ABSTRACT
@#Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery has long been recognized specialty in the field of obstetrics and gynecology and it is not new to any of us. In 1979, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology officially recognized this field as a subspecialty. In the Philippines, however, urogynecology is still in its infancy stage. Urogynecology concerns problems of the female genital tract and lower urinary and lower intestinal tract disorders. More commonly, we provide care to women with various pelvic floor disorders such as pelvic organ prolapse, fecal incontinence, and bladder control problems, specifically urinary incontinence. They are, at present, aspects of women’s health that are frequently neglected or ignored. With the recent emphasis on women’s health and quality of life, caring for women with various pelvic floor disorders would become an increasingly important aspect of women’s healthcare. Moreover, for a rapidly growing and aging population, the demand for such care will inevitably escalate.
Subject(s)
Pelvic Floor DisordersABSTRACT
@#A cervical length <25 mm is correlated with an increased risk of preterm delivery. Pessaries have been used in patients with a short cervix to prevent preterm birth. Compared to cerclage, it is seen as a novel approach, which is more affordable, less invasive, and can be inserted at a later gestational age. We present our experience on the use of pessaries for shortened cervix. In this case series, we inserted a pessary in pregnant patients from 10 to 30 weeks of age of gestation (mean 23 weeks) with cervical length of 0.9 cm to 2.1 cm. We were able to prolong the pregnancy in 5 of the 7 cases with a mean interval to delivery of 14 weeks. One proposed mechanism of a pessary for shortened cervix is that it directs the inclination of the cervix posteriorly, which allows majority of the weight of the pregnancy to lie on the anterior segment of the uterus instead of on the internal cervical os. Based on the cases presented, we have proposed some guidelines in offering a pessary for patients with a shortened cervix: (1) recommend a pessary in patients with a cervical length <25 mm or a diagnosis of cervical insufficiency; (2) exclude infection or active labor; and (3) remove the pessary if there is rupture of membranes, significant vaginal bleeding, or persistent uterine contractions.
Subject(s)
PessariesABSTRACT
Background@#Pelvic ultrasonography is currently not recommended as a screening tool for endometrial cancer, particularly in asymptomatic women; however, its use for other indications such as pelvic masses has led to incidental findings of thickened endometrium in post menopausal women. @*Objectives@#The aim of the study is to evaluate the clinical utility of endometrial ultrasound in asymptomatic Filipino postmenopausal women and to provide a threshold for invasive endometrial sampling.@*Methodology@#A cohort of postmenopausal women (aged ?50 years) who underwent pelvic ultrasonography at a tertiary hospital for indications other than vaginal bleeding was retrospectively evaluated. Women were included if they had an endometrial lining of at least 5 mm and had an endometrial biopsy. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to determine the endometrial thickness threshold for which endometrial thickness is able to correctly differentiate benign endometrial pathology from endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma.@*Results@#Out of 90 women included in the study, carcinoma was identified in 3 (3.33%) and hyperplasia was noted in 4 (4.44%). The most common histopathology noted was: endometrial polyp (35.56%), atrophic endometrium (30%) and benign endometrial tissues (18.98%). The calculated area under ROC curve was 54.39% (95% CI 34.38-79.41%), which indicates the inability of endometrial thickness to differentiate benign endometrium from endometrial carcinoma or hyperplasia in asymptomatic women with an incidentally found thickened endometrium. @*Conclusion@#Based on the results of the study, endometrial thickness alone cannot be used as basis for deciding whether to perform endometrial sampling, there is no endometrial thickness threshold for which the endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma can be correctly identified. The decision to perform an endometrial biopsy should be done on a case to case basis. In the absence of a high index of suspicion for endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma even in the presence of thickened endometrium, endometrial sampling is unnecessary.