OBG Management

Researchers from Kaiser Permanente Northwest and Oregon Health & Science University, both in Portland, performed a secondary analysis of a survey of postmenopausal women conducted to assess the impact of a health system intervention on genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). They presented their results at the recent annual Scientific Meeting of the North American Menopause Society in Chicago, Illinois (September 25-28, 2019). The intervention included clinician education and computer support tools and was assessed in a clinic-based, cluster-randomized trial in which primary care and gynecology clinics either received the intervention or did not. Women received follow-up 2 weeks after a well-woman visit with a survey that elicited vulvovaginal, sexual, and urinary symptoms with bother.

About 45% of those responding to the survey (N = 1,533) reported 1 or more vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) symptoms—on average described as somewhat or moderately bothersome—but less than half of those women (39%) discussed their symptom(s) at their well-woman visit. Typically it was the woman, rather than the clinician, who initiated the discussion of the VVA symptom(s) (59% vs 22%, respectively). About 16% of women reported that both parties brought up the symptom(s). Most women (83%) were satisfied with the VVA symptom discussion. Of the women not having such a discussion, 18% wished that one had occurred. A VVA symptom discussion was positively associated with clinicians providing written materials, suggesting lubricants or vaginal estrogen, and providing a referral. Therefore, there is a greater role for clinician-initiated screening for GSM, the study authors concluded.
 

Researchers from Kaiser Permanente Northwest and Oregon Health & Science University, both in Portland, performed a secondary analysis of a survey of postmenopausal women conducted to assess the impact of a health system intervention on genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). They presented their results at the recent annual Scientific Meeting of the North American Menopause Society in Chicago, Illinois (September 25-28, 2019). The intervention included clinician education and computer support tools and was assessed in a clinic-based, cluster-randomized trial in which primary care and gynecology clinics either received the intervention or did not. Women received follow-up 2 weeks after a well-woman visit with a survey that elicited vulvovaginal, sexual, and urinary symptoms with bother.

About 45% of those responding to the survey (N = 1,533) reported 1 or more vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) symptoms—on average described as somewhat or moderately bothersome—but less than half of those women (39%) discussed their symptom(s) at their well-woman visit. Typically it was the woman, rather than the clinician, who initiated the discussion of the VVA symptom(s) (59% vs 22%, respectively). About 16% of women reported that both parties brought up the symptom(s). Most women (83%) were satisfied with the VVA symptom discussion. Of the women not having such a discussion, 18% wished that one had occurred. A VVA symptom discussion was positively associated with clinicians providing written materials, suggesting lubricants or vaginal estrogen, and providing a referral. Therefore, there is a greater role for clinician-initiated screening for GSM, the study authors concluded.
 

Researchers from Kaiser Permanente Northwest and Oregon Health & Science University, both in Portland, performed a secondary analysis of a survey of postmenopausal women conducted to assess the impact of a health system intervention on genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). They presented their results at the recent annual Scientific Meeting of the North American Menopause Society in Chicago, Illinois (September 25-28, 2019). The intervention included clinician education and computer support tools and was assessed in a clinic-based, cluster-randomized trial in which primary care and gynecology clinics either received the intervention or did not. Women received follow-up 2 weeks after a well-woman visit with a survey that elicited vulvovaginal, sexual, and urinary symptoms with bother.

About 45% of those responding to the survey (N = 1,533) reported 1 or more vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) symptoms—on average described as somewhat or moderately bothersome—but less than half of those women (39%) discussed their symptom(s) at their well-woman visit. Typically it was the woman, rather than the clinician, who initiated the discussion of the VVA symptom(s) (59% vs 22%, respectively). About 16% of women reported that both parties brought up the symptom(s). Most women (83%) were satisfied with the VVA symptom discussion. Of the women not having such a discussion, 18% wished that one had occurred. A VVA symptom discussion was positively associated with clinicians providing written materials, suggesting lubricants or vaginal estrogen, and providing a referral. Therefore, there is a greater role for clinician-initiated screening for GSM, the study authors concluded.
 

Thousands of medical apps are available for smart mobile devices; however, identifying accurate and high-quality apps poses a challenge to health care providers. In the field of urogynecology, also known as female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS), the authors of a recent study identified and rated a number of apps for use by urogynecologists.¹

The 3 apps featured here are all free and are both informational and clinical decision-making apps.

Informational apps include one or more of the following datasets in a given condition: epidemiology, etiology/pathophysiology, histology/pathology, clinical presentation, treatment, follow-up care, prevention, and/or prognosis.

Clinical decision-making apps may have the following functionalities within the app: clinical decision support systems, clinical treatment guidelines, disease diagnosis aids, differential diagnosis aids, medical calculators, laboratory test ordering, laboratory test interpretation, and/or medical exams.

The TABLE details the features of these recommended apps based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).² I hope urogynecologists view these apps as innovative educational resources that provide quick medical knowledge and pelvic floor patient education.

Thousands of medical apps are available for smart mobile devices; however, identifying accurate and high-quality apps poses a challenge to health care providers. In the field of urogynecology, also known as female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS), the authors of a recent study identified and rated a number of apps for use by urogynecologists.¹

The 3 apps featured here are all free and are both informational and clinical decision-making apps.

Informational apps include one or more of the following datasets in a given condition: epidemiology, etiology/pathophysiology, histology/pathology, clinical presentation, treatment, follow-up care, prevention, and/or prognosis.

Clinical decision-making apps may have the following functionalities within the app: clinical decision support systems, clinical treatment guidelines, disease diagnosis aids, differential diagnosis aids, medical calculators, laboratory test ordering, laboratory test interpretation, and/or medical exams.

The TABLE details the features of these recommended apps based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).² I hope urogynecologists view these apps as innovative educational resources that provide quick medical knowledge and pelvic floor patient education.

Thousands of medical apps are available for smart mobile devices; however, identifying accurate and high-quality apps poses a challenge to health care providers. In the field of urogynecology, also known as female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS), the authors of a recent study identified and rated a number of apps for use by urogynecologists.¹

The 3 apps featured here are all free and are both informational and clinical decision-making apps.

Informational apps include one or more of the following datasets in a given condition: epidemiology, etiology/pathophysiology, histology/pathology, clinical presentation, treatment, follow-up care, prevention, and/or prognosis.

Clinical decision-making apps may have the following functionalities within the app: clinical decision support systems, clinical treatment guidelines, disease diagnosis aids, differential diagnosis aids, medical calculators, laboratory test ordering, laboratory test interpretation, and/or medical exams.

The TABLE details the features of these recommended apps based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).² I hope urogynecologists view these apps as innovative educational resources that provide quick medical knowledge and pelvic floor patient education.

[polldaddy:10424906]

[polldaddy:10424906]

[polldaddy:10424906]

Physician burnout has been labeled a public health crisis by the Harvard School of Public Health and other institutions.¹ A 2018 Physician’s Foundation survey found that 78% of physicians had symptoms of burnout,² which result from chronic workplace stress and include feeling depleted of energy or exhausted, mentally distanced from or cynical about one’s job, and problems getting one’s job done successfully.³ Among ObGyns, almost half (46%) report burnout.⁴ One-third of ObGyns responded on a recent Medscape Burnout Report that the computerization of practice is contributing to their burnout, and 54% said too many bureaucratic tasks, including charting, were adding to their burnout.⁵

Inefficient electronic medical records (EMRs) have been implicated as one reason for burnout, with improvements in efficiency cited as one of several potential resolutions to the problem. About 96% of hospitals have adopted EMRs today, compared with only 9% in 2008,⁶ and many physicians report recognizing value in the technology. For instance, 60% of participants in Stanford Medicine’s 2018 National Physician Poll said EMRs had led to improved patient care. At the same time, however, about as many (59%) said EMRs needed a “complete overhaul” and that the systems had detracted from their professional satisfaction (54%) as well as from their clinical effectiveness (49%).⁷

With this roundtable, we explore the concerns with hours spent on the EMR with several experts, and whether it is a problem that has been contributing to burnout among staff at their institutions. In addition, are there solutions that their institutions have implemented that they can share to help to cope with the problem?
 

OBG Management: ObGyns report that the computerization of practice and too many bureaucratic tasks, including charting, are contributing to burnout. Do you see this problem at your institution?

John J. Dougherty, MD, MBA: Yes, absolutely. There is not a day that goes by that I don’t hear about or experience “Epic Fails.” (We use Epic’s EMR product at our institution.) Too many clicks are needed to navigate even the simplest tasks—finding notes or results, documenting visits, and billing for services are all unnecessarily complex. In addition, we are being held accountable for achieving a long and growing list of “metrics” measures, education projects (HealthStream), and productivity goals. When do we have time to treat patients? And it is not just practicing physicians and clinicians. Our resident physicians spend an inordinate amount of time in front of the computer documenting, placing orders, and transferring patients using a system with a very inefficient user interface, to say the least.

Megan L. Evans, MD, MPH: I absolutely agree. Over the years, my institution has created a conglomerate of EMRs, requiring physicians across the hospital to be fluent in a multitude of systems. For example, you finish your clinic notes in one system, sign off on discharge summaries in another, and complete your operative notes in an entirely different system. As busy attendings, it is hard to keep ahead of all of these tasks, especially when the systems do not talk to one another. Fortunately, my hospital is changing our EMR to a single system within the next year. Until then, however, we will work in this piecemeal system.

Mark Woodland, MS, MD: EMR and computerization of medicine is the number 1 issue relating to dissatisfaction by ObGyn providers in our institution. Providers are earnest in their attempt to be compliant with EMR requirements, but the reality is that they are dealing with an automated system that does not have realistic expectations for management of results, follow-up tasks, and patient communications for a human provider. The actual charting, ordering of tests and consults, and communication between providers has been enhanced. However, the “in-basket” of tasks to be accomplished are extraordinary and much of it relies on the provider, which requires an inordinate amount of time. Additionally, while other members of the medical staff are stationary at a desk, physicians and other providers are not. They are mobile between inpatient units, labor and delivery, operating rooms, and emergency rooms. Time management does not always allow for providers to access computers from all of these areas to facilitate their managing the expectations of the EMR. This requires providers to access the EMR at off hours, extending their workload. Finally, the EMR is neither personal nor friendly. It is not designed with the clinician in mind, and it is not fun or engaging for a provider.

Continue to: OBG Management: What solutions have been instituted...

OBG Management: What solutions have been instituted in order to help physicians with data entry into the EMR?

Dr. Dougherty: When our institution compared EMR offerings, EMR companies put their best collective marketing feet forward. The general notion, at least with the Epic EMR, was that “you can customize Epic to your liking.” It did not take long for a bunch of motivated Epic users to create “smart” stuff (lists, phrases, and texts) in an effort to customize workflows and create fancy-looking electronic notes. Shortly thereafter, it was obvious that, as an institution, our reporting efforts kept coming up short—our reports lacked accuracy and meaning. Everyone was documenting in different ways and in different areas. Considering that reports are currently generated using (mostly) discrete data entries (data placed in specific fields within the EMR), it became obvious that our data entry paradigm needed to change. Therefore, standardization became the leading buzzword. Our institution recently initiated a project aimed at standardizing our workflows and documentation habits. In addition, we have incorporated a third-party information exchange product into our health system data aggregation and analysis workflow. Much more needs to be done, but it is a start.

Dr. Evans: At my institution, as a group, we have created templates for routine procedures and visits that also auto populate billing codes. I know that some departments have used scribes. From the hospital side, there has been improved access to the EMR from home. Some of my colleagues like this feature; however, others, like myself, believe this contributes to some of our burnout. I like to leave work at work. Having the ability to continue working at home is not a solution in my mind.

Dr. Woodland: At our institution, we have engaged our chaperones and medical assistants to help facilitate completion of the medical records during the office visit. Providers work with their assistants to accommodate documentation of history and physical findings while also listening to the provider as they are speaking in order to document patient care plans and orders. This saves the clinicians time in reviewing and editing the record as well as making sure the appropriate care plan is instituted. Our EMR provider recently has begun experimenting with personalization of color themes as well as pictures as part of the interface. Having said this, I still ask, “Why have medical professionals allowed non–clinical agencies and information technology groups to run this show?” It is also inconceivable to me that this unfunded mandate—that has increased cost, decreased clinical efficiency, and decreased clinician satisfaction—has not been addressed by national and international medical communities.

