Search

Background: Previous reviews on hysterectomy versus uterine‐sparing surgery in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair did not consider that the open abdominal approach or transvaginal mesh use have been largely abandoned. Objectives: To provide up‐to‐date evidence by examining only studies investigating techniques currently in use for POP repair. Search Strategy: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception to January 2023. Selection Criteria: We included randomized and non‐randomized studies comparing surgical procedures for POP with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Studies describing open abdominal approaches or transvaginal mesh implantation were excluded. Data Collection and Analysis: A random effect meta‐analysis was conducted on extracted data reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main Results: Thirty‐eight studies were included. Hysterectomy and uterine‐sparing procedures did not differ in reoperation rate (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.74–1.17), intraoperative major (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.79–2.26) and minor (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.79–2.4) complications, postoperative major (OR 1.42; 95% CI 0.85–2.37) and minor (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.9–1.53) complications, and objective (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.92–2.07) or subjective (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.8–1.88) success. Uterine preservation was associated with a shorter operative time (−22.7 min; 95% CI –16.92 to −28.51 min), shorter hospital stay (−0.35 days, 95% CI –0.04 to −0.65 days), and less blood loss (−61.7 mL; 95% CI –31.3 to −92.1 mL). When only studies using a laparoscopic approach for both arms were considered, no differences were observed in investigated outcomes between the two groups. Conclusions: No major differences were observed in POP outcomes between procedures with and without concomitant hysterectomy. The decision to preserve or remove the uterus should be tailored on individual factors. Synopsis: In women with indication for surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse, the decision to preserve or remove the uterus should be tailored on individual factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses clinician perspectives on hysterectomy versus uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. It emphasizes the importance of proper counseling and shared decision-making to improve patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes. The authors agree with the proposed 4P model as a valuable tool for gynecologists in clinical practice. The study was conducted by researchers from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Verona in Italy. [Extracted from the article]

This article is a response to comments made by Drs. Husby and Klarskov regarding a systematic review and meta-analysis on the topic of hysterectomy versus uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. The authors clarify that their objective was to determine whether or not to preserve the uterus, not to compare different surgical procedures for treating pelvic organ prolapse. They agree with the suggestion to distinguish between the Manchester procedure and the sacrospinous ligament hysteropexy and performed a meta-analysis stratified by uterine-preserving procedure. The results showed no statistically significant differences in reoperation rates or complications between hysterectomy and uterine preservation using either procedure. The authors conclude that the decision to preserve or remove the uterus should be based on individual factors identified during patient counseling. [Extracted from the article]

The impact of Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on Italian Gynaecological Units practice and the compliance and satisfaction with available guidelines/recommendations is unknown. Therefore, a survey was conducted among all Italian Gynaecological Units Directors in April 2020. The response rate was 90% (135/150). 77.8% of centres performed surgery only for oncologic or not deferrable pathologies, and 9.6% was closed. 68.7% of directors were at least moderately satisfied by published guidelines/recommendations, but 94.8% of respondents identified limitations, mainly (83%) the absent definition of benign non-deferrable pathology. Responders considered as non-deferrable severe endometriosis (69.6%), endometriosis with organ failure/dysfunction (74.1%), and unresponsive symptomatic fibroids (89.6%). Despite guidelines/recommendations, respondents treated ovarian (77%) and endometrial (71.6%) cancer as usual. Only a minority of respondents reduced the laparoscopic approach (11.2%) and adopted all recommended surgical precautions (9.6%). Compliance with available guidelines/recommendations appears incomplete. Reconsidering guidelines/recommendations regarding oncological cases and specify non-deferrable benign pathologies would improve guidelines/recommendations compliance. What is already known on this subject? The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has profoundly influenced medical routine practice worldwide. Surgery units have been forced to reduce or even completely restrict their activity to re-allocate human resources. Many major international gynaecological societies have released statements and guidelines, providing various recommendations to guide practice changes. However, the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on Italian Gynaecological Units practice and the compliance and satisfaction with available guidelines/recommendations is unknown. What do the results of this study add? Study results provide evidence showing how the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has changed surgical activity in the Italian Gynaecological Units. Most centres reduced surgical activity, limiting surgery only for oncologic or not deferrable pathologies. Moreover, our research shows the level of compliance and satisfaction with available guidelines/recommendations and where they need to be improved. Most directors were at least moderately satisfied but identified different limitations. Guidelines/recommendations do not provide enough details, such as the absent definition of benign non-deferrable pathologies. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? The limited compliance with available guidelines/recommendations and identified limitations suggest reconsidering guidelines/recommendations focussing on identified gaps. Provide more details, such as specifying non-deferrable benign pathologies, would improve guidelines/recommendations compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Recent evidence has shown that water delivery is safe for the mother, but high-quality evidence is not available for the newborn. Therefore, obstetric guidelines do not support it. This retrospective study aimed to contribute to the available evidence on maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with water delivery., Study Design: Retrospective cohort study from prospectively collected birth registry data from 2015 to 2019. A total of 144 consecutive water deliveries and 265 land deliveries eligible for waterbirth were identified. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to address for confounders., Results: We identified 144 women who delivered in water (water group) and 265 women who delivered on land (land group). One (0.7%) neonatal death was observed in the water delivery group. After IPTW adjustment, water delivery was significantly associated with a higher risk of maternal fever in puerperium (odds ratio [OR]: 4.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.86-17.02; p  = 0.004), of neonatal cord avulsion (OR: 20.73; 95% CI: 2.63-2,674; p  = 0.001), and of positive neonatal C-reactive protein (CRP > 5 mg/L; OR: 2.59; 95% CI: 1.05-7.24; p  = 0.039); delivering in water was associated with lower maternal blood loss (mean difference: 110.40 mL; 95% CI: 191.01-29.78; p  = 0.007), a lower risk of major (≥1,000 mL) postpartum hemorrhage (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.92-0.99; p  = 0.016), lower risk of manual placenta delivery (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.03-0.67; p  = 0.008) and curettage (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.60; p  = 0.002), lower use of episiotomy (OR: 0.02; 95% CI: 0-0.12; p  < 0.001), and lower risk of neonatal ward admission (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.25-0.48; p  < 0.001)., Conclusion: The present study showed that differences are present between water and land delivery, and among them is the risk of cord avulsion, a severe and potentially fatal event. In women choosing to deliver in water, a trained staffmust be present and immediate recognition of cord avulsion is key for a prompt management to avoid possible serious complications., Key Points: · High-quality evidence is not available for neonatal safety of waterbirth; therefore, retrospective studies still represent the main body of evidence.. · Differences are present between water and land delivery, and among them, the increased risk of cord avulsion is a potentially fatal event.. · A trained staff must assist women who chose to deliver in water and cord avulsion must be promptly recognized and managed to avoid severe neonatal complications.., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)