A pilot study: Application of paired ultrasound simulator training in obstetrics.

OBJECTIVE: Medical trainees in obstetrics must develop competency in fetal ultrasonography. To date, no studies have utilized ultrasound simulator training for basic fetal anatomy with paired didactic coursework. We hypothesize that ultrasound simulator training with paired didactics improves medical trainee competency in fetal ultrasonography. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed at a tertiary care center during the 2021-2022 academic year. Medical trainees in obstetrics without prior simulator experience could participate. Participants completed ultrasound simulator training with standardized paired didactics and subsequent real-time patient scanning. All images were reviewed by the same physician for competency. Trainees completed 11-point Likert scale surveys at three time points: pre-simulator, post-simulator, and post-real-time patient scanning. Two-tailed student's t-tests with 95% confidence intervals were performed, and p-values <0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Of the 26 trainees that completed the training, 96% reported that simulation positively impacted their confidence and ability to perform real-time scanning of patients. Self-reported knowledge of fetal anatomy, ultrasound techniques, and application to clinical obstetrics all significantly increased after simulator training (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Paired ultrasound simulation with didactic instruction significantly improves medical trainees' knowledge of fetal anatomy and ability to perform fetal ultrasonography. Implementing an ultrasound simulation curriculum may become an essential tool for obstetric residency programs.

The association of patient age, race, and demographic features on reported pain and sedation dosing during procedural abortion: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore impact of age, racial, demographic, and psychosocial factors on patients' dosage of analgesia and maximum pain score during procedural abortion. STUDY DESIGN: We performed retrospective chart review of pregnant individuals undergoing procedural abortion at our hospital-based abortion clinic from October 2019 through May 2020. Patients were stratified into age groups,<19 years, 19 to 35 years, and>35 years. We conducted the Kruskal-Wallis H test to evaluate for medication dosing or maximum pain score differences among groups. RESULTS: We included 225 patients in our study. We found no difference in fentanyl or midazolam dosing by age. The median fentanyl dose was 75 mcg and median midazolam dose was 2 mg in all three groups (p = 0.61, p = 0.99). White patients received higher median midazolam dosing than Black patients (2 and 3 mg, respectively, p < 0.01) despite similar pain scores. Despite no difference in pain scores, patients terminating for genetic anomaly received more fentanyl than those terminating for socioeconomic reasons (75 and 100 mcg, respectively, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In our limited study, we found that White race and induced abortion for genetic anomaly were associated with increased medication dosing, though age was not. Multiple demographic and psychosocial factors, as well as perhaps provider bias, play into both a patient's perception of pain and the dosage of fentanyl and midazolam they receive during abortion procedures. IMPLICATIONS: By acknowledging both patient factors and provider biases in medication dosing, we can provide more equitable abortion care.

Prepregnancy Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs sleeve gastrectomy: a systematic review, pairwise, and network meta-analysis of obstetrical and neonatal outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically investigate a wide range of obstetrical and neonatal outcomes with respect to 2 types of prepregnancy bariatric surgery, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy, through: (1) providing a meta-analysis of the effect of bariatric surgery (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs no surgery and, separately, sleeve gastrectomy vs no surgery) on adverse obstetrical and neonatal outcomes, and (2) comparing the relative benefit of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs sleeve gastrectomy using both conventional and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Embase systematically from inception up to April 30, 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies reporting on pregnancies' obstetrical and neonatal outcomes with respect to 2 types of prepregnancy bariatric surgery-Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy-were included. The included studies either indirectly compared between the procedure and controls or directly compared between the 2 procedures. METHODS: We performed a systematic review followed by pairwise and network meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. In the pairwise analysis, multiple obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were tabulated and compared between 3 groups: (1) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs controls, (2) sleeve gastrectomy vs controls, and (3) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs sleeve gastrectomy. Primary outcomes included small for gestational age, large for gestational age, gestational hypertension/preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes mellitus. Secondary outcomes included preterm birth, anemia, cesarean delivery, and biochemical profile. The random-effects model was used to pool the mean differences or odds ratios and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 value. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess individual study quality. To resolve inconclusive findings and to rank current treatments, network meta-analysis was conducted for the primary outcomes. Quality of evidence was assessed with the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis approach and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) tool within the summary of findings table. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies were included, reporting on 40,108 pregnancies, of which 5194 underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 405 underwent sleeve gastrectomy, and 34,509 were controls. Compared with controls, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass increased the risk of small for gestational age infants (odds ratio, 2.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.77-3.70; I2, 29.1%; P<.00001), decreased the risk of large for gestational age infants (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.35; I2, 0%; P<.00001), decreased gestational hypertension/preeclampsia (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97; I2, 26.8%; P=.04), decreased gestational diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.81; I2, 32%; P=.008), increased maternal anemia (odds ratio, 2.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.53-4.79; I2, 40.5%; P<.001), increased neonatal intensive care unit admission (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.77; I2, 0%; P=.02), and decreased mean gestational weight gain (mean difference, -3.37 kg; 95% confidence interval, -5.62 to -1.11; I2, 65.3%; P=.003). Only 3 studies compared sleeve gastrectomy with controls, and found no significant differences in primary outcomes or in mean gestational weight gain. The network meta-analysis showed that Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (malabsorptive procedure) resulted in greater decrease of large for gestational age, gestational hypertension/preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes mellitus, and a greater increase in small for gestational age infants when compared with sleeve gastrectomy (restrictive procedure). However, the small number of studies, small number of sleeve gastrectomy patients, limited outcomes, and data heterogeneity resulted in low-to-moderate network GRADE of evidence. CONCLUSION: This network meta-analysis showed that Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, compared with sleeve gastrectomy, resulted in greater decrease in large for gestational age, gestational hypertension/preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes mellitus, but in greater increase in small for gestational age infants. Certainty of evidence in the network meta-analysis was of a low-to-moderate GRADE. Evidence is still lacking for periconception biochemical profile, congenital malformations, and reproductive health outcomes for both interventions; thus, future well-designed prospective studies are needed to further characterize these outcomes.