random-effects model as mean difference or risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI. Data were analyzed from August through September 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures All outcomes were formulated prior to data collection. Outcomes included incidence of birth weight less than 2500 g, small for gestational age (defined as less than the fifth percentile fetal weight for gestational age), rate of preterm delivery (defined as before 37 weeks’ gestation), gestational age at time of delivery, birth weight, incidence of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, Apgar score at 1 minute, Apgar score at 5 minutes, incidence of an Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes, fetal head circumference, and fetal length. Results Among 16 studies including 59 138 patients, there were significant increases in 7 adverse neonatal outcomes among women who were exposed to marijuana during pregnancy vs those who were not exposed during pregnancy. These included increased risk of birth weight less than 2500 g (RR, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.25 to 3.42]; P = .005), small for gestational age (RR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.44 to 1.79]; P

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant clinical trials from full-text, scientific journal archives to assess the efficacy of hyoscine for the management of pain during in-office hysteroscopy (OH) procedures. Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS and the Web of Science were searched for all clinical trials that matched our search criteria. A full assessment of bias was made using the Cochrane Group tool-set. The following outcomes were included: visual analogue scale (VAS) score for postoperative pain, postoperative need for analgesia, and procedure time. In the case of homogeneous data, the analysis was performed using a fixed effects system, and the random effects system was used with heterogeneous data. Inclusion criteria included only randomized clinical trials, and interventions that included patients receiving hyoscine-N-Butyl Bromide during OH, regardless of dose or mode of administration, and compared this with placebo. Three clinical trials were included. The actual mean difference (MD) of the VAS pain score showed no significant difference between hyoscine or placebo [MD: -0.28 (-1.08, 0.52), (p=0.49)]. For postoperative analgesia, the overall MD showed no significant difference between hyoscine or placebo [MD: 0.43 (0.16, 1.14), (p=0.09)]. For procedure time, the combined effect estimate failed to show any significant difference between hyoscine and placebo [MD: -0.66 (-2.77, 1.44) (p=0.54)]. Contrary to previously published data, our meta-analysis using the latest available RCTs fails to show hyoscine as being effective in reducing pain or the need for other forms of anesthesia in OH.

Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSP) is a rare form of ectopic pregnancy, and treatment of CSP with uterine artery embolization (UAE) is a novel approach. With increasing numbers of cesarean sections being performed annually, the incidence of this condition is likely to increase. The authors became aware of an unusually high number of published studies originating in mainland China regarding this unusual treatment and sought to perform a meta-analysis to provide comprehensive evidence on this novel practice. Methods: We performed a thorough search and included all forms of quality studies on this topic that reported UAE as a part of first-line management of CSP. We included only studies originating in China. Ultimately, 37 studies were included for qualitative and quantitative synthesis of evidence. After screening retrieved records and extracting data from eligible studies, we pooled continuous data as a mean estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI), and dichotomous data as proportion and 95% CI. Results: CSP patients treated with protocols including UAE had a mean time of 30 days for serum β-hCG normalization, 95% CI [26.816, 33.881]. They had a mean estimated intraprocedural blood loss of 4.19 ± 3.76 mL, a mean hospital stay of nine days, 95%CI [7.914, 9.876], and a success rate of 93.4%, 95%CI [0.918, 0.951]. The severe complication rate was 1.2%, 95%CI [0.008, 0.017]. Conclusion: UAE, in combination with other procedures is being used effectively for the treatment of CSP in China. Protocols including UAE have a success rate of approximately 93.4%, and a severe complication rate of approximately 1.2%. This data’s utility is limited by vast differences in the studied protocols and questionable feasibility outside of China.

ObjectiveAlthough 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.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.SettingWe 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.ParticipantsInclusion criteria included women undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.InterventionThe intervention of direct trocar insertion technique compared with Veress needle entry technique.Main outcome measuresWe compared five different outcomes associated with the efficacy and complications of laparoscopic entry.ResultsThe 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), pConclusionsWhen excluding all data apart from gynecologic surgery, the Veress needle entry technique may have an increased incidence of some, but not all complications of laparoscopic entry. It may also have a higher incidence of failed entry compared with direct entry techniques. Care should be taken in extrapolating these general results to specific surgeon experience levels.Trial registration numberCRD42021273726

