Successful hysteroscopic management of two cases of interstitial pregnancy

Introduction. Interstitial pregnancy (IP) is the rarest type of tubal pregnancy with a high rupture rate and often remains asymptomatic in the first 10-12 gestational weeks. Therefore, the timing of the diagnosis is crucial for successful management. Case report. Two patients, aged 28 and 22, were diagnosed with IP using transvaginal ultrasound. Both patients were asymptomatic, with initial serum betahCG of 6,664 mIU/mL and 4,641 mIU/mL, respectively. Since they refused treatment with methotrexate and wanted to preserve their fertility, we performed operative hysteroscopy with resection and evacuation of the gestational tissue. The procedures were uneventful. The betahCG levels dropped significantly, and the patients were discharged after three and four hospital days, respectively. Conclusion. Using hysteroscopic procedures, we successfully treated two asymptomatic patients with IP of gestational age < 10 weeks by ultrasonography and levels of serum betahCG < 7,000 mIU/mL. With the occurrence of IP but also the numerous advantages of hysteroscopy, large, multicenter studies are necessary to further investigate the place of this approach as a single treatment method for IP. Trends and consequences observed during the COVID-19 pandemic correlate with the importance of timely diagnosis of ectopic pregnancies, the benefits of a minimally invasive approach in their treatment, and epidemiologically justified shorter hospital stays.Copyright © 2023 Inst. Sci. inf., Univ. Defence in Belgrade. All rights reserved.

Impact of a tiered discharge opioid algorithm on prescriptions and patient-reported outcomes after open gynecologic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To compare discharge opioid refills, prescribed morphine equivalent dose and quantity, and longitudinal patient-reported outcomes before and after implementation of a tiered opioid prescribing algorithm among women undergoing open gynecologic surgery within an enhanced recovery after surgery program. METHODS: We compared opioid prescriptions, clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes among 273 women. Post-discharge symptom burden was collected up to 42 days after discharge using the validated 27-item MD Anderson Symptom Inventory and analyzed using linear mixed effects models and Kaplan-Meier curves for symptom recovery. RESULTS: Among 113 pre-implementation and 160 post-implementation patients there was no difference in opioid refills (9.7% vs 11.3%, p=0.84). The post-implementation cohort had a significant reduction in median morphine equivalent dose (112.5 mg vs 225 mg, p<0.01), with no difference in median hospital length of stay (3 days vs 3 days, p=1.0) or 30-day readmission rate (9.4% vs 7.1%, p=0.66). There was no difference in patient-reported pain between the pre- and post-implementation cohorts on the day of discharge (severity 4.93 vs 5.14, p=0.53) or in any patient-reported symptoms, interference measures, or composite scores by post-discharge day 7. The median recovery time for most symptoms was 7 days, except for pain (14 days), fatigue (18 days), and physical interference (21 days), with no differences between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: After implementation of a tiered opioid prescribing algorithm, the quantity and dose of discharge opioids prescribed decreased with no change in post-operative refills and without negatively impacting patient-reported symptom burden or interference, which can be used to educate and reassure patients and providers.

Gynecological laparoscopic surgeries in the era of COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The novel coronavirus pandemic led to the suspension of elective surgeries and the diversion of resources and manpower towards pandemic control. However, gynecological emergencies and malignancies must be addressed despite the restricted resources and the need for protective measures against COVID-19. This study aimed to determine the types of gynecological surgeries performed, difficulties encountered, and their outcomes in the setting of the pandemic. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study over 6 months at a single tertiary center, including 60 women with gynecological complaints, categorized as emergencies and semi-emergencies, who underwent further surgery. Their surgical outcomes were measured through various parameters. RESULTS: We found that 68.3% were emergency cases, while the rest were classified as semi-emergencies. Fibroid and adenomyosis with failed medical management (48.3%), followed by cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (10%), and malignancies (10%) accounted for the semi-emergency cases, while ruptured ectopic pregnancies (13.3%) and torsion and ovarian cysts (18.4%) comprised the emergency cases. The decision to incision time between emergency and semi-emergency cases varied widely due to the safety prerequisites during the pandemic, ranging from 1 hour in emergency cases to 48 hours in semi-emergency cases. In addition, we studied the ease of preoperative preparation, patient satisfaction, and the average number of personnel available to run the operation theaters at these times. No serious perioperative adverse events were observed in the present study. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, gynecological surgeries could continue to be safely performed with all precautions in place against COVID-19 infection and related morbidities.

