Perineorrhaphy quantitative assessment (Pe-QA).

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Perineorrhaphy (Pe) has not been subject to a comprehensive perioperative quantitative assessment (QA). We wish to nominate such an assessment (Pe-QA) for any Pe, through testing the QA on the excision of the perineal gap (PG) at the time of posterior repair (PR). METHODS: At 50 consecutive PRs, the following measurements were taken pre- and postoperatively: (i) perineorrhaphy width (PW) equals PG [1]; (ii) perineorrhaphy depth (PD); (iii) perineal length (PL); (iv) midperineal thickness (MPT); (v) genital hiatus (GH) and (vi) total posterior vaginal length (TPVL). The total vaginal length was also measured. Surgical details deemed appropriate to each repair were recorded. RESULTS: The overall means and ranges (cm) were: (i) PW 2.9 (1.5-5.5); (ii) PD 1.6 (0.8-2.0); (iii) PL 2.9 (1.5-4.5); (iv) MPT 0.7 (0.4-1.1); (v) GH 3.9 (2.3-6.5); (vi) TPVL 9.2 (6.0-12.5). Excision of PG (100 % cases reducing PW and PD to zero) resulted in a mean 23.6 % increase in total vaginal length over that if the repair was commenced at the hymen, despite a 3.3 % decrease in the TPVL perioperatively. There was a mean 30.8 % reduction in the GH, a mean 27.6 % increase in the PL and a mean 57.1 % increase in the MPT. CONCLUSIONS: Pe and the anatomical results of such surgery can be subject to quantitative assessment allowing comparison studies between different forms of Pe and possibly other types of perineal surgeries.

Women with asymptomatic cervical polyps may not need to see a gynaecologist or have them removed: an observational retrospective study of 1126 cases.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine the prevalence of pathology in cervical polyps and whether referring and/or removing them is justified, (2) to assess the frequency of associated endometrial pathology and whether investigating the uterine cavity is warranted, and (3) to estimate the financial costs of processing cervical polyps. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of the histopathology database and case notes of women who had cervical polyps examined at the pathology department of Ipswich Hospital, UK, over a seven-year period from 01/01/2002 to 31/12/2008. RESULTS: The number of cervical polyps removed from 988 women was 1126. Each case of polyps was considered as a separate episode. The recurrence rate was 15%. All polyps were benign except two (0.2%) symptomatic polyps that showed high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. The cost of referring women with cervical polyps (excluding women aged >45 years with abnormal bleeding and those with abnormal smear) to see a gynaecologist and of examining polyps histologically was estimated to be pound 94816.40. Further investigations to assess the cervix and/or uterine cavity which were performed for 133 women (14.3%), because of the cervical polyps and for no other clinical indication, showed no significant pathology at cost of pound 41195.54. CONCLUSION: Our data do not justify referring women with asymptomatic cervical polyps to see a gynaecologist. Further, removing these polyps and investigating the uterine cavity is not warranted. A policy of removing polyps from only symptomatic women or those with abnormal smear and limiting histological examination to these polyps would result in significant savings.