OBG Management: What changes do you feel your EMR system needs to undergo?

Dr. Woodland: I feel that we need to appropriately manage expectations of the EMR and the institution with relation to EMR and providers. By this I mean that we need to make the EMR more user-friendly and appropriate for different clinicians as well as patients. We also need to manage expectations of our patients. In a digital age where immediate contact is the norm, we need to address the issue that the EMR is not social media but rather a communication tool for routine contact and information transmission. Emergencies are not typically addressed well through the EMR platform; they are better handled with a more appropriate communication interface.

Dr. Dougherty: I feel that the biggest change needed is a competent, simple, and standard user-interface. Our old charting methods were great on a number of levels. For instance, if I wanted to add an order, I flipped to the ”Orders” tab and entered an order. If I needed to document a note, I flipped to the “Notes” tab and started writing, etc. Obviously, manual charting had its downsides—like trying to decipher handwriting art! EMRs could easily adopt the stuff that worked from our old methods of documentation, while leveraging the advantages that computerized workflows can bring to practitioners, including efficient transfer of records, meaningful reporting, simple electronic ordering, and interprofessional communication portals.

Dr. Evans: Our systems need to better communicate with one another. I am in an academic practice, and I should be able to see labs, consultant notes, imaging, all in one spot to improve efficiency and ease with patient visits. Minimizing clicks would be helpful as well. I try to write as much as I can while in the room with a patient to avoid after-hours note writing, but it takes away from my interaction with each patient.

Continue to: OBG Management: With an aim toward alleviating burnout...

OBG Management: With an aim toward alleviating burnout, are there any tips you can offer your colleagues on interfacing with the EMR?

Dr. Evans: When I first started as a new attending, it would take me hours to finish my notes, partly because of the level of detail I would write in my history of present illness (HPI) and assessment and plan. One great piece of advice I received was to be satisfied with good notes, not perfect notes. I worked to consolidate my thoughts and use preconstructed phrases/paragraphs on common problems I saw. This saved time to focus on other aspects of my academic job.

Dr. Dougherty: We need to refocus on the patient first, and mold our systems to meet that priority. Much too often, we have our backs to the patients or spend too much time interfacing with our EMR systems, and our patients are not happy about it (as many surveys have demonstrated). More importantly, a renewed focus on patient care, not EMR care, would allow our practitioners to do what they signed up for—treating patients. In the meantime, I would suggest that practitioners stay away from EMR gimmicks and go back to old-style documentation practices (like those established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 1997 and 1998), and ask the IT folks to help with molding the EMR systems to meet your own standards, not the standards established by EMR companies. I am also very hopeful that the consumer will drive most of the health care-related data collection in the near future, thereby marginalizing the current generation of EMR systems.

Dr. Woodland: I would add that providers need to manage the EMR and not let the EMR manage them. Set up task reminders at point times to handle results and communications from the EMR and set up time in your schedule where you can facilitate meeting these tasks. When providers are out on vacation, make sure to have an out-of-office reminder built into their EMR so that patients and others know timing of potential responses. Try to make the EMR as enjoyable as possible and focus on the good points of the EMR, such as legibility, order verification, safety, and documentation.
 

OBG Management: Do you feel that the EMR has led to improved patient care?

Dr. Evans: Yes and no. Yes, in that it can be much easier to follow a patient’s health care history from other provider notes or prior surgeries. Information is searchable and legible. If an EMR is built correctly, it can save time for providers, through smart phrases and templates, and it can help providers with proper billing codes and documentation requirements. No, in that it can take away from important patient interaction. We are required to see more patients in less time all while using, at times, a cumbersome EMR system.

Dr. Woodland: This is a tricky question because the EMR has both positive and negative attributes. Certainly, the legibility and order verification has improved, but the ease of accessing information in the EMR has changed. Additionally, there has been a drastic increase in provider dissatisfaction that has not been addressed. Provider dissatisfaction can lead to problems in patient care. If there was a clear-cut increased value for the cost, I do not think the EMR would be such a huge focus of negative attention. Providers need to take back control of their EMR and their profession so that they can utilize the EMR as the tool it was supposed to be and not the dissatisfier that it has become.

Dr. Dougherty: I do not believe patient care has been improved by EMR systems, for all of the reasons we have discussed, and then some. But there is an enormous amount of potential, if we get the interface between humans and EMR systems right!

Physician burnout has been labeled a public health crisis by the Harvard School of Public Health and other institutions.¹ A 2018 Physician’s Foundation survey found that 78% of physicians had symptoms of burnout,² which result from chronic workplace stress and include feeling depleted of energy or exhausted, mentally distanced from or cynical about one’s job, and problems getting one’s job done successfully.³ Among ObGyns, almost half (46%) report burnout.⁴ One-third of ObGyns responded on a recent Medscape Burnout Report that the computerization of practice is contributing to their burnout, and 54% said too many bureaucratic tasks, including charting, were adding to their burnout.⁵

Inefficient electronic medical records (EMRs) have been implicated as one reason for burnout, with improvements in efficiency cited as one of several potential resolutions to the problem. About 96% of hospitals have adopted EMRs today, compared with only 9% in 2008,⁶ and many physicians report recognizing value in the technology. For instance, 60% of participants in Stanford Medicine’s 2018 National Physician Poll said EMRs had led to improved patient care. At the same time, however, about as many (59%) said EMRs needed a “complete overhaul” and that the systems had detracted from their professional satisfaction (54%) as well as from their clinical effectiveness (49%).⁷

With this roundtable, we explore the concerns with hours spent on the EMR with several experts, and whether it is a problem that has been contributing to burnout among staff at their institutions. In addition, are there solutions that their institutions have implemented that they can share to help to cope with the problem?
 

OBG Management: ObGyns report that the computerization of practice and too many bureaucratic tasks, including charting, are contributing to burnout. Do you see this problem at your institution?

John J. Dougherty, MD, MBA: Yes, absolutely. There is not a day that goes by that I don’t hear about or experience “Epic Fails.” (We use Epic’s EMR product at our institution.) Too many clicks are needed to navigate even the simplest tasks—finding notes or results, documenting visits, and billing for services are all unnecessarily complex. In addition, we are being held accountable for achieving a long and growing list of “metrics” measures, education projects (HealthStream), and productivity goals. When do we have time to treat patients? And it is not just practicing physicians and clinicians. Our resident physicians spend an inordinate amount of time in front of the computer documenting, placing orders, and transferring patients using a system with a very inefficient user interface, to say the least.

Megan L. Evans, MD, MPH: I absolutely agree. Over the years, my institution has created a conglomerate of EMRs, requiring physicians across the hospital to be fluent in a multitude of systems. For example, you finish your clinic notes in one system, sign off on discharge summaries in another, and complete your operative notes in an entirely different system. As busy attendings, it is hard to keep ahead of all of these tasks, especially when the systems do not talk to one another. Fortunately, my hospital is changing our EMR to a single system within the next year. Until then, however, we will work in this piecemeal system.

Mark Woodland, MS, MD: EMR and computerization of medicine is the number 1 issue relating to dissatisfaction by ObGyn providers in our institution. Providers are earnest in their attempt to be compliant with EMR requirements, but the reality is that they are dealing with an automated system that does not have realistic expectations for management of results, follow-up tasks, and patient communications for a human provider. The actual charting, ordering of tests and consults, and communication between providers has been enhanced. However, the “in-basket” of tasks to be accomplished are extraordinary and much of it relies on the provider, which requires an inordinate amount of time. Additionally, while other members of the medical staff are stationary at a desk, physicians and other providers are not. They are mobile between inpatient units, labor and delivery, operating rooms, and emergency rooms. Time management does not always allow for providers to access computers from all of these areas to facilitate their managing the expectations of the EMR. This requires providers to access the EMR at off hours, extending their workload. Finally, the EMR is neither personal nor friendly. It is not designed with the clinician in mind, and it is not fun or engaging for a provider.

Continue to: OBG Management: What solutions have been instituted...

OBG Management: What solutions have been instituted in order to help physicians with data entry into the EMR?

Dr. Dougherty: When our institution compared EMR offerings, EMR companies put their best collective marketing feet forward. The general notion, at least with the Epic EMR, was that “you can customize Epic to your liking.” It did not take long for a bunch of motivated Epic users to create “smart” stuff (lists, phrases, and texts) in an effort to customize workflows and create fancy-looking electronic notes. Shortly thereafter, it was obvious that, as an institution, our reporting efforts kept coming up short—our reports lacked accuracy and meaning. Everyone was documenting in different ways and in different areas. Considering that reports are currently generated using (mostly) discrete data entries (data placed in specific fields within the EMR), it became obvious that our data entry paradigm needed to change. Therefore, standardization became the leading buzzword. Our institution recently initiated a project aimed at standardizing our workflows and documentation habits. In addition, we have incorporated a third-party information exchange product into our health system data aggregation and analysis workflow. Much more needs to be done, but it is a start.

Dr. Evans: At my institution, as a group, we have created templates for routine procedures and visits that also auto populate billing codes. I know that some departments have used scribes. From the hospital side, there has been improved access to the EMR from home. Some of my colleagues like this feature; however, others, like myself, believe this contributes to some of our burnout. I like to leave work at work. Having the ability to continue working at home is not a solution in my mind.

Dr. Woodland: At our institution, we have engaged our chaperones and medical assistants to help facilitate completion of the medical records during the office visit. Providers work with their assistants to accommodate documentation of history and physical findings while also listening to the provider as they are speaking in order to document patient care plans and orders. This saves the clinicians time in reviewing and editing the record as well as making sure the appropriate care plan is instituted. Our EMR provider recently has begun experimenting with personalization of color themes as well as pictures as part of the interface. Having said this, I still ask, “Why have medical professionals allowed non–clinical agencies and information technology groups to run this show?” It is also inconceivable to me that this unfunded mandate—that has increased cost, decreased clinical efficiency, and decreased clinician satisfaction—has not been addressed by national and international medical communities.

OBG Management: What changes do you feel your EMR system needs to undergo?

Dr. Woodland: I feel that we need to appropriately manage expectations of the EMR and the institution with relation to EMR and providers. By this I mean that we need to make the EMR more user-friendly and appropriate for different clinicians as well as patients. We also need to manage expectations of our patients. In a digital age where immediate contact is the norm, we need to address the issue that the EMR is not social media but rather a communication tool for routine contact and information transmission. Emergencies are not typically addressed well through the EMR platform; they are better handled with a more appropriate communication interface.

Dr. Dougherty: I feel that the biggest change needed is a competent, simple, and standard user-interface. Our old charting methods were great on a number of levels. For instance, if I wanted to add an order, I flipped to the ”Orders” tab and entered an order. If I needed to document a note, I flipped to the “Notes” tab and started writing, etc. Obviously, manual charting had its downsides—like trying to decipher handwriting art! EMRs could easily adopt the stuff that worked from our old methods of documentation, while leveraging the advantages that computerized workflows can bring to practitioners, including efficient transfer of records, meaningful reporting, simple electronic ordering, and interprofessional communication portals.

Dr. Evans: Our systems need to better communicate with one another. I am in an academic practice, and I should be able to see labs, consultant notes, imaging, all in one spot to improve efficiency and ease with patient visits. Minimizing clicks would be helpful as well. I try to write as much as I can while in the room with a patient to avoid after-hours note writing, but it takes away from my interaction with each patient.

Continue to: OBG Management: With an aim toward alleviating burnout...

OBG Management: With an aim toward alleviating burnout, are there any tips you can offer your colleagues on interfacing with the EMR?

Dr. Evans: When I first started as a new attending, it would take me hours to finish my notes, partly because of the level of detail I would write in my history of present illness (HPI) and assessment and plan. One great piece of advice I received was to be satisfied with good notes, not perfect notes. I worked to consolidate my thoughts and use preconstructed phrases/paragraphs on common problems I saw. This saved time to focus on other aspects of my academic job.

Dr. Dougherty: We need to refocus on the patient first, and mold our systems to meet that priority. Much too often, we have our backs to the patients or spend too much time interfacing with our EMR systems, and our patients are not happy about it (as many surveys have demonstrated). More importantly, a renewed focus on patient care, not EMR care, would allow our practitioners to do what they signed up for—treating patients. In the meantime, I would suggest that practitioners stay away from EMR gimmicks and go back to old-style documentation practices (like those established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 1997 and 1998), and ask the IT folks to help with molding the EMR systems to meet your own standards, not the standards established by EMR companies. I am also very hopeful that the consumer will drive most of the health care-related data collection in the near future, thereby marginalizing the current generation of EMR systems.

Dr. Woodland: I would add that providers need to manage the EMR and not let the EMR manage them. Set up task reminders at point times to handle results and communications from the EMR and set up time in your schedule where you can facilitate meeting these tasks. When providers are out on vacation, make sure to have an out-of-office reminder built into their EMR so that patients and others know timing of potential responses. Try to make the EMR as enjoyable as possible and focus on the good points of the EMR, such as legibility, order verification, safety, and documentation.
 

OBG Management: Do you feel that the EMR has led to improved patient care?

Dr. Evans: Yes and no. Yes, in that it can be much easier to follow a patient’s health care history from other provider notes or prior surgeries. Information is searchable and legible. If an EMR is built correctly, it can save time for providers, through smart phrases and templates, and it can help providers with proper billing codes and documentation requirements. No, in that it can take away from important patient interaction. We are required to see more patients in less time all while using, at times, a cumbersome EMR system.

Dr. Woodland: This is a tricky question because the EMR has both positive and negative attributes. Certainly, the legibility and order verification has improved, but the ease of accessing information in the EMR has changed. Additionally, there has been a drastic increase in provider dissatisfaction that has not been addressed. Provider dissatisfaction can lead to problems in patient care. If there was a clear-cut increased value for the cost, I do not think the EMR would be such a huge focus of negative attention. Providers need to take back control of their EMR and their profession so that they can utilize the EMR as the tool it was supposed to be and not the dissatisfier that it has become.

Dr. Dougherty: I do not believe patient care has been improved by EMR systems, for all of the reasons we have discussed, and then some. But there is an enormous amount of potential, if we get the interface between humans and EMR systems right!

Physician burnout has been labeled a public health crisis by the Harvard School of Public Health and other institutions.¹ A 2018 Physician’s Foundation survey found that 78% of physicians had symptoms of burnout,² which result from chronic workplace stress and include feeling depleted of energy or exhausted, mentally distanced from or cynical about one’s job, and problems getting one’s job done successfully.³ Among ObGyns, almost half (46%) report burnout.⁴ One-third of ObGyns responded on a recent Medscape Burnout Report that the computerization of practice is contributing to their burnout, and 54% said too many bureaucratic tasks, including charting, were adding to their burnout.⁵

Inefficient electronic medical records (EMRs) have been implicated as one reason for burnout, with improvements in efficiency cited as one of several potential resolutions to the problem. About 96% of hospitals have adopted EMRs today, compared with only 9% in 2008,⁶ and many physicians report recognizing value in the technology. For instance, 60% of participants in Stanford Medicine’s 2018 National Physician Poll said EMRs had led to improved patient care. At the same time, however, about as many (59%) said EMRs needed a “complete overhaul” and that the systems had detracted from their professional satisfaction (54%) as well as from their clinical effectiveness (49%).⁷

With this roundtable, we explore the concerns with hours spent on the EMR with several experts, and whether it is a problem that has been contributing to burnout among staff at their institutions. In addition, are there solutions that their institutions have implemented that they can share to help to cope with the problem?
 

OBG Management: ObGyns report that the computerization of practice and too many bureaucratic tasks, including charting, are contributing to burnout. Do you see this problem at your institution?

John J. Dougherty, MD, MBA: Yes, absolutely. There is not a day that goes by that I don’t hear about or experience “Epic Fails.” (We use Epic’s EMR product at our institution.) Too many clicks are needed to navigate even the simplest tasks—finding notes or results, documenting visits, and billing for services are all unnecessarily complex. In addition, we are being held accountable for achieving a long and growing list of “metrics” measures, education projects (HealthStream), and productivity goals. When do we have time to treat patients? And it is not just practicing physicians and clinicians. Our resident physicians spend an inordinate amount of time in front of the computer documenting, placing orders, and transferring patients using a system with a very inefficient user interface, to say the least.

Megan L. Evans, MD, MPH: I absolutely agree. Over the years, my institution has created a conglomerate of EMRs, requiring physicians across the hospital to be fluent in a multitude of systems. For example, you finish your clinic notes in one system, sign off on discharge summaries in another, and complete your operative notes in an entirely different system. As busy attendings, it is hard to keep ahead of all of these tasks, especially when the systems do not talk to one another. Fortunately, my hospital is changing our EMR to a single system within the next year. Until then, however, we will work in this piecemeal system.

Mark Woodland, MS, MD: EMR and computerization of medicine is the number 1 issue relating to dissatisfaction by ObGyn providers in our institution. Providers are earnest in their attempt to be compliant with EMR requirements, but the reality is that they are dealing with an automated system that does not have realistic expectations for management of results, follow-up tasks, and patient communications for a human provider. The actual charting, ordering of tests and consults, and communication between providers has been enhanced. However, the “in-basket” of tasks to be accomplished are extraordinary and much of it relies on the provider, which requires an inordinate amount of time. Additionally, while other members of the medical staff are stationary at a desk, physicians and other providers are not. They are mobile between inpatient units, labor and delivery, operating rooms, and emergency rooms. Time management does not always allow for providers to access computers from all of these areas to facilitate their managing the expectations of the EMR. This requires providers to access the EMR at off hours, extending their workload. Finally, the EMR is neither personal nor friendly. It is not designed with the clinician in mind, and it is not fun or engaging for a provider.

Continue to: OBG Management: What solutions have been instituted...

OBG Management: What solutions have been instituted in order to help physicians with data entry into the EMR?

Dr. Dougherty: When our institution compared EMR offerings, EMR companies put their best collective marketing feet forward. The general notion, at least with the Epic EMR, was that “you can customize Epic to your liking.” It did not take long for a bunch of motivated Epic users to create “smart” stuff (lists, phrases, and texts) in an effort to customize workflows and create fancy-looking electronic notes. Shortly thereafter, it was obvious that, as an institution, our reporting efforts kept coming up short—our reports lacked accuracy and meaning. Everyone was documenting in different ways and in different areas. Considering that reports are currently generated using (mostly) discrete data entries (data placed in specific fields within the EMR), it became obvious that our data entry paradigm needed to change. Therefore, standardization became the leading buzzword. Our institution recently initiated a project aimed at standardizing our workflows and documentation habits. In addition, we have incorporated a third-party information exchange product into our health system data aggregation and analysis workflow. Much more needs to be done, but it is a start.

Dr. Evans: At my institution, as a group, we have created templates for routine procedures and visits that also auto populate billing codes. I know that some departments have used scribes. From the hospital side, there has been improved access to the EMR from home. Some of my colleagues like this feature; however, others, like myself, believe this contributes to some of our burnout. I like to leave work at work. Having the ability to continue working at home is not a solution in my mind.

Dr. Woodland: At our institution, we have engaged our chaperones and medical assistants to help facilitate completion of the medical records during the office visit. Providers work with their assistants to accommodate documentation of history and physical findings while also listening to the provider as they are speaking in order to document patient care plans and orders. This saves the clinicians time in reviewing and editing the record as well as making sure the appropriate care plan is instituted. Our EMR provider recently has begun experimenting with personalization of color themes as well as pictures as part of the interface. Having said this, I still ask, “Why have medical professionals allowed non–clinical agencies and information technology groups to run this show?” It is also inconceivable to me that this unfunded mandate—that has increased cost, decreased clinical efficiency, and decreased clinician satisfaction—has not been addressed by national and international medical communities.

OBG Management: What changes do you feel your EMR system needs to undergo?

Dr. Woodland: I feel that we need to appropriately manage expectations of the EMR and the institution with relation to EMR and providers. By this I mean that we need to make the EMR more user-friendly and appropriate for different clinicians as well as patients. We also need to manage expectations of our patients. In a digital age where immediate contact is the norm, we need to address the issue that the EMR is not social media but rather a communication tool for routine contact and information transmission. Emergencies are not typically addressed well through the EMR platform; they are better handled with a more appropriate communication interface.

Dr. Dougherty: I feel that the biggest change needed is a competent, simple, and standard user-interface. Our old charting methods were great on a number of levels. For instance, if I wanted to add an order, I flipped to the ”Orders” tab and entered an order. If I needed to document a note, I flipped to the “Notes” tab and started writing, etc. Obviously, manual charting had its downsides—like trying to decipher handwriting art! EMRs could easily adopt the stuff that worked from our old methods of documentation, while leveraging the advantages that computerized workflows can bring to practitioners, including efficient transfer of records, meaningful reporting, simple electronic ordering, and interprofessional communication portals.

Dr. Evans: Our systems need to better communicate with one another. I am in an academic practice, and I should be able to see labs, consultant notes, imaging, all in one spot to improve efficiency and ease with patient visits. Minimizing clicks would be helpful as well. I try to write as much as I can while in the room with a patient to avoid after-hours note writing, but it takes away from my interaction with each patient.

Continue to: OBG Management: With an aim toward alleviating burnout...

OBG Management: With an aim toward alleviating burnout, are there any tips you can offer your colleagues on interfacing with the EMR?

Dr. Evans: When I first started as a new attending, it would take me hours to finish my notes, partly because of the level of detail I would write in my history of present illness (HPI) and assessment and plan. One great piece of advice I received was to be satisfied with good notes, not perfect notes. I worked to consolidate my thoughts and use preconstructed phrases/paragraphs on common problems I saw. This saved time to focus on other aspects of my academic job.

Dr. Dougherty: We need to refocus on the patient first, and mold our systems to meet that priority. Much too often, we have our backs to the patients or spend too much time interfacing with our EMR systems, and our patients are not happy about it (as many surveys have demonstrated). More importantly, a renewed focus on patient care, not EMR care, would allow our practitioners to do what they signed up for—treating patients. In the meantime, I would suggest that practitioners stay away from EMR gimmicks and go back to old-style documentation practices (like those established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 1997 and 1998), and ask the IT folks to help with molding the EMR systems to meet your own standards, not the standards established by EMR companies. I am also very hopeful that the consumer will drive most of the health care-related data collection in the near future, thereby marginalizing the current generation of EMR systems.

Dr. Woodland: I would add that providers need to manage the EMR and not let the EMR manage them. Set up task reminders at point times to handle results and communications from the EMR and set up time in your schedule where you can facilitate meeting these tasks. When providers are out on vacation, make sure to have an out-of-office reminder built into their EMR so that patients and others know timing of potential responses. Try to make the EMR as enjoyable as possible and focus on the good points of the EMR, such as legibility, order verification, safety, and documentation.
 

OBG Management: Do you feel that the EMR has led to improved patient care?

Dr. Evans: Yes and no. Yes, in that it can be much easier to follow a patient’s health care history from other provider notes or prior surgeries. Information is searchable and legible. If an EMR is built correctly, it can save time for providers, through smart phrases and templates, and it can help providers with proper billing codes and documentation requirements. No, in that it can take away from important patient interaction. We are required to see more patients in less time all while using, at times, a cumbersome EMR system.

Dr. Woodland: This is a tricky question because the EMR has both positive and negative attributes. Certainly, the legibility and order verification has improved, but the ease of accessing information in the EMR has changed. Additionally, there has been a drastic increase in provider dissatisfaction that has not been addressed. Provider dissatisfaction can lead to problems in patient care. If there was a clear-cut increased value for the cost, I do not think the EMR would be such a huge focus of negative attention. Providers need to take back control of their EMR and their profession so that they can utilize the EMR as the tool it was supposed to be and not the dissatisfier that it has become.

Dr. Dougherty: I do not believe patient care has been improved by EMR systems, for all of the reasons we have discussed, and then some. But there is an enormous amount of potential, if we get the interface between humans and EMR systems right!

MENSTRUAL PAIN RELIEF THROUGH MICRO-PULSES

Livia, by iPulse Medical Ltd, is a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved, drug-free option to treat menstrual pain through the transmission of electrical pulses. Electrodes are placed on the body at the source of menstrual pain and send a frequency to the nerves to reduce pain. Livia was designed based on the principles of the “gate control” theory of pain, says iPulse Medical. When the nerves are stimulated by the device’s electrodes, the nerve gate is closed, preventing pain signals from being received or felt in the brain.

The device can be worn in public or at home and allows the user to adjust the frequency of the electrical signal to correspond with her pain intensity. According to iPulse Medical, there are no adverse effects and the user will not build up a tolerance; however, the device should not be worn if the user has a pacemaker or is undergoing fertility treatment.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://mylivia.com/

EXPAREL FOR CESAREAN DELIVERY

Pacira BioSciences an-nounced completion of their Phase 4 study of Exparel (bupivacaine lipsome injectable suspension), a local analgesic given to patients undergoing planned cesarean delivery (CD), aimed at reducing postsurgical pain and total opioid consumption through the first 72 hours postsurgery. Exparel is administered through transversus abdominis plane field block.

Pacira’s multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of 186 patients showed that those receiving Exparel plus bupivacaine HCl had a 52% reduction in total opioid consumption and significantly lower pain scores through the first 72 hours after CD, compared with those receiving only bupivacaine HCl. The most common adverse effects are itching and nausea. Exparel should not be used for patients under the age of 18 and should be used cautiously in patients with hepatic disease.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.exparel.com/

M GENITALIUM ASSAY DETECTS THE STI

Hologic’s Aptima^® Mycoplasma genitalium assay is the first FDA-cleared diagnostic test for this sexually transmitted infection (STI), which has been identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as an emerging public health threat. The assay is an in vitro nucleic acid amplification test that can be used to verify swab or urine samples from women and men. In published studies, the ribosomal RNA-based assay displayed greater sensitivity than lab-developed or CE-marked DNA-based tests. Early detection is important, Hologic asserts, because M genitalium is increasing in prevalence among higher-risk populations; however, it is not well known and often misdiagnosed, leading to incorrect treatment as well as risk for transmission and recurrence.

Hologic cites several studies that have shown M genitalium can be asymptomatic; however, it also can be associated with nongonococcal urethritis in men and cervicitis in women, as well as increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease, preterm birth, spontaneous abortion, and infertility. A high percentage of infected people have an antibiotic-resistant strain, demonstrating a need for early detection and screening.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.hologic.com

NEW ART OPTION

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.ferringusa.com

MENSTRUAL PAIN RELIEF THROUGH MICRO-PULSES

Livia, by iPulse Medical Ltd, is a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved, drug-free option to treat menstrual pain through the transmission of electrical pulses. Electrodes are placed on the body at the source of menstrual pain and send a frequency to the nerves to reduce pain. Livia was designed based on the principles of the “gate control” theory of pain, says iPulse Medical. When the nerves are stimulated by the device’s electrodes, the nerve gate is closed, preventing pain signals from being received or felt in the brain.

The device can be worn in public or at home and allows the user to adjust the frequency of the electrical signal to correspond with her pain intensity. According to iPulse Medical, there are no adverse effects and the user will not build up a tolerance; however, the device should not be worn if the user has a pacemaker or is undergoing fertility treatment.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://mylivia.com/

EXPAREL FOR CESAREAN DELIVERY

Pacira BioSciences an-nounced completion of their Phase 4 study of Exparel (bupivacaine lipsome injectable suspension), a local analgesic given to patients undergoing planned cesarean delivery (CD), aimed at reducing postsurgical pain and total opioid consumption through the first 72 hours postsurgery. Exparel is administered through transversus abdominis plane field block.

Pacira’s multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of 186 patients showed that those receiving Exparel plus bupivacaine HCl had a 52% reduction in total opioid consumption and significantly lower pain scores through the first 72 hours after CD, compared with those receiving only bupivacaine HCl. The most common adverse effects are itching and nausea. Exparel should not be used for patients under the age of 18 and should be used cautiously in patients with hepatic disease.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.exparel.com/

M GENITALIUM ASSAY DETECTS THE STI

Hologic’s Aptima^® Mycoplasma genitalium assay is the first FDA-cleared diagnostic test for this sexually transmitted infection (STI), which has been identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as an emerging public health threat. The assay is an in vitro nucleic acid amplification test that can be used to verify swab or urine samples from women and men. In published studies, the ribosomal RNA-based assay displayed greater sensitivity than lab-developed or CE-marked DNA-based tests. Early detection is important, Hologic asserts, because M genitalium is increasing in prevalence among higher-risk populations; however, it is not well known and often misdiagnosed, leading to incorrect treatment as well as risk for transmission and recurrence.

Hologic cites several studies that have shown M genitalium can be asymptomatic; however, it also can be associated with nongonococcal urethritis in men and cervicitis in women, as well as increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease, preterm birth, spontaneous abortion, and infertility. A high percentage of infected people have an antibiotic-resistant strain, demonstrating a need for early detection and screening.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.hologic.com

NEW ART OPTION

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.ferringusa.com

MENSTRUAL PAIN RELIEF THROUGH MICRO-PULSES

Livia, by iPulse Medical Ltd, is a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved, drug-free option to treat menstrual pain through the transmission of electrical pulses. Electrodes are placed on the body at the source of menstrual pain and send a frequency to the nerves to reduce pain. Livia was designed based on the principles of the “gate control” theory of pain, says iPulse Medical. When the nerves are stimulated by the device’s electrodes, the nerve gate is closed, preventing pain signals from being received or felt in the brain.

The device can be worn in public or at home and allows the user to adjust the frequency of the electrical signal to correspond with her pain intensity. According to iPulse Medical, there are no adverse effects and the user will not build up a tolerance; however, the device should not be worn if the user has a pacemaker or is undergoing fertility treatment.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://mylivia.com/

EXPAREL FOR CESAREAN DELIVERY

Pacira BioSciences an-nounced completion of their Phase 4 study of Exparel (bupivacaine lipsome injectable suspension), a local analgesic given to patients undergoing planned cesarean delivery (CD), aimed at reducing postsurgical pain and total opioid consumption through the first 72 hours postsurgery. Exparel is administered through transversus abdominis plane field block.

Pacira’s multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of 186 patients showed that those receiving Exparel plus bupivacaine HCl had a 52% reduction in total opioid consumption and significantly lower pain scores through the first 72 hours after CD, compared with those receiving only bupivacaine HCl. The most common adverse effects are itching and nausea. Exparel should not be used for patients under the age of 18 and should be used cautiously in patients with hepatic disease.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.exparel.com/

M GENITALIUM ASSAY DETECTS THE STI

Hologic’s Aptima^® Mycoplasma genitalium assay is the first FDA-cleared diagnostic test for this sexually transmitted infection (STI), which has been identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as an emerging public health threat. The assay is an in vitro nucleic acid amplification test that can be used to verify swab or urine samples from women and men. In published studies, the ribosomal RNA-based assay displayed greater sensitivity than lab-developed or CE-marked DNA-based tests. Early detection is important, Hologic asserts, because M genitalium is increasing in prevalence among higher-risk populations; however, it is not well known and often misdiagnosed, leading to incorrect treatment as well as risk for transmission and recurrence.

Hologic cites several studies that have shown M genitalium can be asymptomatic; however, it also can be associated with nongonococcal urethritis in men and cervicitis in women, as well as increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease, preterm birth, spontaneous abortion, and infertility. A high percentage of infected people have an antibiotic-resistant strain, demonstrating a need for early detection and screening.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.hologic.com

NEW ART OPTION

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.ferringusa.com

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) use continues to increase in the United States. According to the most recent estimates from 2014, 14% of women use either an intrauterine device (IUD) or the etonogestrel implant.¹ Forms of LARC currently available in the United States include:

• 4 hormone-releasing IUDs
• 1 nonhormonal copper IUD, and
• 1 hormonal subdermal implant.

The hormone-releasing IUDs all contain levonorgestrel (LNG). These include two 52-mg LNG products and a 19.5-mg LNG IUD, which are currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for contraception for 5 continuous years of use. In addition, a 13.5-mg LNG IUD is FDA-approved for 3 years of use. The hormonal subdermal implant, which contains etonogestrel, is FDA-approved for 3 years of use. Although major complications with IUDs (perforation, expulsion, intrauterine infection)and implants (subfascial implantation, distant migration) are rare, adverse effects that can affect continuation—such as irregular bleeding—are more common.^2,3

Contraceptive discontinuation due to bleeding concerns occurs more frequently with the etonogestrel implant than with LNG IUDs (TABLE 1). In a large prospective study in the United States, 13% of women discontinued the implant during 3 years of follow-up due to bleeding pattern changes.⁴ In comparison, the 3-year discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints with the 52-mg LNG IUD is 1.5%.⁵ The 3-year discontinuation rate is higher with the 19.5-mg and 13.5-mg LNG IUDs (4.9% and 4.7%, respectively).⁶ The discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints within 5 years of use remains higher for the 19.5-mg LNG IUD (5.2%) compared with the 52-mg LNG IUD (2.2%).^7,8

Notably, it is important to use standardized definitions to understand and compare bleeding concerns with LARC use. The Belsey criteria of the World Health Organization (WHO), a standard used for decades, describe bleeding patterns using 90-day reference periods or intervals (TABLE 2).⁹ Bleeding patterns that decrease flow (amenorrhea, infrequent bleeding) often are considered favorable, and those that increase bleeding or irregularity often are considered unfavorable. These criteria are commonly used in package labeling to describe bleeding patterns with extended use.

In this Update, we examine recent data evaluating differences in bleeding patterns with the 3 doses of the LNG IUD, predictors of abnormal bleeding with the etonogestrel implant, and the impact of timing on postpartum etonogestrel implant placement.

Continue to: Bleeding patterns with progestin-containing IUDs vary according to the LNG dose...

Bleeding patterns with progestin-containing IUDs vary according to the LNG dose 

Goldthwaite LM, Creinin MD. Comparing bleeding patterns for the levonorgestrel 52 mg, 19.5 mg, and 13.5 mg intrauterine systems. Contraception. 2019;100:128-131. 

Counseling on IUDs' different hormonal doses requires an understanding of patients' desires for contraceptive efficacy and bleeding expectations. A recent study provides guidance on what patients typically can expect for their bleeding patterns over the first few years with the 3 different doses of LNG IUDs. 

Goldthwaite and Creinin used existing published or publicly available data to analyze differences in bleeding patterns associated with the 52-mg, 19.5-mg, and 13.5-mg LNG IUDs. Although two 52-mg LNG IUDs are available, published data using the WHO Belsey criteria are available only for one (Liletta; Allergan, Medicines360). The 2 products have been shown previously to have similar drug-release rates and LNG levels over 5 years.⁸ 

Comparing favorable bleeding patterns: Amenorrhea and infrequent bleeding 

Among favorable bleeding patterns, amenorrhea was uncommon in the first 90 days and increased over time for all 3 IUDs. However, starting as soon as the second 90-day reference period, amenorrhea rates were significantly higher with the 52-mg LNG IUD compared with both of the lower-LNG dose IUDs, and this difference increased through 3 years of use (FIGURE 1). 

Similarly, the 19.5-mg LNG IUD users had significantly higher rates of amenorrhea than the 13.5-mg LNG IUD users for all periods starting with the second 90-day reference period. At 3 years, 36% of women using the 52-mg LNG IUD had amenorrhea compared with 20% of those using the 19.5-mg LNG IUD (P<.0001) and 12% of those using the 13.5-mg LNG IUD (P<.0001). 

Infrequent bleeding was similar for all 3 LNG IUDs in the first 90-day period, and it then increased most rapidly in the 52-mg LNG IUD users. At the end of year 1, 30% of the 52-mg LNG IUD users had infrequent bleeding compared with 26% of the 19.5-mg users (P = .01) and 20% of the 13.5-mg users (P<.0001). Although there was no difference in infrequent bleeding rates between the 52-mg and the 19.5-mg LNG IUD users at the end of year 1, those using a 52-mg LNG IUD had significantly higher rates of infrequent bleeding compared with the 13.5-mg LNG IUD at all time points. 

Comparing unfavorable bleeding patterns: Frequent, prolonged, and irregular bleeding 

Frequent and prolonged bleeding were uncommon with all LNG doses. Irregular bleeding rates declined for users of the 3 IUDs over time. However, significantly fewer users of the 52-mg LNG IUD reported irregular bleeding at 1 year (6%) compared with users of the 19.5-mg (16.5%, P<.0001) and 13.5-mg (23%, P<.0001) LNG IUD (FIGURE 2). 

Study limitations 

Comparing the data from different studies has limitations. For example, the data were collected from different populations, with the lower-dose LNG products tested in women who had a lower body mass index (BMI) and higher parity. However, prior analysis of the data on the 52-mg LNG IUD demonstrated that bleeding pattern changes did not vary based on these factors.¹⁰

Continue to: Predicting long-term bleeding patterns after etonogestrel implant insertion...

Mansour D, Fraser IS, Edelman A, et al. Can initial vaginal bleeding patterns in etonogestrel implant users predict subsequent bleeding in the first two years of use? Contraception. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.017. 

Data from 2014 indicate that the etonogestrel implant was used by nearly 1 million women in the United States and by 3% of women using contraception.¹ The primary reason women discontinue implant use is because of changes in bleeding patterns. Given the high prevalence of bleeding concerns with the etonogestrel implant, we need more data to help counsel our patients on how they can expect their bleeding to change with implant use. 

Etonogestral implant and bleeding pattern trends 

Mansour and colleagues completed a secondary analysis of 12 phase 3 studies to evaluate the correlation between bleeding patterns early after placement of the etonogestrel implant (days 29-118) compared with bleeding patterns through 90-day intervals during the rest of the first year of use. To account for differences in timing of etonogestrel implant placement relative to the menstrual cycle and discontinuation of other methods like oral contraceptives, bleeding outcomes on days 0-28 were excluded. They also sought to investigate the correlation between bleeding patterns in year 1 compared with those in year 2. 

Overall, these studies included 923 individuals across 11 countries; however, for the current analysis, the researchers excluded women from Asian countries who comprised more than 28% of the study population. These women report significantly fewer bleeding/spotting days with the etonogestrel implant and have a lower average body weight compared with European and American women.¹² 

A prior analysis of the same data set looked at the number of bleeding/spotting days in groups of users rather than trends in individual patients, and, as mentioned, it also included Asian women, which diluted the overall number of bleeding days.¹² In this new analysis, Mansour and colleagues used the Belsey criteria to analyze individual bleeding patterns as favorable (amenorrhea, infrequent bleeding, normal bleeding) or unfavorable (prolonged and/or frequent bleeding) from a patient perspective. In this way, we can understand trends in bleeding patterns for each patient over time, rather than seeing a static (cross-sectional) report of bleeding patterns at one point in time. Data were analyzed from 537 women in year 1 and 428 women in year 2. During the first 90-day reference period (days 29-118 after implant insertion), 61% of women reported favorable bleeding, and 39% reported unfavorable bleeding. 

Favorable bleeding correlates with favorable patterns later 

A favorable bleeding pattern in this first reference period correlated with favorable bleeding patterns through year 1, with 85%, 80%, and 80% of these women having a favorable pattern in reference periods 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Overall, 61% of women with a favorable pattern in reference period 1 had favorable bleeding throughout the entire first year of use. Only 3.7% of women with favorable bleeding in the first reference period discontinued the implant for bleeding in year 1. Further, women with favorable bleeding at year 1 commonly continued to have favorable bleeding in year 2, with a low discontinuation rate (2.5%) in year 2. 

Initial unfavorable bleeding portends less favorable patterns later 

Women who had an unfavorable bleeding pattern initially, however, had a less predictable course over the first year. For those with an initial unfavorable pattern, only 37%, 47%, and 51% reported a favorable pattern in reference periods 2, 3, and 4. Despite these relatively low rates of favorable bleeding, only 13% of the women with an initial unfavorable bleeding pattern discontinued implant use for a bleeding complaint by the end of year 1; this rate was significantly higher than that for women with a favorable initial bleeding pattern (P<.0001). The discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints also remained higher in year 2, at 16.5%. 

Limitations and strengths to consider 

Although the etonogestrel implant is FDA-approved for 3 years of use, the bleeding data from the combined trials included information for only up to 2 years after placement. The studies included also did not uniformly assess BMI, which makes it difficult to find correlations between bleeding patterns and BMI. Importantly, the studies did not include women who were more than 30% above their ideal body weight, so these assessments do not apply to obese users.¹² Exclusion of women from Southeast Asia in this analysis makes this study's findings more generalizable to populations in the United States and Europe. 
 

Continue to: Early versus delayed postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion...

Early versus delayed postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion: Similar impacts on 12-month bleeding patterns 

Vieira CS, de Nadai MN, de Melo Pereira do Carmo LS, et al. Timing of postpartum etonogestrel-releasing implant insertion and bleeding patterns, weight change, 12-month continuation and satisfaction rates: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.007. 

Initiation of a desired LARC method shortly after delivery is associated with significant reductions in short interpregnancy intervals.¹⁴ With that goal in mind, Vieira and colleagues compared bleeding patterns in women who received an etonogestrel implant within 48 hours of delivery with those who received an implant at 6 weeks postdelivery. 

The study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of early versus delayed postpartum insertion of the etonogestrel implant conducted in Sao Paulo, Brazil. That primary trial's goal was to examine the impact of early versus delayed implant insertion on infant growth (100 women were randomly assigned to the 2 implant groups); no difference in infant growth at 12 months was seen in the 2 groups.¹⁵ In the secondary analysis, bleeding patterns and BMI were evaluated every 90 days for 12 months. The mean BMI at enrollment postpartum was 29.4 kg/m² in the early-insertion group and 30.2 kg/m² for the delayed-insertion group. 

Bleeding patterns with early or delayed implant insertion were similar 

Vieira and colleagues found similar bleeding patterns between the groups over 12 months of follow-up. Amenorrhea was reported by 56% of the early-insertion group in the first 90 days and by 62% in the delayed-insertion group. During the last 90 days of the year, 52% of the early-insertion and 46% of the delayed-insertion group reported amenorrhea. Amenorrhea rates did not differ between women who were exclusively breastfeeding and those nonexclusively breastfeeding. 

Continuation rates were high at 1 year 

Prolonged bleeding episodes were uncommon in both groups, with only 2% of women reporting prolonged bleeding in any given reference period. Twelve-month implant continuation rates were high in both groups: 98% in the early- and 100% in the delayed-insertion group. Additionally, the investigators found that both groups experienced a BMI decrease, with no difference between groups (10.3% and 11% in the early- and delayed-insertion groups, respectively). 

Study limitations and strengths 

This study included a larger number of participants than prior randomized, controlled trials that evaluated bleeding patterns with postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion, and it had very low rates of loss to follow-up. The study's low rate of 12-month implant discontinuation (2%) is lower than that of other studies that reported rates of 6% to 14%.^16,17 Although the authors stated that this low rate may be due to thorough anticipatory counseling prior to placement, it is also possible that this study population does not reflect all populations. Regardless, the data clearly show that placing an etonogestrel implant prior to hospital discharge, compared with waiting for later placement, does not impact bleeding patterns over the ensuing year. 

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) use continues to increase in the United States. According to the most recent estimates from 2014, 14% of women use either an intrauterine device (IUD) or the etonogestrel implant.¹ Forms of LARC currently available in the United States include:

• 4 hormone-releasing IUDs
• 1 nonhormonal copper IUD, and
• 1 hormonal subdermal implant.

The hormone-releasing IUDs all contain levonorgestrel (LNG). These include two 52-mg LNG products and a 19.5-mg LNG IUD, which are currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for contraception for 5 continuous years of use. In addition, a 13.5-mg LNG IUD is FDA-approved for 3 years of use. The hormonal subdermal implant, which contains etonogestrel, is FDA-approved for 3 years of use. Although major complications with IUDs (perforation, expulsion, intrauterine infection)and implants (subfascial implantation, distant migration) are rare, adverse effects that can affect continuation—such as irregular bleeding—are more common.^2,3

Contraceptive discontinuation due to bleeding concerns occurs more frequently with the etonogestrel implant than with LNG IUDs (TABLE 1). In a large prospective study in the United States, 13% of women discontinued the implant during 3 years of follow-up due to bleeding pattern changes.⁴ In comparison, the 3-year discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints with the 52-mg LNG IUD is 1.5%.⁵ The 3-year discontinuation rate is higher with the 19.5-mg and 13.5-mg LNG IUDs (4.9% and 4.7%, respectively).⁶ The discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints within 5 years of use remains higher for the 19.5-mg LNG IUD (5.2%) compared with the 52-mg LNG IUD (2.2%).^7,8

Notably, it is important to use standardized definitions to understand and compare bleeding concerns with LARC use. The Belsey criteria of the World Health Organization (WHO), a standard used for decades, describe bleeding patterns using 90-day reference periods or intervals (TABLE 2).⁹ Bleeding patterns that decrease flow (amenorrhea, infrequent bleeding) often are considered favorable, and those that increase bleeding or irregularity often are considered unfavorable. These criteria are commonly used in package labeling to describe bleeding patterns with extended use.

In this Update, we examine recent data evaluating differences in bleeding patterns with the 3 doses of the LNG IUD, predictors of abnormal bleeding with the etonogestrel implant, and the impact of timing on postpartum etonogestrel implant placement.

Continue to: Bleeding patterns with progestin-containing IUDs vary according to the LNG dose...

Bleeding patterns with progestin-containing IUDs vary according to the LNG dose 

Goldthwaite LM, Creinin MD. Comparing bleeding patterns for the levonorgestrel 52 mg, 19.5 mg, and 13.5 mg intrauterine systems. Contraception. 2019;100:128-131. 

Counseling on IUDs' different hormonal doses requires an understanding of patients' desires for contraceptive efficacy and bleeding expectations. A recent study provides guidance on what patients typically can expect for their bleeding patterns over the first few years with the 3 different doses of LNG IUDs. 

Goldthwaite and Creinin used existing published or publicly available data to analyze differences in bleeding patterns associated with the 52-mg, 19.5-mg, and 13.5-mg LNG IUDs. Although two 52-mg LNG IUDs are available, published data using the WHO Belsey criteria are available only for one (Liletta; Allergan, Medicines360). The 2 products have been shown previously to have similar drug-release rates and LNG levels over 5 years.⁸ 

Comparing favorable bleeding patterns: Amenorrhea and infrequent bleeding 

Among favorable bleeding patterns, amenorrhea was uncommon in the first 90 days and increased over time for all 3 IUDs. However, starting as soon as the second 90-day reference period, amenorrhea rates were significantly higher with the 52-mg LNG IUD compared with both of the lower-LNG dose IUDs, and this difference increased through 3 years of use (FIGURE 1). 

Similarly, the 19.5-mg LNG IUD users had significantly higher rates of amenorrhea than the 13.5-mg LNG IUD users for all periods starting with the second 90-day reference period. At 3 years, 36% of women using the 52-mg LNG IUD had amenorrhea compared with 20% of those using the 19.5-mg LNG IUD (P<.0001) and 12% of those using the 13.5-mg LNG IUD (P<.0001). 

Infrequent bleeding was similar for all 3 LNG IUDs in the first 90-day period, and it then increased most rapidly in the 52-mg LNG IUD users. At the end of year 1, 30% of the 52-mg LNG IUD users had infrequent bleeding compared with 26% of the 19.5-mg users (P = .01) and 20% of the 13.5-mg users (P<.0001). Although there was no difference in infrequent bleeding rates between the 52-mg and the 19.5-mg LNG IUD users at the end of year 1, those using a 52-mg LNG IUD had significantly higher rates of infrequent bleeding compared with the 13.5-mg LNG IUD at all time points. 

Comparing unfavorable bleeding patterns: Frequent, prolonged, and irregular bleeding 

Frequent and prolonged bleeding were uncommon with all LNG doses. Irregular bleeding rates declined for users of the 3 IUDs over time. However, significantly fewer users of the 52-mg LNG IUD reported irregular bleeding at 1 year (6%) compared with users of the 19.5-mg (16.5%, P<.0001) and 13.5-mg (23%, P<.0001) LNG IUD (FIGURE 2). 

Study limitations 

Comparing the data from different studies has limitations. For example, the data were collected from different populations, with the lower-dose LNG products tested in women who had a lower body mass index (BMI) and higher parity. However, prior analysis of the data on the 52-mg LNG IUD demonstrated that bleeding pattern changes did not vary based on these factors.¹⁰

Continue to: Predicting long-term bleeding patterns after etonogestrel implant insertion...

Mansour D, Fraser IS, Edelman A, et al. Can initial vaginal bleeding patterns in etonogestrel implant users predict subsequent bleeding in the first two years of use? Contraception. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.017. 

Data from 2014 indicate that the etonogestrel implant was used by nearly 1 million women in the United States and by 3% of women using contraception.¹ The primary reason women discontinue implant use is because of changes in bleeding patterns. Given the high prevalence of bleeding concerns with the etonogestrel implant, we need more data to help counsel our patients on how they can expect their bleeding to change with implant use. 

Etonogestral implant and bleeding pattern trends 

Mansour and colleagues completed a secondary analysis of 12 phase 3 studies to evaluate the correlation between bleeding patterns early after placement of the etonogestrel implant (days 29-118) compared with bleeding patterns through 90-day intervals during the rest of the first year of use. To account for differences in timing of etonogestrel implant placement relative to the menstrual cycle and discontinuation of other methods like oral contraceptives, bleeding outcomes on days 0-28 were excluded. They also sought to investigate the correlation between bleeding patterns in year 1 compared with those in year 2. 

Overall, these studies included 923 individuals across 11 countries; however, for the current analysis, the researchers excluded women from Asian countries who comprised more than 28% of the study population. These women report significantly fewer bleeding/spotting days with the etonogestrel implant and have a lower average body weight compared with European and American women.¹² 

A prior analysis of the same data set looked at the number of bleeding/spotting days in groups of users rather than trends in individual patients, and, as mentioned, it also included Asian women, which diluted the overall number of bleeding days.¹² In this new analysis, Mansour and colleagues used the Belsey criteria to analyze individual bleeding patterns as favorable (amenorrhea, infrequent bleeding, normal bleeding) or unfavorable (prolonged and/or frequent bleeding) from a patient perspective. In this way, we can understand trends in bleeding patterns for each patient over time, rather than seeing a static (cross-sectional) report of bleeding patterns at one point in time. Data were analyzed from 537 women in year 1 and 428 women in year 2. During the first 90-day reference period (days 29-118 after implant insertion), 61% of women reported favorable bleeding, and 39% reported unfavorable bleeding. 

Favorable bleeding correlates with favorable patterns later 

A favorable bleeding pattern in this first reference period correlated with favorable bleeding patterns through year 1, with 85%, 80%, and 80% of these women having a favorable pattern in reference periods 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Overall, 61% of women with a favorable pattern in reference period 1 had favorable bleeding throughout the entire first year of use. Only 3.7% of women with favorable bleeding in the first reference period discontinued the implant for bleeding in year 1. Further, women with favorable bleeding at year 1 commonly continued to have favorable bleeding in year 2, with a low discontinuation rate (2.5%) in year 2. 

Initial unfavorable bleeding portends less favorable patterns later 

Women who had an unfavorable bleeding pattern initially, however, had a less predictable course over the first year. For those with an initial unfavorable pattern, only 37%, 47%, and 51% reported a favorable pattern in reference periods 2, 3, and 4. Despite these relatively low rates of favorable bleeding, only 13% of the women with an initial unfavorable bleeding pattern discontinued implant use for a bleeding complaint by the end of year 1; this rate was significantly higher than that for women with a favorable initial bleeding pattern (P<.0001). The discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints also remained higher in year 2, at 16.5%. 

Limitations and strengths to consider 

Although the etonogestrel implant is FDA-approved for 3 years of use, the bleeding data from the combined trials included information for only up to 2 years after placement. The studies included also did not uniformly assess BMI, which makes it difficult to find correlations between bleeding patterns and BMI. Importantly, the studies did not include women who were more than 30% above their ideal body weight, so these assessments do not apply to obese users.¹² Exclusion of women from Southeast Asia in this analysis makes this study's findings more generalizable to populations in the United States and Europe. 
 

Continue to: Early versus delayed postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion...

Early versus delayed postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion: Similar impacts on 12-month bleeding patterns 

Vieira CS, de Nadai MN, de Melo Pereira do Carmo LS, et al. Timing of postpartum etonogestrel-releasing implant insertion and bleeding patterns, weight change, 12-month continuation and satisfaction rates: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.007. 

Initiation of a desired LARC method shortly after delivery is associated with significant reductions in short interpregnancy intervals.¹⁴ With that goal in mind, Vieira and colleagues compared bleeding patterns in women who received an etonogestrel implant within 48 hours of delivery with those who received an implant at 6 weeks postdelivery. 

The study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of early versus delayed postpartum insertion of the etonogestrel implant conducted in Sao Paulo, Brazil. That primary trial's goal was to examine the impact of early versus delayed implant insertion on infant growth (100 women were randomly assigned to the 2 implant groups); no difference in infant growth at 12 months was seen in the 2 groups.¹⁵ In the secondary analysis, bleeding patterns and BMI were evaluated every 90 days for 12 months. The mean BMI at enrollment postpartum was 29.4 kg/m² in the early-insertion group and 30.2 kg/m² for the delayed-insertion group. 

Bleeding patterns with early or delayed implant insertion were similar 

Vieira and colleagues found similar bleeding patterns between the groups over 12 months of follow-up. Amenorrhea was reported by 56% of the early-insertion group in the first 90 days and by 62% in the delayed-insertion group. During the last 90 days of the year, 52% of the early-insertion and 46% of the delayed-insertion group reported amenorrhea. Amenorrhea rates did not differ between women who were exclusively breastfeeding and those nonexclusively breastfeeding. 

Continuation rates were high at 1 year 

Prolonged bleeding episodes were uncommon in both groups, with only 2% of women reporting prolonged bleeding in any given reference period. Twelve-month implant continuation rates were high in both groups: 98% in the early- and 100% in the delayed-insertion group. Additionally, the investigators found that both groups experienced a BMI decrease, with no difference between groups (10.3% and 11% in the early- and delayed-insertion groups, respectively). 

Study limitations and strengths 

This study included a larger number of participants than prior randomized, controlled trials that evaluated bleeding patterns with postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion, and it had very low rates of loss to follow-up. The study's low rate of 12-month implant discontinuation (2%) is lower than that of other studies that reported rates of 6% to 14%.^16,17 Although the authors stated that this low rate may be due to thorough anticipatory counseling prior to placement, it is also possible that this study population does not reflect all populations. Regardless, the data clearly show that placing an etonogestrel implant prior to hospital discharge, compared with waiting for later placement, does not impact bleeding patterns over the ensuing year. 

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) use continues to increase in the United States. According to the most recent estimates from 2014, 14% of women use either an intrauterine device (IUD) or the etonogestrel implant.¹ Forms of LARC currently available in the United States include:

• 4 hormone-releasing IUDs
• 1 nonhormonal copper IUD, and
• 1 hormonal subdermal implant.

The hormone-releasing IUDs all contain levonorgestrel (LNG). These include two 52-mg LNG products and a 19.5-mg LNG IUD, which are currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for contraception for 5 continuous years of use. In addition, a 13.5-mg LNG IUD is FDA-approved for 3 years of use. The hormonal subdermal implant, which contains etonogestrel, is FDA-approved for 3 years of use. Although major complications with IUDs (perforation, expulsion, intrauterine infection)and implants (subfascial implantation, distant migration) are rare, adverse effects that can affect continuation—such as irregular bleeding—are more common.^2,3

Contraceptive discontinuation due to bleeding concerns occurs more frequently with the etonogestrel implant than with LNG IUDs (TABLE 1). In a large prospective study in the United States, 13% of women discontinued the implant during 3 years of follow-up due to bleeding pattern changes.⁴ In comparison, the 3-year discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints with the 52-mg LNG IUD is 1.5%.⁵ The 3-year discontinuation rate is higher with the 19.5-mg and 13.5-mg LNG IUDs (4.9% and 4.7%, respectively).⁶ The discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints within 5 years of use remains higher for the 19.5-mg LNG IUD (5.2%) compared with the 52-mg LNG IUD (2.2%).^7,8

Notably, it is important to use standardized definitions to understand and compare bleeding concerns with LARC use. The Belsey criteria of the World Health Organization (WHO), a standard used for decades, describe bleeding patterns using 90-day reference periods or intervals (TABLE 2).⁹ Bleeding patterns that decrease flow (amenorrhea, infrequent bleeding) often are considered favorable, and those that increase bleeding or irregularity often are considered unfavorable. These criteria are commonly used in package labeling to describe bleeding patterns with extended use.

In this Update, we examine recent data evaluating differences in bleeding patterns with the 3 doses of the LNG IUD, predictors of abnormal bleeding with the etonogestrel implant, and the impact of timing on postpartum etonogestrel implant placement.

Continue to: Bleeding patterns with progestin-containing IUDs vary according to the LNG dose...

Bleeding patterns with progestin-containing IUDs vary according to the LNG dose 

Goldthwaite LM, Creinin MD. Comparing bleeding patterns for the levonorgestrel 52 mg, 19.5 mg, and 13.5 mg intrauterine systems. Contraception. 2019;100:128-131. 

Counseling on IUDs' different hormonal doses requires an understanding of patients' desires for contraceptive efficacy and bleeding expectations. A recent study provides guidance on what patients typically can expect for their bleeding patterns over the first few years with the 3 different doses of LNG IUDs. 

Goldthwaite and Creinin used existing published or publicly available data to analyze differences in bleeding patterns associated with the 52-mg, 19.5-mg, and 13.5-mg LNG IUDs. Although two 52-mg LNG IUDs are available, published data using the WHO Belsey criteria are available only for one (Liletta; Allergan, Medicines360). The 2 products have been shown previously to have similar drug-release rates and LNG levels over 5 years.⁸ 

Comparing favorable bleeding patterns: Amenorrhea and infrequent bleeding 

Among favorable bleeding patterns, amenorrhea was uncommon in the first 90 days and increased over time for all 3 IUDs. However, starting as soon as the second 90-day reference period, amenorrhea rates were significantly higher with the 52-mg LNG IUD compared with both of the lower-LNG dose IUDs, and this difference increased through 3 years of use (FIGURE 1). 

Similarly, the 19.5-mg LNG IUD users had significantly higher rates of amenorrhea than the 13.5-mg LNG IUD users for all periods starting with the second 90-day reference period. At 3 years, 36% of women using the 52-mg LNG IUD had amenorrhea compared with 20% of those using the 19.5-mg LNG IUD (P<.0001) and 12% of those using the 13.5-mg LNG IUD (P<.0001). 

