Quantitative ultrasound measurement of uterine contractility in adenomyotic vs. normal uteri: a multicenter prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate uterine contractility in patients with adenomyosis compared with healthy controls using a quantitative two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) speckle tracking method. DESIGN: A multicenter prospective observational study took place in three European centers between 2014 and 2023. SETTING: One university teaching hospital, 1 teaching hospital and 1 specialised clinic. PATIENTS: A total of 46 women with a sonographic or magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of adenomyosis were included. 106 healthy controls without uterine pathologies were included. INTERVENTION: Four-minute TVUS recordings were performed and four uterine contractility features were extracted using a speckle tracking algorithm. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The extracted features were contraction frequency (contractions/min), amplitude, velocity (mm/s), and coordination. Women with adenomyosis were compared with healthy controls according to the phase of the menstrual cycle. RESULTS: Throughout the different phases of the menstrual cycle, trends of increased amplitude, decreased frequency and velocity, and reduced contraction coordination were seen in patients with adenomyosis compared with healthy controls. These were statistically significant in the late follicular phase, with a higher amplitude (0.087 ± 0.042 vs. 0.050 ± 0.018), lower frequency and velocity (1.49 ± 0.22 vs. 1.68 ± 0.25 contractions/min, and 0.65 ± 0.18 vs. 0.88 ± 0.29 mm/s, respectively), and reduced contraction coordination (0.34 ± 0.08 vs. 0.26 ± 0.17), in the late luteal phase, with higher amplitude (0.050 ± 0.022 vs. 0.035 ± 0.013), lower velocity (0.51 ± 0.11 vs. 0.65 ± 0.13 mm/s), and reduced contraction coordination (0.027 ± 0.06 vs. 0.18 ± 0.07), and in the midfollicular phase, with decreased frequency (1.48 ± 0.21 vs. 1.69 ± 0.16 contractions/min) in patients with adenomyosis compared with healthy controls. During menses, a higher pain score was significantly associated with lower frequency and velocity and higher contraction amplitude. Results remained significant after correcting for age, parity, and body mass index. CONCLUSION: Uterine contractility differs in patients with adenomyosis compared with healthy controls throughout the phases of the menstrual cycle. This suggests an etiologic mechanism for the infertility and dysmenorrhea seen in patients with adenomyosis. Moreover, it presents new potential therapeutic targets and diagnostic markers.

Hysteroscopic morcellation versus bipolar resection for removal of type 0 and 1 submucous myomas: A randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare hysteroscopic morcellation with bipolar resection for the removal of submucous type 0 and 1 myomas, in terms of procedure time (primary outcome), adverse events, tissue availability, short term effectiveness and postoperative adhesion formation (secondary outcomes). STUDY DESIGN: The study was performed from May 2011 to May 2018 in the Catharina hospital (Eindhoven, the Netherlands) and the Ghent University hospital (Ghent, Belgium). Women with type 0 and 1 submucous myomas up to 3 cm were randomized to hysteroscopic morcellation with the TruClearTM 8.0 Tissue Removal System or to bipolar resection with a rigid 8.5-mm resectoscope. Skewed time variables were log-transformed and analyzed with the Student t-test. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to assess the effect of myoma diameter on operating time. RESULTS: Forty-five and 38 women were included in the hysteroscopic morcellation and resection group, respectively. The median operating time was significantly shorter for hysteroscopic morcellation compared with resection (9.2 min [interquartile range 5.6-14.4] versus 13.4 min [interquartile range 8.6-17.5], P = .04). In the morcellation group, operating time, corrected for the myoma diameter, was reduced by 26 % (95 % CI 5-43%; P = .02). The median setup time was significantly longer in the morcellation group (5.2 min [interquartile range 4.2-6.9] versus 3.8 min [interquartile range 3.3-5.3], P = .006). The median total procedure time was not significantly different between the two techniques (14.4 min [interquartile range 11.4-19.2] versus 17.3 [interquartile range 12.7-23.8], P = .18). Two procedures of the morcellation group were converted to bipolar resection because of the myoma hardness. Complete resection was found in 89 % of the morcellation group and 95 % of the resection group. Adverse events occurred in 3 patients of the morcellation group, namely a fluid deficit > 2500 mL with the need of potassium suppletion, an asystolic vasovagal response after conversion to resection and postoperative fever requiring antibiotics. Tissue was available for pathology analysis in all cases. Routine second-look hysteroscopy performed in one center showed no intrauterine adhesions. CONCLUSION: Overall, there is no difference in total procedure time between hysteroscopic morcellation using the TruClearTM system compared to bipolar resection for the removal of smaller type 0 and 1 submucous myomas. Although hysteroscopic morcellation is faster, its setup time is longer. Calcified myomas can be challenging and fluid deficit remains a limiting factor.

