Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of gabapentin in chronic female pelvic pain without another diagnosis.

Background: While widely used for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain, limited data exists on efficacy of gabapentin, especially in the subgroup of women suffering from chronic pelvic pain without a known diagnosis, such as endometriosis. Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of gabapentin when administered to women with chronic pelvic pain without another diagnosis. Study Design: We performed a Systematic Review and Meta Analysis including all controlled clinical trials addressing the use of gabapentin for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain without another diagnosis. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library from inception of each database to April 30, 2021. We included all the studies that fulfilled the following criteria: (1) population: women suffering from chronic pelvic pain without another identified diagnosis (such as endometriosis); (2) intervention: gabapentin (regardless of the dosage); (3) comparator:placebo; (4) outcomes: pain score (visual analog scale) after 3 months and pain score (visual analog scale) after 6 months as primary outcomes; and (5) study design: we only included randomized or controlled clinical trials. Our exclusion criteria included (1) uncontrolled clinical trials, (2) studies that did not report data or measures for any of our selected outcomes, (3) studies that included patients with surgically or clinically diagnosed endometriosis, or (4) studies with no full-text manuscript available. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We analyzed dichotomous outcomes as percentages and totals, whereas continuous outcomes were analyzed using mean difference, standard deviations, and relative 95% confidence intervals using the inverse variance method. Results: We included 4 placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials. Analysis was hindered because half of the studies (n=2) used the visual analog scale pain score and the other half (n=2) used the numerical rating scale. The analysis showed that when compared with the placebo, gabapentin significantly lowered the visual analog scale pain score at 3 months (mean difference, 0.79; 1.23 to 0.35; P=.005) and 6 months (mean difference, 1.68; 2.30 to 1.05; P=.001) and the numerical rating scale pain score at 3 months (mean difference, 0.20; 0.25 to 0.15; P=.001). However, in terms of the numerical rating scale pain score after 6 months, the 2 groups showed no significant difference (mean difference, 0.27; 0.80 to 0.26; P=.32). CONCLUSION: Gabapentin may hold benefit for the management of chronic pelvic pain, with significant improvement in pain seen in both scales at 3 months when compared with the placebo, but only in the visual analog scale group at 6 months of usage. Secondary to the differences in the nature of the 2 scales, a further weighted combined analysis was not possible.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of COVID-19 maternal and neonatal clinical features and pregnancy outcomes up to June 3, 2021.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 is a rapidly changing and developing emergency that requires constant re-evaluation of available data. We report a systematic review and meta-analysis based on all published high-quality data up to and including June 3, 2021 on the maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women infected with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science databases were queried from inception up to June 3, 2021. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all clinical studies (prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, case series, and rapid communications) that reported data on any maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women with COVID-19. METHODS: The data were analyzed as pooled proportions or odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals in meta-analysis models. RESULTS: We included 111 studies enrolling 42,754 COVID-19-positive pregnant women. From COVID-19-positive pregnant women, the incidence rates were 53.2% (95% confidence interval, 48-58.4) for cesarean delivery, 41.5% (95% confidence interval, 36.3-46.8) for spontaneous vaginal delivery, and 6.4% (95% confidence interval, 4.5-9.2) for operative delivery. The rates of some adverse neonatal events, including premature delivery (16.7%; 95% confidence interval, 12.8-21.5) and low birthweight (16.7%; 95% confidence interval, 12.8-21.5) were relatively high in mothers infected with COVID-19. Vertical transmission (3.5%; 95% confidence interval, 2.7-4.7), neonatal death (3%; 95% confidence interval, 2-4), stillbirth (1.9%; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.4), and maternal mortality (0.012%; 95% confidence interval, 0.010-0.014) were rare adverse events. The mean birthweight was 3069.7 g (95% confidence interval, 3009.7-3129.8 g). In the comparative analysis, COVID-19 significantly increased the risk of premature delivery (odds ratio, 1. 48 [95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.8]), preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.6 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.1]), stillbirth (odds ratio, 2.36 [95% confidence interval, 1.24-4.462]), neonatal mortality (odds ratio, 3.35 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-10.5]), and maternal mortality (odds ratio, 3.08 [95% confidence interval, 1.5-6.3]). The pooled analyses were homogenous, with mild heterogeneity in premature delivery and preeclampsia outcomes. CONCLUSION: The data must be interpreted with caution as limited data are available, and no complete assessment of bias is possible at this time. Our data suggest that pregnant women who test positive for COVID-19 seem to be at a higher risk of lower birth weights and premature delivery. There is no evidence at this time of the sharply increased maternal mortality that was seen previously with both the 2003 SARS and 2012 MERS pandemics.

