Effects of speculum lubrication on cervical smears for cervical cancer screening: A double blind randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Speculum lubrication may help to reduce the pain experienced during Pap-smear collection and hence increase uptake of cervical cancer screening and repeat testing, but there are fears of its interference with cytological results. AIM: To determine and compare the adequacy of cervical cytology smears and the mean pain scores of women undergoing cervical cancer screening with or without speculum lubrication. METHODS: This was a randomised controlled study of 132 women having cervical cancer screening at a tertiary hospital in Nigeria. Sixty-six participants were randomly assigned to the 'Gel' and 'No Gel' groups, respectively. Pap smears were collected from each participant with a lubricated speculum ('Gel group') or a non-lubricated speculum ('No Gel group'). The primary outcome measures were the proportion of women with unsatisfactory cervical cytology smears and the mean numeric rating scale pain scores, while the secondary outcome measures were the proportion of women who were willing to come for repeat testing and the cytological diagnosis of Pap-smear results. RESULTS: The baseline socio-demographic variables were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in the proportion of unsatisfactory cervical smear results between the two groups (13.6% vs. 21.2%, p = 0.359). However, the mean pain scores were significantly lower in the gel group than in the no gel group (45.04 vs. 87.96; p<0.001). An equal proportion of the participants in each group (90.9% vs. 90.9%; p > 0.999) were willing to come for repeat cervical smears in the future. CONCLUSION: Speculum lubrication did not affect the adequacy of cervical smears but significantly reduced the pain experienced during pap smear collection. Also, it did not significantly affect the willingness to come for repeat cervical smears in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with the Pan-African Clinical Trial Registry with a unique identification and registration number: PACTR2020077533364675.

Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography and hysterosalpingography in the detection of uterine cavity pathologies among infertile women.

Background: Uterine cavity pathology may affect the endometrium or myometrium, resulting in distortion of the uterine cavity, and is responsible for 2%-5% of infertility. The methods for its assessment usually involve imaging modalities like pelvic ultrasonography, often transvaginal-(TVS), and hysterosalpingography-(HSG), with hysteroscopy-(HSC) as the gold standard. However, HSC is not readily available in resource-poor-settings. Purpose: To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of TVS and HSG in detecting uterine cavity pathology using HSC as a gold standard. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional analytical study of consenting infertile women for evaluation of the uterine cavity using transvaginal-ultrasonography, hysterosalpingogram, and hysteroscopy. The primary-outcome-measures were the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of TVS and HSG in detecting uterine cavity abnormalities using HSG as the gold standard. Results: Eighty-eight participants were analysed for this study. The lesions confirmed on HSC were intrauterine-adhesions (43.1%), endometrial polyps (14.8%), submucous fibroids (18.2%), intrauterine-septum (13.6%), and cavity distortion (14.8%). The overall sensitivity with TVS was 57.7%, with a specificity of 97.6%, a positive-predictive-value (PPV) of 88.2%, and a negative-predictive-value (NPV) of 88.2%, giving a percentage-accuracy of 88.2%. In comparison, HSG had a sensitivity of 72.1%, a specificity of 99.4%, a PPV of 97.4%, and an NPV of 92.0%, giving an overall accuracy of 92.9%. The detection rates of TVS and HSG in this category were: fibroids (97.7% vs 89.8%; p = .0004) and adhesions (73.9% vs 87.5%; p = .0002), respectively. Conclusion: HSG appears to be the superior modality for detection of obliterative uterine cavity pathologies, while TVS is better suited for myometrium and endometrial lesions.

Intravenous versus intramuscular oxytocin injection for preventing uterine atonic primary postpartum haemorrhage in third stage of labour: A double-blind randomised controlled trial.

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous and intramuscular oxytocin in preventing atonic primary postpartum haemorrhage in the third stage of labour. Methods: A double-blind randomised clinical study on consenting women without risk factors for primary postpartum haemorrhage in labour at term. Two hundred and thirty-two women were randomly allotted into intravenous (n = 115) and intramuscular (n = 117) oxytocin groups in the active management of the third stage of labour. All participants received 10 IU of oxytocin, either IV or IM, and 1 ml of water for injection as a placebo via a route alternate to that of administration of oxytocin within 1 min of the baby's delivery. The primary outcome measures were mean postpartum blood loss and haematocrit change. Trial Registration No.: PACTR201902721929705. Results: The baseline socio-demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regards to the mean postpartum blood loss (254.17 ± 34.85 ml versus 249.4 ± 39.88 ml; p = 0.210), haematocrit change (2.4 (0.8%) versus 2.1 (0.6%); p = 0.412) or adverse effects (p > 0.05). However, the use of additional uterotonics was significantly higher in the intravenous group (25 (21.73%) versus 17 (14.53%); p = 0.032). Conclusion: Although oxytocin in both study groups showed similar efficacy in terms of preventing atonic primary postpartum haemorrhage, participants who received intravenous oxytocin were more likely to require additional uterotonics to reduce their likelihood of having an atonic primary postpartum haemorrhage. However, both routes have similar side effect profiles.

Obstetric Outcome of Induction of Labour in a Tertiary Hospital in Nigeria: A Five-Year Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.

Background: Induction of labour has remained one of the most valuable interventions in obstetric practice. Over the years, the proportion of women undergoing induction of labour (IOL) has been on a steady increase. The significance to obstetrics practice as well as its maternal and perinatal outcomes are sacrosanct, hence the need for its periodic review. Objective: To determine the obstetric outcomes of induction of labour. Methods: A five-year retrospective study of all cases of induction of labour at the maternity unit of Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital (NAUTH), Nnewi, Nigeria between January 1st 2017 and 31st December 2021. The labour ward's records were assessed to determine the total number of women who had induction of labour during the study period. Women whose case files could be not retrieved were excluded. The folder numbers of the patients were extracted and their case files retrieved from the medical records department of the hospital. The primary outcomes measures were the indications and the methods of induction of labour, while the secondary outcome measures were the mode of delivery, cause of failed induction, and the perinatal outcome. Data were obtained using proformas and analysed using statistical packages for social sciences (SPSS) version 26.0 IBM corporation. Result: A total of 3,638 deliveries were taken during the period under review and 168 patients had induction of labour giving an overall prevalence of 4.6% (46/1000 deliveries). Induction of labour was successful in 71.2% of cases. Misoprostol was used in 90.4% of cases as an induction agent. The commonest indication for induction of labour was postdate pregnancy (53.8%). Failed induction was due to fetal distress, poor progress of labour from cephalopelvic disproportion/malposition and failed cervical ripening. In about 72% of deliveries, there was good perinatal outcome, 10.3% of babies had moderate to severe asphyxia while 1.3% had neonatal death. Conclusion: Induction of labour is a safe and beneficial procedure in obstetrics. However, it can be associated with adverse obstetric outcomes.