Infrequent bleeding was similar for all 3 LNG IUDs in the first 90-day period, and it then increased most rapidly in the 52-mg LNG IUD users. At the end of year 1, 30% of the 52-mg LNG IUD users had infrequent bleeding compared with 26% of the 19.5-mg users (P = .01) and 20% of the 13.5-mg users (P<.0001). Although there was no difference in infrequent bleeding rates between the 52-mg and the 19.5-mg LNG IUD users at the end of year 1, those using a 52-mg LNG IUD had significantly higher rates of infrequent bleeding compared with the 13.5-mg LNG IUD at all time points. 

Comparing unfavorable bleeding patterns: Frequent, prolonged, and irregular bleeding 

Frequent and prolonged bleeding were uncommon with all LNG doses. Irregular bleeding rates declined for users of the 3 IUDs over time. However, significantly fewer users of the 52-mg LNG IUD reported irregular bleeding at 1 year (6%) compared with users of the 19.5-mg (16.5%, P<.0001) and 13.5-mg (23%, P<.0001) LNG IUD (FIGURE 2). 

Study limitations 

Comparing the data from different studies has limitations. For example, the data were collected from different populations, with the lower-dose LNG products tested in women who had a lower body mass index (BMI) and higher parity. However, prior analysis of the data on the 52-mg LNG IUD demonstrated that bleeding pattern changes did not vary based on these factors.¹⁰

Continue to: Predicting long-term bleeding patterns after etonogestrel implant insertion...

Mansour D, Fraser IS, Edelman A, et al. Can initial vaginal bleeding patterns in etonogestrel implant users predict subsequent bleeding in the first two years of use? Contraception. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.017. 

Data from 2014 indicate that the etonogestrel implant was used by nearly 1 million women in the United States and by 3% of women using contraception.¹ The primary reason women discontinue implant use is because of changes in bleeding patterns. Given the high prevalence of bleeding concerns with the etonogestrel implant, we need more data to help counsel our patients on how they can expect their bleeding to change with implant use. 

Etonogestral implant and bleeding pattern trends 

Mansour and colleagues completed a secondary analysis of 12 phase 3 studies to evaluate the correlation between bleeding patterns early after placement of the etonogestrel implant (days 29-118) compared with bleeding patterns through 90-day intervals during the rest of the first year of use. To account for differences in timing of etonogestrel implant placement relative to the menstrual cycle and discontinuation of other methods like oral contraceptives, bleeding outcomes on days 0-28 were excluded. They also sought to investigate the correlation between bleeding patterns in year 1 compared with those in year 2. 

Overall, these studies included 923 individuals across 11 countries; however, for the current analysis, the researchers excluded women from Asian countries who comprised more than 28% of the study population. These women report significantly fewer bleeding/spotting days with the etonogestrel implant and have a lower average body weight compared with European and American women.¹² 

A prior analysis of the same data set looked at the number of bleeding/spotting days in groups of users rather than trends in individual patients, and, as mentioned, it also included Asian women, which diluted the overall number of bleeding days.¹² In this new analysis, Mansour and colleagues used the Belsey criteria to analyze individual bleeding patterns as favorable (amenorrhea, infrequent bleeding, normal bleeding) or unfavorable (prolonged and/or frequent bleeding) from a patient perspective. In this way, we can understand trends in bleeding patterns for each patient over time, rather than seeing a static (cross-sectional) report of bleeding patterns at one point in time. Data were analyzed from 537 women in year 1 and 428 women in year 2. During the first 90-day reference period (days 29-118 after implant insertion), 61% of women reported favorable bleeding, and 39% reported unfavorable bleeding. 

Favorable bleeding correlates with favorable patterns later 

A favorable bleeding pattern in this first reference period correlated with favorable bleeding patterns through year 1, with 85%, 80%, and 80% of these women having a favorable pattern in reference periods 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Overall, 61% of women with a favorable pattern in reference period 1 had favorable bleeding throughout the entire first year of use. Only 3.7% of women with favorable bleeding in the first reference period discontinued the implant for bleeding in year 1. Further, women with favorable bleeding at year 1 commonly continued to have favorable bleeding in year 2, with a low discontinuation rate (2.5%) in year 2. 

Initial unfavorable bleeding portends less favorable patterns later 

Women who had an unfavorable bleeding pattern initially, however, had a less predictable course over the first year. For those with an initial unfavorable pattern, only 37%, 47%, and 51% reported a favorable pattern in reference periods 2, 3, and 4. Despite these relatively low rates of favorable bleeding, only 13% of the women with an initial unfavorable bleeding pattern discontinued implant use for a bleeding complaint by the end of year 1; this rate was significantly higher than that for women with a favorable initial bleeding pattern (P<.0001). The discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints also remained higher in year 2, at 16.5%. 

Limitations and strengths to consider 

Although the etonogestrel implant is FDA-approved for 3 years of use, the bleeding data from the combined trials included information for only up to 2 years after placement. The studies included also did not uniformly assess BMI, which makes it difficult to find correlations between bleeding patterns and BMI. Importantly, the studies did not include women who were more than 30% above their ideal body weight, so these assessments do not apply to obese users.¹² Exclusion of women from Southeast Asia in this analysis makes this study's findings more generalizable to populations in the United States and Europe. 
 

Continue to: Early versus delayed postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion...

Early versus delayed postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion: Similar impacts on 12-month bleeding patterns 

Vieira CS, de Nadai MN, de Melo Pereira do Carmo LS, et al. Timing of postpartum etonogestrel-releasing implant insertion and bleeding patterns, weight change, 12-month continuation and satisfaction rates: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.007. 

Initiation of a desired LARC method shortly after delivery is associated with significant reductions in short interpregnancy intervals.¹⁴ With that goal in mind, Vieira and colleagues compared bleeding patterns in women who received an etonogestrel implant within 48 hours of delivery with those who received an implant at 6 weeks postdelivery. 

The study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of early versus delayed postpartum insertion of the etonogestrel implant conducted in Sao Paulo, Brazil. That primary trial's goal was to examine the impact of early versus delayed implant insertion on infant growth (100 women were randomly assigned to the 2 implant groups); no difference in infant growth at 12 months was seen in the 2 groups.¹⁵ In the secondary analysis, bleeding patterns and BMI were evaluated every 90 days for 12 months. The mean BMI at enrollment postpartum was 29.4 kg/m² in the early-insertion group and 30.2 kg/m² for the delayed-insertion group. 

Bleeding patterns with early or delayed implant insertion were similar 

Vieira and colleagues found similar bleeding patterns between the groups over 12 months of follow-up. Amenorrhea was reported by 56% of the early-insertion group in the first 90 days and by 62% in the delayed-insertion group. During the last 90 days of the year, 52% of the early-insertion and 46% of the delayed-insertion group reported amenorrhea. Amenorrhea rates did not differ between women who were exclusively breastfeeding and those nonexclusively breastfeeding. 

Continuation rates were high at 1 year 

Prolonged bleeding episodes were uncommon in both groups, with only 2% of women reporting prolonged bleeding in any given reference period. Twelve-month implant continuation rates were high in both groups: 98% in the early- and 100% in the delayed-insertion group. Additionally, the investigators found that both groups experienced a BMI decrease, with no difference between groups (10.3% and 11% in the early- and delayed-insertion groups, respectively). 

Study limitations and strengths 

This study included a larger number of participants than prior randomized, controlled trials that evaluated bleeding patterns with postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion, and it had very low rates of loss to follow-up. The study's low rate of 12-month implant discontinuation (2%) is lower than that of other studies that reported rates of 6% to 14%.^16,17 Although the authors stated that this low rate may be due to thorough anticipatory counseling prior to placement, it is also possible that this study population does not reflect all populations. Regardless, the data clearly show that placing an etonogestrel implant prior to hospital discharge, compared with waiting for later placement, does not impact bleeding patterns over the ensuing year. 

Urinary incontinence affects approximately 50% of women, with up to 80% of these women experiencing stress urinary incontinence (SUI) at some point in their lives.^1-3 While conservative measures can offer some improvement in symptoms, the mainstay of treatment for SUI is surgical intervention.^4,5 The lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for SUI is 13.6%, and surgery leads to a major improvement in quality of life and productivity.^1,6

Types of slings used for SUI

Sling procedures are the most commonly used surgical approach for the treatment of SUI. Two types of urethral slings are used: the midurethral sling and the autologous fascial (pubovaginal) sling. The midurethral sling, which is the most frequently used sling today, can be further characterized as the retropubic sling, the transobturator sling, and the mini sling (FIGURE 1).

Retropubic sling

A retropubic sling is a midurethral mesh sling that is placed beneath the urethra at the midpoint between the urethral meatus and the bladder neck. The arms of the sling extend behind the pubic symphysis, providing a hammock-like support that helps prevent leakage with increased abdominal pressures. The retropubic sling is the most commonly used type of sling. For women presenting with uncomplicated SUI who desire surgical correction, it often is the best choice for providing long-term treatment success.⁷

Transobturator sling

A transobturator sling is a midurethral mesh sling that is placed beneath the urethra as described above, but the arms of the sling extend outward through the obturator foramen and into the groin. This enables support of the midurethra, but this sling is less likely to result in such complications as bladder perforation or postoperative urinary retention. Transobturator slings also are associated with lower rates of voiding dysfunction and urinary urgency than retropubic slings.^7-9 However, transobturator slings have higher rates of groin pain, and they are less effective in maintaining long-term cure of SUI.⁷

First introduced in 1996, the midurethral sling quickly grew in popularity for the treatment of SUI because of its high success rates and its minimally invasive approach.¹⁰ Both retropubic and transobturator slings are safe, extensively researched surgical approaches for the management of SUI.³ Midurethral slings have a very high rate of incontinence cure (80%–90%) and extremely high patient satisfaction rates (85%–90%), as even patients without complete cure report meaningful symptomatic improvement.^7,8,11

Single-incision (mini) sling

A single-incision sling is a midurethral mesh sling that is designed to be shorter in length than standard midurethral slings. The placed sling lies under the midurethra and extends toward the superior edge of the obturator foramen but does not penetrate it. The sling is held in place by small pledgets on either side of the mesh hammock that anchor it in place to the obturator internus muscular fascia. Because this “mini” sling was introduced in 2006, fewer long-term data are available for this sling than for standard midurethral slings.

Continue to: Autologous (fascial) sling...

Autologous (fascial) sling

An autologous sling is a retropubic sling made from the patient’s own fascia; it is harvested from either the fascia lata of the lateral thigh or the rectus fascia of the abdomen. The sling is placed beneath the urethra in the bladder neck region, and sutures affixed to the sling edges pass behind the pubic symphysis and through the abdominal fascia to anchor it in place.

Choose a sling based on the clinical situation and patient goals

Consider the unique features of each sling when selecting the proper sling; this should be a shared decision with the patient after thorough counseling. Below, we present 4 clinical cases to exemplify scenarios in which different slings are appropriate, and we review the rationale for each selection.

CASE 1 SUI that interferes with exercise routine

Ms. P. is a 46-year-old (G3P3) active mother. She loves to exercise, but she has been working out less frequently because of embarrassing urinary leakage that occurs with activity. She has tried pelvic floor exercises and changing her fluid intake habits, but improvements have been minimal with these interventions. On evaluation, she has a positive cough stress test with a recently emptied bladder and a normal postvoid residual volume.

What type of sling would be best?

Because this patient is young, active, and has significant leakage with an empty bladder, a sling with good long-term treatment success is likely to provide her with the best results (Figure 1). We therefore offered her a retropubic midurethral sling. The retropubic approach is preferred here as it is less likely than the transobturator sling to cause groin/thigh pain, which is an important consideration in this young, active patient.

Further testing is not needed

For women with uncomplicated SUI who demonstrate leakage with stress (coughing, Valsalva stress test) and who have a normal postvoid residual volume, additional testing, such as urodynamic evaluation, is not necessary.¹² These patients can be counseled on the range of conservative management options and as well as surgical inventions.