Two-Port Laparoscopic Removal of Large Ovarian Cystadenoma.

An ovarian mucinous cystadenoma is a common benign tumour of the ovary that tends to reach very large sizes. Although traditional morcellation in the abdominal cavity is largely avoided in gynaecologic surgery, several authors have proposed other systems and techniques for the removal of large masses without resorting to laparotomy. We proposed an extremely minimally invasive technique to remove a large mass with a very low suspicion of malignancy, and created a video demonstration of the procedure. In this short film we illustrate our novel technique using only 2 laparoscopic ports, which maximizes both cosmesis and speed of recovery. The technique is not a completely closed system, therefore the potential for spreading an undiagnosed malignancy still exists. Accordingly, the authors do not suggest this technique for masses with a high potential for malignancy. However, in properly consented patients where there is very little suspicion for malignancy, our technique may be a reasonable option to promote fast recovery and provide excellent cosmesis.

Efficacy of hyoscine in pain management during hysteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant clinical trials from full-text, scientific journal archives to assess the efficacy of hyoscine for the management of pain during in-office hysteroscopy (OH) procedures. Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS and the Web of Science were searched for all clinical trials that matched our search criteria. A full assessment of bias was made using the Cochrane Group tool-set. The following outcomes were included: visual analogue scale (VAS) score for postoperative pain, postoperative need for analgesia, and procedure time. In the case of homogeneous data, the analysis was performed using a fixed effects system, and the random effects system was used with heterogeneous data. Inclusion criteria included only randomized clinical trials, and interventions that included patients receiving hyoscine-N-Butyl Bromide during OH, regardless of dose or mode of administration, and compared this with placebo. Three clinical trials were included. The actual mean difference (MD) of the VAS pain score showed no significant difference between hyoscine or placebo [MD: -0.28 (-1.08, 0.52), (p=0.49)]. For postoperative analgesia, the overall MD showed no significant difference between hyoscine or placebo [MD: 0.43 (0.16, 1.14), (p=0.09)]. For procedure time, the combined effect estimate failed to show any significant difference between hyoscine and placebo [MD: -0.66 (-2.77, 1.44) (p=0.54)]. Contrary to previously published data, our meta-analysis using the latest available RCTs fails to show hyoscine as being effective in reducing pain or the need for other forms of anesthesia in OH.

Complications and objective outcomes of uterine preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse versus procedures removing the Uterus, a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Several authors have recently compared the outcomes and complications of surgical procedures that preserve or remove the uterus in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Following the publication of several high quality randomized control trials on this topic we performed a new systematic review and meta analysis of this data. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, EBSCO host, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled and cohort trials of uterine sparing prolapse repair (hysteropexy) versus hysterectomy with suspension. A total of 1285 patients from 14 studies were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis. RESULTS: Uterine sparing procedures (hysteropexy) were comparable to hysterectomy with suspension for recurrence rates (RR = 0.908, 95% CI [0.385, 2.143]), reoperation rates (RR = 1.517, 95% CI [0.802, 2.868]), length of hospital stay, (SMD =  - 0.159 days, 95% CI [-0.375, 0.057]), voiding dysfunction (RR = 1.089, 95% CI [0.695, 1.706]), and intraoperative blood loss (SMD =  - 0.339, 95% CI [-0.631, 0.047]). However, hysteropexy had shorter operative time than hysterectomy with suspension (SMD =  - 1.191 h, 95% CI [-1.836, -0.545]), and fewer visceral injuries (RR = 0.421, 95% CI [0.244, 0.725]). CONCLUSION: We found no significant differences in the outcomes or major complications of uterine preserving surgical procedures versus those which include hysterectomy in the treatment of POP. Hysteropexy procedures may be associated with a shorter operative time and fewer visceral injuries. This is consistent with older analyses.

Systematic review of the effect of implementing enhanced recovery after surgery on selected attributes of surgical recovery in gynecology

This study aimed to systematically review the available literature on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) following gynecologic procedures performed either as an open surgery or as a minimally invasive gynecological surgery (MIGS) in terms of outcomes. This review revealed the results of published literature and assessed the benefits and diverse outcomes of ERAS implementation in patients undergoing MIGS or other gynecologic surgeries. In this review, we sought to examine the efficacy of entire ERAS protocols, faithfully performed, to determine whether they were successful in improving individual attributes of surgical recovery. Electronic databases of PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched in January 2021 for relevant studies. Data were extracted from eligible studies including LOS, change in the quality-of-life and recovery over time, postoperative complications including nausea and vomiting, opioid or anesthesia use, hospital cost, patient satisfaction, postoperative pain, and readmission rate as outcomes. Many of the included studies reported a significant reduction in the LOS as well as in readmission rates, hospital cost, and occurrence of nausea and vomiting postoperatively. Moreover, a clinically significant increase was noted in patient satisfaction in studies that have used tools that measure patient satisfaction. No studies have reported a significant increase in the overall quality of recovery using appropriately validated tools. Following ERAS implementation, patients' postoperative rehabilitation, including postoperative discomfort, readmission rates, and satisfaction, showed a clinically significant improvement.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Intraperitoneal Bupivacaine in Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We set out to evaluate whether the instillation of bupivacaine versus a saline solution into the peritoneal cavity at time of laparoscopic gynecologic surgery will reduce postoperative pain and postoperative opioid consumption. DATA SOURCES: We searched six databases: Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE and PubMed. Our search strategy had no restriction on time or languages and included all studies that met our search algorithm up to March of 2021. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included only randomized trials that met our search strategy for the outcomes of 1) pain intensity 24 hours after surgery, 2) pain intensity 6 hours after surgery, and 3) length of hospital stay. TABULATION INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: We analyzed continuous data using mean difference (MD) with relative 95% confidence interval (CI). We included 8 randomized clinical trials. We found that intraperitoneal bupivacaine showed significant difference from the saline group regarding pain intensity 24 hours after surgery (MD= -0.73 [-1.10, -0.36]) (P = 0.01) and pain intensity 6 hours after surgery (MD= -1.12 [-2.22, -0.02]) (P = 0.05). Overall, patients allocated to the placebo group seemed to need other analgesics earlier than patients allocated to the bupivacaine group (MD=145.08 [51.37, 238.79] (P = 0.02)). There was no significant difference regarding the length of hospital stay (MD= -0.44 [-1.44, 0.56]) (P = 0.39). CONCLUSION: Bupivacaine significantly reduced the visual analog pain score for pain compared with that of the placebo at 6 and 24 hours postoperatively. There was no significant difference in hospital stay. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021254268.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing gynecologic laparoscopic procedures with and without robotic assistance.

OBJECTIVE: Following the publication of several high quality randomized controlled trials regarding the comparison of similar laparoscopic gynecologic procedures being performed with or without robotic assistance, we aimed to perform a systematic review to identify any differences in patient safety and expected incidence of complications in these procedures. DATA SOURCES: Articles on ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were retrieved and screened for eligibility up to April 1st 2021. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: In addition to meeting our screening algorithm, we included studies that met all the following: randomized control trials (RCT), enrolling patients for indicated laparoscopic gynecologic procedures, and comparing Robotic Surgery (RS) with Laparoscopic Surgery (LS) in terms of safety or complications. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Data was pooled as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Ultimately, six studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data revealed that RS and LS have similar risk for intraoperative complications (RR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.23, 3.36], P = 0.84), postoperative complications (RR = 1.07; 95% CI [0.57, 2.01], P = 0.83), significant intraoperative hemorrhage (RR = 1.40; 95% CI [0.59, 3.34], P = 0.44), postoperative hemorrhage (RR = 0.43; 95% CI [0.15, 1.22], P = 0.11), vaginal cuff dehiscence (RR = 1.13; 95% CI [0.24, 5.41], P = 0.88), postoperative wound infection, urinary tract infection, and urinary bladder or ureteral injury. RS had "surgeon declared" lower estimated blood loss (MD = 85.27; 95% CI [46.45, 124.09], P < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = 1.20; 95% CI [0.38, 2.01], P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: There was a statistically significant decrease in hospital stay and "surgeon declared" blood loss seen in the RS group. There was no statistically significant increase in risk of developing other postoperative complications between the LS and R groups.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Intraoperative Bupivacaine in Gynaecologic Surgery After 24 Hours or 9 Half-Lives.

