The impact of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital admissions and treatment management of ectopic pregnancy.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the clinical features and treatment strategies applied to the patients with ectopic pregnancy admitted to our tertiary care center before and during the pandemic. METHODS: Women aged 18-45 years, who were admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy in the pre- and postpandemic periods, were included in this case-control study. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients, 116 patients before the pandemic and 57 patients during the pandemic, were included in the study. The rate of admissions from the emergency department was higher during the pandemic than before the pandemic (P = 0.003). The rupture was detected significantly higher during the outbreak (13/116 [11.2%]) than before the pandemic (16/57 [28.1%]) (P = 0.009). While conservative treatment was applied more frequently in the prepandemic period, it was observed that patients were treated surgically more frequently during the pandemic period (P = 0.003). While laparoscopic surgery was preferred before the pandemic, laparotomy was applied to all patients during the pandemic (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the first wave of the outbreak, there were delays in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancies, and these patients presented with ruptures more frequently than before the pandemic. Furthermore, surgical treatment methods were used more than conservative therapies during the outbreak.

A New and Alternative Route: Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Scarless Surgery (vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery) For Class 2 and Class 3 Obese Patients Suffering From Benign and Malignant Gynecologic Pathologies.

Background. This study was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) gynecologic scarless surgery in benign and malignant class 2 and class 3 obese patients. Materials and methods. The class 2 and class 3 obese women undergoing vNOTES scarless surgery for benign and malign indications at a tertiary referral medical center between January 2019 and April 2021 were retrospectively analyzed and surgical outcomes were measured. Results. In this study, 81 class 2 and class 3 obese patients underwent gynecological procedures using vNOTES scarless surgery. Of the 81 operations, 55 of the class 2 obese patients with benign pathologies, and 26 of the class 3 obese patients had malign pathologies. No conversion to conventional laparoscopy or even laparotomy was needed in any of the procedures. All of the surgeries were performed by the same surgeon (Prof. Dr Ahmet Kale). vNOTES scarless surgery was performed on 26 class 3 obese patients with malign pathologies. Of the 26 class 3 obese patients, 22 of the class 3 obese patients with early-stage endometrial carcinoma had very high mean body mass index 41.5 kg/m2 (range 20.6-56) and 4 of the class 3 obese patients had ascites with unknown cause and diagnosed with peritoneal carcinomatosis. The mean postoperative pain VAS scores of class 2 obese patients undergoing vNOTES scarless surgery with benign pathology at 6, 12, and 24 h were 3.19, 1.11, and .66, respectively, and the mean postoperative pain VAS scores of class 3 obese patients underwent vNOTES scarless surgery with malign pathology at 6, 12, and 24 h were 3.30, 1.76, and 1.03, respectively. Conclusion. vNOTES scarless surgery is an alternative surgical method for diagnosis and treatment not only in benign obese cases, but also in severely obese patients with early stage endometrial cancer and patients had with ascites with unknown cause. In the near future, vNOTES scarless surgery will become more preferable by experienced surgeons in benign and malignant obese cases as it has increased satisfaction with esthetic results such as less pain, and improved postoperative quality of life in the short and long term.

Hearing test results of newborns born from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infected mothers: A tertiary center experience in Turkey.

OBJECTIVE: Congenital infections can cause newborn hearing loss. Although vertical transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is theoretically possible, this has not been proven yet. To our knowledge, there is no previous report on whether COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can cause congenital hearing loss. This paper aimed to find an answer to this question. METHOD: This retrospective, single-center study was performed between April 2020 and May 2021 at a tertiary care referral center in Turkey. A total of 422 pregnant women who had coronavirus infection during pregnancy were followed and 203 of them gave birth in our institution. Results of hearing screening tests of 199 newborns were assessed retrospectively. RESULTS: Of patients included in the study, 23 (11.6%) had the disease in the first trimester, 62 (31.2%) in the second trimester, and 114 (57.3%) in the third trimester. In the first hearing test performed on newborns, unilateral hearing loss was observed in 21 babies (10.5%). Hearing tests of these newborns were found to be normal in the second test performed 15 days later. CONCLUSION: Considering the incidence of congenital hearing loss, the absence of hearing loss in our newborn population does not confirm the argument that coronavirus infection does not cause congenital hearing loss. This issue should be evaluated with larger patient series. In addition, it should be kept in mind that hearing loss can occur at later ages as well.

Is it safe to perform elective gynaecologic surgery during the two peaks of COVID-19 pandemic?

PURPOSE: In December 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic started in China and spread around the World. Operations were postponed in most surgical clinics to reduce the risk of contamination and increase the number of beds available in hospitals. We investigate whether elective gynaecologic surgery is safe or not under safety measures. METHODS: A total of 765 patients were operated on electively between 15 March and 30 October 2020 at our inpatient gynaecology clinic. We took the SARS-CoV-2 Reverse Transcriptase (RT) Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test of the nasopharyngeal swab before and after the surgery. Patients were questioned for COVID-19 symptoms by phone calls on the 7th, 15th, 30th and 60th days postoperatively. RESULTS: The average age of patients was 45.6 ± 11(19-81). Sixty-two (8.1%) operations were performed due to gynaecologic malignancies. Three patients (0.39%) were detected as SARS-CoV-2 RT PCR positive within 7 days after surgery. The patients did not need ICU admission or any further treatments. CONCLUSION: Our study offers a novel perspective on elective surgery during a pandemic. The risk assessment of patients should be meticulously done and substantiated on objective variables. According to our study, in a carefully selected patient population, operating under appropriate precautions, elective gynaecologic surgical procedures during the two peaks of the COVID-19 pandemic do not pose a risk to the patients.

Hysterectomy via transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus single-port laparoscopy: Comparison of early outcomes.

AIM: The study objective was to compare intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes among patients who underwent hysterectomy via transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (and single-port lararoscopy for presumed benign gynecologic disorders). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 40 patients who underwent single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy and 20 patients who underwent hysterectomy via natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Patients' age, body mass index, history of previous delivery and surgery, total operation time (from skin incision to closure), intraoperative and postoperative complications conversion to another surgical procedure, drop of hemoglobin level, postoperative pain at 1 and 18 h, average hospital stay, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Hysterectomy via transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery was superior to single-port hysterectomy concerning the length of hospitalization (p < 0.001) and visual analog scale at 1 h (p = 0.024) and 18 h (p < 0.001). In transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic group, postoperative complications were lower than single-port laparoscopy group (p = 0.023). In transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopy, group conversion to a standard vaginal hysterectomy occurred in two cases (10%). Four patients in the single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy group had umbilical herniation, three had port-site infections, and two patients had vaginal cuff hematoma. These patients required rehospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Despite hysterectomy via transvaginal natural orifice transluminal surgery has not yet found its place in routine practice in gynecology departments, it could be a prominent alternative approach to other minimally invasive surgical procedures in selected patients with many advantages including lesser pain and lower complication rates compared with single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy.