Laparoscopic Management of Maldescended Ovary Presenting with Recurrent Acute Abdomen.

Ovarian maldescent is an extremely rare gynecological phenomenon, usually associated with Müllerian abnormalities. We report a 27-year-old woman, presenting with acute, right-sided abdominal pain. She has a history of subfertility and repeated admissions with chronic pelvic pain. Previous hysterosalpingogram and laparoscopy demonstrated unicornuate uterus with absent right fallopian tube and ovary. A right-sided, ectopic ovary was identified on later imaging and suspected as the cause of her symptoms. She underwent laparoscopic excision of the maldescended ovary with remnant fimbrial end and gubernaculum. She was discharged the following day as she was pain-free and remains so 11 months later. This case report prompts a gynecologist to consider diagnosis of maldescended ovary in the women with uterine abnormalities and repeated episodes of abdominal pain. This is the first case report to the best of our knowledge where surgical management of ovarian maldescent was performed via minimal access approach, thus avoiding laparotomy in this acute setting.

Laparoscopic retrieval of a foreign body (broken surgical knife) from retroperitoneal space: An interesting case.

We present a rare and interesting case, of a retrieval of a broken surgical knife blade, from the retroperitoneal space, through laparoscopic approach by a gynecology endoscopist. A 40-year-oId man underwent open lumbar discectomy surgery, when the surgical knife blade inadvertently broke, and was retained in the disc space. The broken blade could not be removed during the initial surgery. A second attempt was made to retrieve it; however, it migrated further anteriorly into the retroperitoneal space. Subsequently, a gynecology endoscopist was called in, who successfully retrieved the broken blade from the retroperitoneal space through laparoscopic approach. A four-port laparoscopic transperitoneal approach was performed. The broken fragment of the knife was found just medial to the left common iliac artery in the retroperitoneal space, which was removed. Operation time was 40 minutes and the postoperative course was uneventful.

Introduction of metformin for gestational diabetes mellitus in clinical practice: Has it had an impact?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) treated with metformin in addition to the dietary and lifestyle advice versus those treated traditionally with dietary and lifestyle advice only. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study of singleton pregnancies in women with GDM delivered between January 2008 to June 2010 (n=592) at the Jessop Wing, Royal Hallamshre Hospital, UK. Introduction of metformin in August 2008 led to two comparable groups, those women receiving metformin, lifestyle advice (including dietary advice) ± supplementary insulin and those women receiving lifestyle advice (including dietary advice) ± supplementary insulin. Two hundred and ninety three women were treated with metformin and lifestyle advice and remaining 299 with lifestyle advice only. Supplementary insulin was used in both the groups if needed. Outcomes were analyzed using the chi-squared and t-tests. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline maternal characteristics between the two groups. Metformin was tolerated throughout the pregnancy by 90% of the women in the metformin+lifestyle advice group. Supplementary insulin was required by 21% in the metformin+lifestyle advice group compared to 37% in the lifestyle advice group (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.32-0.66). Women in the metformin group had a significantly lower incidence of macrosomia (birth weight>4kg) (8.2% vs. 14.3% (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.33-0.99)), as well as birth weight >90th centile (14.8% vs. 23.7% (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37-0.85)). There were no significant differences in maternal outcome measures between the groups. No serious maternal or neonatal adverse events were observed with the use of metformin. CONCLUSION: Metformin is safe and effective in the treatment of GDM in our experience. It is well tolerated and reduces the requirement for supplementary insulin. Women treated with metformin had a significantly lower incidence of macrosomic and large for gestational age neonates as well as a reduced caesarean section rate.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening in morbidly obese pregnant women.

OBJECTIVE: To study the outcomes of two-stage GDM screening of morbidly obese women in our obstetric unit and to evaluate the diagnostic performance of 20-week oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) values in predicting or excluding late onset GDM. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study in which 190 pregnant women with BMI ≥40 had two-stage screening: a 75g OGTT is performed at 20 weeks and repeated at 28 weeks if the 20-week OGTT was normal. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for 20-week OGTT values were constructed in order to obtain an optimal cut-off value of fasting and/or 2-h glucose at 20 weeks from which GDM could be predicted or excluded at 28 weeks. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were determined for each of the fasting and 2-h post-load glucose values at 20 weeks. RESULTS: Forty six (24%) women were diagnosed with GDM. Thirty-two (70%) were diagnosed at 20 weeks and 14 (30%) at 28 weeks. The 2-h cut-off value of ≥6mmol/l at the 20-week OGTT had a negative likelihood ratio of 0.12 to predict GDM at 28 weeks. The low negative likelihood ratio reduces the probability of detecting GDM at 28 weeks from 9% (pre-test probability) to 1% (post-test probability). CONCLUSION: Nearly 70% of the women were diagnosed with GDM at 20 weeks, which gives an early opportunity to treat maternal hyperglycaemia with consequent health benefits. A 2-h cut-off glucose value of 6mmol/l at 20 weeks OGTT has a low negative likelihood ratio which virtually excludes GDM at 28 weeks. Hence women with a 2h value of <6mmol/l at 20 weeks can avoid a repeat 28 week OGTT test.

Adjusting the pH of lidocaine for reducing pain on injection.

BACKGROUND: Lidocaine administration produces pain due to its acidic pH. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to determine if adjusting the pH of lidocaine had any effect on pain resulting from non-intravascular injections in adults and children. We tested the hypothesis that adjusting the pH of lidocaine solution to a level closer to the physiologic pH reduces this pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, to June 2010); Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to June 2010); EMBASE (1988 to June 2010); LILACS (1982 to June 2010); CINAHL (1982 to June 2010); ISI Web of Science (1999 to June 2010); and abstracts of the meetings of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). We checked the full articles of selected titles. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included double-blinded, randomized controlled trials that compared pH-adjusted lidocaine with unadjusted lidocaine. We evaluated pain at the injection site, satisfaction and adverse events. We excluded studies in healthy volunteers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We separately analysed parallel-group and crossover trials; trials that evaluated lidocaine with or without epinephrine; and trials with pH-adjusted lidocaine solutions < 7.35 and ≥ 7.35. To explain heterogeneity, we separately analysed studies with a low and higher risk of bias due to the level of allocation concealment; studies that employed a low and a higher volume of injection; and studies that used lidocaine for different types of procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies of which 10 had a parallel design and 13 were crossover studies. Eight of the 23 studies had moderate to high risk of bias due to the level of allocation concealment.Pain associated with the infiltration of buffered lidocaine was less than the pain associated with infiltration of unbuffered lidocaine in both parallel and crossover trials. In the crossover studies, the difference was -1.98 units (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.62 to -1.34) and in the parallel-group studies it was -0.98 units (95% CI -1.49 to -0.47) on a 0 to 10 scale. The magnitude of the pain decrease associated with buffered lidocaine was larger when the solution contained epinephrine. The risk of bias, volume of injection, and type of procedure failed to explain the heterogeneity of the results.Patients preferred buffered lidocaine (odds ratio 3.01, 95% CI 2.19 to 4.15). No adverse events or toxicity were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the pH of lidocaine decreased pain on injection and augmented patient comfort and satisfaction.