OBJECTIVE: To review all high quality available evidence regarding the effect of intraoperative bupivacaine 24 hours (or 8.9 half-lives) after intraoperative administration at time of gynaecologic surgery and to ascertain whether a second mechanism of action, beyond the initial prevention of sodium channel depolarization and blockade of nerve impulses, may be occurring. DATA SOURCES: We searched all major databases with an algorithm designed to include all randomized trials that used any form of local bupivacaine, regardless of dose or route of administration, at the time of any gynaecologic surgery and compared its use with saline placebo. RESULTS: As expected, we found that bupivacaine showed a significant improvement for all gynaecologic surgeries with respect to pain intensity at 6 hours after surgery when compared with a saline group (mean difference [MD] -1.28; 95% CI -1.96 to -0.61], P = 0.07). We also found a significant difference at 24 hours after surgery, giving evidence to the possibility of a second mechanism of action (MD -0.57; 95% CI -1.10 to -0.05], P = 0.01). Further subgroup analysis for pain levels at 24 hours showed significant decreases in pain for the laparoscopy (MD -0.74; 95% CI -0.93 to -0.54, P < 0.01) and laparotomy (MD -2.60; 95% CI -2.93 to -2.27, P < 0.01)) subgroups but not for the vaginal hysterectomy (MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.69 to 1.09, P = 0.66) or prolapse surgery (MD -0.11; 95% CI -0.41 to 0.19, P = 0.48) subgroups. There was no significant difference with respect to the length of hospital stay (MD -0.11; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.38, P = 0.67). CONCLUSION: As expected, bupivacaine significantly reduced visual analog pain scores when compared with placebo at 6 hours after surgery, but also showed a significant difference at 24 hours after surgery, giving evidence of a second mechanism of action following the initial sodium channel blockade.

Novel oxytocin receptor antagonists for tocolysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of retosiban.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of retosiban-a novel tocolytic unavailable in the US-in the management of preterm labor. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for relevant clinical trials using the terms "retosiban" and "preterm labor" through 09/2020. We included all published randomized clinical trials (three) that compared retosiban to placebo for preterm labor, excluding conferences, books, reviews, posters, case reports, and animal studies. We analyzed homogeneous data under the fixed-effects model and heterogeneous data under the random-effects model. RESULTS: We included all randomized clinical trials addressing this topic, which ultimately resulted in three trials with a total of 116 patients. There were no significant differences between retosiban and placebo in births at term (RR = 0.41, p = .02), births ≤7 days from the first study treatment (RR = 0.59, p = .23), or administration of rescue tocolytic (RR = 0.36, p = .07); the maternal adverse events of headache, anemia, constipation, or urinary tract infection (p > .05); or neonatal outcomes of Apgar score at 1 min (p = .88) or 5 min (p = .69), weight (p = .23), head circumference (p = .55), malnutrition (p = .27), hyperbilirubinemia (RR = 0.56, p = .21), jaundice (RR = 1.21, p = .84), respiratory distress (RR = 0.53, p = .49), or tachypnea (RR = 0.40, p = .42). CONCLUSION: With the limited high quality evidence available, retosiban demonstrates no clear benefit over placebo in the management of preterm labor. Nevertheless, its favorable safety profile, oral bioavailability, and novel mechanism of action and the limited number of studies available for review warrant further analysis.

Complete Laparoscopic Removal and Staging of a Large Ovarian Malignancy: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND Advances in minimally invasive surgery are essential for the improvement of patient care, overall health care efficiency, and total cost reductions. Morcellation, the technique used in the present case, is often used to aid minimally invasive laparoscopic procedures, whereby larger tissue specimens are broken down and divided to be removed via smaller incisions. Morcellation has become controversial in the medical community owing to the risk of the procedure spreading an occult malignancy. CASE REPORT A 47-year-old woman with obesity presented with right-sided pelvic pain and suspicion of ovarian torsion. The patient experienced severe acute pain and was taken to the operating room for laparoscopy to remove the left-sided adnexal mass seen on imaging. During surgery, there was no evidence of torsion, and the mass was perfused. During removal of the entire tumor, blunt instruments were utilized for in-bag manual morcellation to avoid spillage of the contents of the bag, which were then sent for frozen section analysis, and a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the ovary was made. Once the tumor was removed, a board-certified gynecologic oncologist was consulted to assist with the remainder of the procedure. Following this, the ovarian cancer staging procedure was able to be completed laparoscopically. CONCLUSIONS This technique of in-bag manual morcellation using blunt instruments allows laparoscopic procedures to be performed on large tissue specimens with potential malignancies without spreading cancerous tissue, overcoming the associated risks of dissemination of malignancy. This technique is therefore more beneficial to patients.

Respiratory depression in a neonate born to mother on maximum dose sertraline: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Mood and anxiety disorders are common in women of childbearing age, especially during the peripartum period. As more women seek medical management for these conditions, there is an increasing need for studies to better examine the effects of exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and other antidepressants, on newborns at the time of delivery. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case of a term Caucasian infant born to a 17-year-old white female taking 100 mg of sertraline daily for depression and anxiety who exhibited respiratory depression and hypoxia after an uncomplicated vaginal delivery. The neonate was treated with the use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and supplemental oxygen and subsequently the symptoms resolved without complication. CONCLUSIONS: We present this case with the suspicion of poor neonatal adjustment syndrome as the possible cause of the respiratory depression and hypoxia in this newborn.