Biphasic versus triphasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

Side effects caused by oral contraceptives discourage compliance with and continuation of oral contraceptives. A suggested disadvantage of biphasic oral contraceptive pills compared to triphasic oral contraceptive pills is an increase in breakthrough bleeding. We examined this potential disadvantage by conducting a systematic review comparing biphasic oral contraceptives with triphasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation because of side effects. We included randomized, controlled trials comparing any biphasic oral contraceptive with any triphasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy. Only two trials of limited quality met our inclusion criteria. Larranaga compared two biphasic and one triphasic pills, each containing levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol. No important differences emerged, and the frequency of discontinuation because of medical problems was similar with all three pills. Percival-Smith compared a biphasic pill containing norethindrone (Ortho 10/11) with a triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel (Triphasil) and another triphasic pill containing norethindrone (Ortho 7/7/7). The biphasic pill had inferior cycle control compared with the levonorgestrel triphasic pill. The available evidence is limited and of poor quality; the internal validity of these trials is questionable. Given that caveat, the biphasic pill containing norethindrone was associated with inferior cycle control compared with the triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel. This suggests that the choice of progestin may be more important that the phasic regimen in determining bleeding patterns.

Biphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception: a Cochrane review.

BACKGROUND: Side-effects caused by oral contraceptives discourage compliance with and continuation of oral contraceptives. Three approaches have been used to decrease these adverse effects: reduction of steroid dose, development of new steroids, and new formulas and schedules of administration. The third strategy led to the biphasic oral contraceptive pill. We compared biphasic oral contraceptives with monophasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control and discontinuation due to side-effects. Our a priori hypotheses were: (i) biphasic oral contraceptives are less effective in preventing pregnancy than monophasic oral contraceptives, and (ii) biphasic oral contraceptives cause more side-effects, give poorer cycle control and have lower continuation rates. METHODS: We searched computerized databases Medline, Embase, Popline and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of all potentially relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted the authors of relevant studies and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the USA. We included randomized controlled trials comparing any biphasic oral contraceptive with any monophasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy. We examined the studies found during the various literature searches for possible inclusion and assessed their methodological quality using the Cochrane guidelines. We contacted the authors of all included studies and of possibly randomized studies for supplementary information about the study methods and outcomes. We entered the data in RevMan 3.1, imported the data into RevMan 4.1, and calculated Peto odds ratios for the incidence of intermenstrual bleeding, absence of withdrawal bleeding and study discontinuation due to intermenstrual bleeding. RESULTS: Only one trial of limited quality compared a biphasic and monophasic preparation. This trial examined 533 user cycles of a biphasic pill (norethindrone 500 microg/ethinyl estradiol 35 microg for 10 days, followed by norethindrone 1000 microg/ethinyl estradiol 35 microg for 11 days) and 481 user cycles of a monophasic contraceptive pill (norethindrone acetate 1500 microg/ethinyl estradiol 30 microg daily). The study found no significant differences in intermenstrual bleeding, amenorrhoea and study discontinuation due to intermenstrual bleeding between the biphasic and monophasic oral contraceptive pills. CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions are limited by the identification of only one trial, the methodological shortcomings of that trial and the absence of data on accidental pregnancies. However, the trial found no important differences in bleeding patterns between the biphasic and monophasic preparations studied. Since no clear rationale exists for biphasic pills and since extensive evidence is available for monophasic pills, the latter are preferred.