Cervical insufficiency (CI) may result in preterm delivery. We sought out to perform this review and analysis to compare the efficacy of laparoscopic and open transabdominal cerclage (TAC) in patients suffering with CI.Our search included PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Cochrane and Web of Science. We analyzed the data with Open Meta-Analyst Software as well as Review Manager Software. We included observational and randomized controlled trials that included patients with CI that underwent laparoscopic cerclage or TAC.We included a total of 43 studies. Laparoscopic and TAC had a positive effect by increasing gestational age (GA); for the laparoscopic group (mean deviation (MD)) = 14.86 weeks (W), 95% CI [10.67, 19.05], P 0.001) and TAC (MD = 12.79 W, 95% CI [10.97, 14.61], P 0.001). Furthermore, improvements in all outcomes assessed (total fetal survival rate, neonatal weight, and prevention of delivery at a gestational age of24 weeks) were all significant with the exception of the prevention of all preterm deliveries37 weeks; for both laparoscopic at (RR = 0.116, 95% CI [-0.006, 0.238], P = 0.063) and TAC at (MD = 1, 95% CI [0.45, 2.24], P = 1), and for prevention of deliveries34 weeks for the laparoscopic group (RR = 0.446, 95% CI [-0.323, 1.215], P = 0.256) only.Although limited data prevented pregnancy and prepregnancy subgroups as well as a head-to-head comparison, we still found that in patients suffering from CI, both TAC and laparoscopic approaches to cerclage revealed a positive effect in preserving the pregnancy.

This study aimed to systematically review the available literature on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) following gynecologic procedures performed either as an open surgery or as a minimally invasive gynecological surgery (MIGS) in terms of outcomes. This review revealed the results of published literature and assessed the benefits and diverse outcomes of ERAS implementation in patients undergoing MIGS or other gynecologic surgeries. In this review, we sought to examine the efficacy of entire ERAS protocols, faithfully performed, to determine whether they were successful in improving individual attributes of surgical recovery. Electronic databases of PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched in January 2021 for relevant studies. Data were extracted from eligible studies including LOS, change in the quality-of-life and recovery over time, postoperative complications including nausea and vomiting, opioid or anesthesia use, hospital cost, patient satisfaction, postoperative pain, and readmission rate as outcomes. Many of the included studies reported a significant reduction in the LOS as well as in readmission rates, hospital cost, and occurrence of nausea and vomiting postoperatively. Moreover, a clinically significant increase was noted in patient satisfaction in studies that have used tools that measure patient satisfaction. No studies have reported a significant increase in the overall quality of recovery using appropriately validated tools. Following ERAS implementation, patients' postoperative rehabilitation, including postoperative discomfort, readmission rates, and satisfaction, showed a clinically significant improvement.

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.PubMed, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science databases were queried from inception up to June 3, 2021.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.The data were analyzed as pooled proportions or odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals in meta-analysis models.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.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.

To review all high quality available evidence regarding the effect of intraoperative bupivacaine 24 hours (or 8.9 half-lives) after intraoperative administration at time of gynaecologic surgery and to ascertain whether a second mechanism of action, beyond the initial prevention of sodium channel depolarization and blockade of nerve impulses, may be occurring.We searched all major databases with an algorithm designed to include all randomized trials that used any form of local bupivacaine, regardless of dose or route of administration, at the time of any gynaecologic surgery and compared its use with saline placebo.As expected, we found that bupivacaine showed a significant improvement for all gynaecologic surgeries with respect to pain intensity at 6 hours after surgery when compared with a saline group (mean difference [MD] -1.28; 95% CI -1.96 to -0.61], P = 0.07). We also found a significant difference at 24 hours after surgery, giving evidence to the possibility of a second mechanism of action (MD -0.57; 95% CI -1.10 to -0.05], P = 0.01). Further subgroup analysis for pain levels at 24 hours showed significant decreases in pain for the laparoscopy (MD -0.74; 95% CI -0.93 to -0.54, P0.01) and laparotomy (MD -2.60; 95% CI -2.93 to -2.27, P0.01)) subgroups but not for the vaginal hysterectomy (MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.69 to 1.09, P = 0.66) or prolapse surgery (MD -0.11; 95% CI -0.41 to 0.19, P = 0.48) subgroups. There was no significant difference with respect to the length of hospital stay (MD -0.11; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.38, P = 0.67).As expected, bupivacaine significantly reduced visual analog pain scores when compared with placebo at 6 hours after surgery, but also showed a significant difference at 24 hours after surgery, giving evidence of a second mechanism of action following the initial sodium channel blockade.