Feasibility of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in ovarian cancer during COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions on patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for ovarian cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated ovarian cancer patients who underwent HIPEC following complete cytoreductive surgery performed during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in three different centers specializing in gynecological oncology. All patients who underwent cytoreduction plus HIPEC for a primary, interval, and recurrent surgery were evaluated. Primary outcomes was postoperative 30-day morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcome was infection of patient and/or related staff with COVID-19 during the perioperative or early postoperative period. RESULTS: We performed a total of 35 HIPEC procedures during the pandemic: 15 (42.9%) patients underwent primary/interval surgery, while 20 (57.1%) patients had recurrent disease. Grade 3-4 complications occurred in one patient (2.9%) (chronic renal failure), while mortality did not occur in any patient. Neither the patients nor related staff were infected with the coronavirus during the perioperative or early postoperative period. One patient, who was diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia on postoperative day 80 died from the infection. Another patient died on postoperative day 85 due to progressive ovarian cancer, a disorder in vital functions, and organ failure. CONCLUSION: HIPEC during the COVID-19 pandemic seems a safe and feasible procedure, with acceptable morbidity and mortality rates. Careful selection of patients is important and precautions should be taken before the procedure.

COVID-19: gynecologic cancer surgery at a single center in Madrid.

OBJECTIVES: While numerous medical facilities have been forced to suspend oncological surgery due to system overload, debate has emerged on using non-surgical options on cancer cases during the pandemic. The goal of our study was to analyze, in a retrospective cohort study, the results of gynecological cancer surgery and evaluate postoperative complications in a single center in one of the most affected areas in Europe. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the records of patients who were referred between March 2020 and May 2020 for primary surgical treatment of breast, endometrial, ovarian, cervical, or vulvar cancer. RESULTS: The study included a total of 126 patients. Median age was 60 years (range 29-89). Patients were referred with breast (76/126, 60.3%), endometrial (29/126, 23%), ovarian (14/126, 11.1%), cervical (5/126, 4%), or vulvar cancer (2/126, 1.6%). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) was only conducted in 50% of cases due to the low availability of tests during the first phase of our study, and was indicated only in suspected cases according to the healthcare authorities' protocol. Median hospital stay was 1 day (range 0-18). Excluding breast surgery, laparoscopy was the most used procedure (43/126, 34.1%). 15 patients had a postoperative complication (15/126, 11.9%); only in 2 patients (2/15 13.3%) were there reports of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or 4 complications. 6 patients tested positive for COVID-19 following a PCR diagnostic test, and these surgeries were cancelled. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate protective measures in the setting of COVID-19 free institutions enabled the continuity of cancer surgery without significant compromise of the safety of patients or healthcare workers.

Performing gynecologic cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey: A multicenter retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To report the perioperative outcomes of 200 patients with gynecologic cancer who underwent surgery during the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the safety of surgical approach. METHODS: Data of patients operated between March 10 and May 20, 2020, were collected retrospectively. Data were statistically analyzed using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics for Windows v. SP21.0. RESULTS: Data of 200 patients were included. Their mean age was 56 years. Of the patients, 54% (n=108), 27.5% (n=55), 12.5% (n=25), and 2% (n=4) were diagnosed as having endometrial, ovarian, cervical, and vulvar cancer, respectively. Of them, 98% underwent non-emergent surgery. A minimally invasive surgical approach was used in 18%. Stage 1 cancer was found in 68% of patients. Surgeons reported COVID-related changes in 10% of the cases. The rate of postoperative complications was 12%. Only two patients had cough and suspected pneumonic lesions on thoracic computed tomography postoperatively, but neither was positive for COVID-19 on polymerase chain reaction testing. CONCLUSION: Based on the present findings, it is thought that gynecologic cancer surgery should continue during the COVID-19 pandemic while adhering to the measures. Postponement or non-surgical management should only be considered in patients with documented infection. Gynecologic cancer surgery should continue during the COVID-19 pandemic while adhering to measures. Only 1% of patients developed COVID-19-related symptoms during the postoperative follow-up period.

COVID-19 and gynecological cancer: a review of the published guidelines.

On March 11, 2020 the COVID-19 outbreak was declared a 'pandemic' by the World Health Organization. COVID-19 is associated with higher surgical morbidity and mortality. An array of guidelines on the management of cancer during this pandemic have been published since the first reports of the outbreak. This narrative review brings all the relevant information from the guidelines together into one document, to support patient care. We present a detailed review of published guidelines, statements, comments from peer-reviewed journals, and nationally/internationally recognized professional bodies and societies' web pages (in English or with English translation available) between December 1, 2019 and May 27, 2020. Search terms included combinations of COVID, SARS-COV-2, guideline, gynecology, oncology, gynecological, cancer. Recommendations for surgical and oncological prioritization of gynecological cancers are discussed and summarized. The role of minimally invasive surgery, patient perspectives, medico-legal aspects, and clinical trials during the pandemic are also discussed. The consensus is that elective benign surgery should cease and cancer surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy should continue based on prioritization. Patient and staff face-to-face interactions should be limited, and health resources used efficiently using prioritization strategies. This review and the guidelines on which it is based support the difficult decisions currently facing us in gynecological cancer. It is a balancing act: limited resources and a hostile environment pitted against the time-sensitive nature of cancer treatment. We can only hope to do our best for our patients with the resources available to us.