CASE 2 Return of SUI symptoms after transobturator sling placement

Ms. E. is a 70-year-old woman who had a transobturator sling placed 5 years ago. Initially, her SUI symptoms improved after surgery. Recently, however, she noticed a return of her SUI, which she finds bothersome and limiting to her quality of life.

How would you manage this patient?

While midurethral slings are highly effective, there are instances in which patients will have symptom recurrence. For women who already have a midurethral sling, consider the following important questions.

Is this truly recurrent SUI, or is it a new process?

Like any reconstructive procedure, midurethral sling success rates decline over time and recurrent SUI can develop.⁷ However, it also is possible for urge urinary incontinence to develop as a new process, and it is important to distinguish which type of urinary incontinence your patient has prior to counseling about treatment options.

To further evaluate patients with recurrent incontinence and a prior sling, we recommend urodynamic studies with cystoscopy (in addition to a detailed history and physical exam). This not only helps rule out other forms of incontinence, such as overactive bladder, but also evaluates for possible mesh erosion into the urethra or bladder, which can cause irritative voiding symptoms and incontinence.

Continue to: What type of sling did the patient have initially...

What type of sling did the patient have initially, and how does this impact a repeat procedure?

Regardless of the initial sling type used, repeat midurethral sling procedures have a significantly lower cure rate than primary midurethral sling procedures.¹³ Retropubic slings are more effective than transobturator slings for patients with recurrent SUI who have failed a prior sling. When a patient presents with recurrent SUI after a prior transobturator sling, the best option for a repeat procedure is usually a retropubic sling, as it achieves higher objective and subjective cure rates.^13,14 (See FIGURE 2 for a comparison of retropubic and transobturator slings.)


Should I remove the old sling prior to placing a new one?

While it is recommended to remove the vaginal portion of the sling if the patient has a mesh exposure or is experiencing other symptoms, such as pain or bleeding, removal of the old sling is not necessarily indicated prior to (or during) a repeat incontinence procedure.^15,16 Removing the sling, removing a portion of the sling, or leaving the sling in situ are all reasonable options.

CASE 3 Treated SUI has mesh exposure

Ms. R. is a 60-year-old woman with a history of SUI that was previously managed with a retropubic midurethral sling placed at an outside hospital. She is a smoker and has developed a vaginal mesh exposure. Although she would like the mesh removed, she does not want her incontinence to come back. She tells you that she does not think she would be able to quit smoking.

What would be a reasonable next option for Ms. R.?

While complications from a midurethral sling are rare, mesh exposures occur in approximately 2% of patients, and urinary retention requiring release of the sling occurs in about 1% of patients.^3,6 It often helps to clarify for patients that the US Food and Drug Administration public health advisories on the use of transvaginal mesh have been directed specifically toward the use of transvaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), not the use of mesh for midurethral slings for SUI or transabdominal mesh for POP.^10,17

When considering use of a mesh sling, a thorough discussion of the potential risks, as well as the benefits and alternatives, is imperative. Patients must personally balance the probability of benefit with the potential risk of complications, and while physicians can help outline the benefits and risks through shared decision-making, ultimately it is the patient who should make this decision.

Certain patient populations may be at higher risk for mesh complications¹⁸ (See "Risk factors for mesh-related complications," below). These complications are managed in various ways (FIGURE 3). Patients who have experienced mesh complications previously are typically not good candidates for a repeat mesh sling, particularly when the risk factor for complications cannot be modified.

A mesh sling alternative

The most effective way to manage SUI in patients who are not good candidates for a mesh sling is to consider employing a sling that uses the patient’s own tissue.^19-21 Common approaches include harvesting a graft of rectus fascia through a Pfannenstiel skin incision or using fascia lata from the patient’s iliotibial band in the lateral thigh. Autologous slings are safe and effective, and even after a mesh sling has failed, autologous slings have an almost 70% cure rate for SUI.^20,21

Continue to: Timing of mesh removal and placement of an autologous fascial sling...

Timing of mesh removal and placement of an autologous fascial sling

Either concomitant or delayed placement of a pubovaginal sling is acceptable when removing mesh, though this should be a joint decision with the patient after counseling. If the risk for surgical complications is modifiable (for example, poorly controlled diabetes that could be improved with blood glucose control), it may be advisable to delay the fascial sling until the risk factors have been addressed. Similarly, if the reason for mesh removal is pain, it may be advisable to remove the mesh prior to placing a new sling to ensure that the pain resolves completely. Otherwise, if pain persists, it can be unclear whether the new sling is contributing to the pain, and this may lead to difficulties treating pain or incontinence in the future.

In this patient, who was an active smoker, we excised the exposed mesh and concomitantly placed an autologous fascial sling utilizing rectus fascia. This maintained continence without introducing mesh in a high-risk patient.

CASE 4 POP and occult SUI

Ms. B. is a 79-year-old woman with stage 3 POP planned for surgical repair. While she does not report urinary leakage, preoperative urodynamic testing revealed occult SUI with reduction of her prolapse. Her priorities are to avoid needing another surgery and to limit the chances of postoperative leakage, but she is nervous about her postoperative recovery and wants to avoid pain.

What approach would be appropriate?

Consider a mini sling for this patient

The single-incision (mini) sling is an option to consider for patients with mild incontinence or for those without evidence of intrinsic sphincter deficiency. It is also a good option for those who want to avoid the additional incisions required for full-length slings.

While currently there is not sufficient evidence to clearly state if single-incision slings are equivalent to other slings, recent studies show that single-incision slings appear to be safe and effective in the short term, with possibly fewer complications than traditional transobturator slings.^22-24 As patients are often concerned about the potential for groin pain with a transobturator sling, a single-incision sling is an acceptable alternative that avoids groin incisions and also avoids the retropubic space.

Patient counseling is crucial

Regardless of the route, sling procedures are highly effective and safe for treating women with SUI.³ Understanding the characteristics of each type of sling and the distinct surgical approaches enables informed counseling for patients who are navigating the treatment options for SUI.

Urinary incontinence affects approximately 50% of women, with up to 80% of these women experiencing stress urinary incontinence (SUI) at some point in their lives.^1-3 While conservative measures can offer some improvement in symptoms, the mainstay of treatment for SUI is surgical intervention.^4,5 The lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for SUI is 13.6%, and surgery leads to a major improvement in quality of life and productivity.^1,6

Types of slings used for SUI

Sling procedures are the most commonly used surgical approach for the treatment of SUI. Two types of urethral slings are used: the midurethral sling and the autologous fascial (pubovaginal) sling. The midurethral sling, which is the most frequently used sling today, can be further characterized as the retropubic sling, the transobturator sling, and the mini sling (FIGURE 1).

Retropubic sling

A retropubic sling is a midurethral mesh sling that is placed beneath the urethra at the midpoint between the urethral meatus and the bladder neck. The arms of the sling extend behind the pubic symphysis, providing a hammock-like support that helps prevent leakage with increased abdominal pressures. The retropubic sling is the most commonly used type of sling. For women presenting with uncomplicated SUI who desire surgical correction, it often is the best choice for providing long-term treatment success.⁷

Transobturator sling

A transobturator sling is a midurethral mesh sling that is placed beneath the urethra as described above, but the arms of the sling extend outward through the obturator foramen and into the groin. This enables support of the midurethra, but this sling is less likely to result in such complications as bladder perforation or postoperative urinary retention. Transobturator slings also are associated with lower rates of voiding dysfunction and urinary urgency than retropubic slings.^7-9 However, transobturator slings have higher rates of groin pain, and they are less effective in maintaining long-term cure of SUI.⁷

First introduced in 1996, the midurethral sling quickly grew in popularity for the treatment of SUI because of its high success rates and its minimally invasive approach.¹⁰ Both retropubic and transobturator slings are safe, extensively researched surgical approaches for the management of SUI.³ Midurethral slings have a very high rate of incontinence cure (80%–90%) and extremely high patient satisfaction rates (85%–90%), as even patients without complete cure report meaningful symptomatic improvement.^7,8,11

Single-incision (mini) sling

A single-incision sling is a midurethral mesh sling that is designed to be shorter in length than standard midurethral slings. The placed sling lies under the midurethra and extends toward the superior edge of the obturator foramen but does not penetrate it. The sling is held in place by small pledgets on either side of the mesh hammock that anchor it in place to the obturator internus muscular fascia. Because this “mini” sling was introduced in 2006, fewer long-term data are available for this sling than for standard midurethral slings.

Continue to: Autologous (fascial) sling...

Autologous (fascial) sling

An autologous sling is a retropubic sling made from the patient’s own fascia; it is harvested from either the fascia lata of the lateral thigh or the rectus fascia of the abdomen. The sling is placed beneath the urethra in the bladder neck region, and sutures affixed to the sling edges pass behind the pubic symphysis and through the abdominal fascia to anchor it in place.

Choose a sling based on the clinical situation and patient goals

Consider the unique features of each sling when selecting the proper sling; this should be a shared decision with the patient after thorough counseling. Below, we present 4 clinical cases to exemplify scenarios in which different slings are appropriate, and we review the rationale for each selection.

CASE 1 SUI that interferes with exercise routine

Ms. P. is a 46-year-old (G3P3) active mother. She loves to exercise, but she has been working out less frequently because of embarrassing urinary leakage that occurs with activity. She has tried pelvic floor exercises and changing her fluid intake habits, but improvements have been minimal with these interventions. On evaluation, she has a positive cough stress test with a recently emptied bladder and a normal postvoid residual volume.

What type of sling would be best?

Because this patient is young, active, and has significant leakage with an empty bladder, a sling with good long-term treatment success is likely to provide her with the best results (Figure 1). We therefore offered her a retropubic midurethral sling. The retropubic approach is preferred here as it is less likely than the transobturator sling to cause groin/thigh pain, which is an important consideration in this young, active patient.

Further testing is not needed

For women with uncomplicated SUI who demonstrate leakage with stress (coughing, Valsalva stress test) and who have a normal postvoid residual volume, additional testing, such as urodynamic evaluation, is not necessary.¹² These patients can be counseled on the range of conservative management options and as well as surgical inventions.

CASE 2 Return of SUI symptoms after transobturator sling placement

Ms. E. is a 70-year-old woman who had a transobturator sling placed 5 years ago. Initially, her SUI symptoms improved after surgery. Recently, however, she noticed a return of her SUI, which she finds bothersome and limiting to her quality of life.

How would you manage this patient?

While midurethral slings are highly effective, there are instances in which patients will have symptom recurrence. For women who already have a midurethral sling, consider the following important questions.

Is this truly recurrent SUI, or is it a new process?

Like any reconstructive procedure, midurethral sling success rates decline over time and recurrent SUI can develop.⁷ However, it also is possible for urge urinary incontinence to develop as a new process, and it is important to distinguish which type of urinary incontinence your patient has prior to counseling about treatment options.

To further evaluate patients with recurrent incontinence and a prior sling, we recommend urodynamic studies with cystoscopy (in addition to a detailed history and physical exam). This not only helps rule out other forms of incontinence, such as overactive bladder, but also evaluates for possible mesh erosion into the urethra or bladder, which can cause irritative voiding symptoms and incontinence.

Continue to: What type of sling did the patient have initially...

What type of sling did the patient have initially, and how does this impact a repeat procedure?

Regardless of the initial sling type used, repeat midurethral sling procedures have a significantly lower cure rate than primary midurethral sling procedures.¹³ Retropubic slings are more effective than transobturator slings for patients with recurrent SUI who have failed a prior sling. When a patient presents with recurrent SUI after a prior transobturator sling, the best option for a repeat procedure is usually a retropubic sling, as it achieves higher objective and subjective cure rates.^13,14 (See FIGURE 2 for a comparison of retropubic and transobturator slings.)


Should I remove the old sling prior to placing a new one?

While it is recommended to remove the vaginal portion of the sling if the patient has a mesh exposure or is experiencing other symptoms, such as pain or bleeding, removal of the old sling is not necessarily indicated prior to (or during) a repeat incontinence procedure.^15,16 Removing the sling, removing a portion of the sling, or leaving the sling in situ are all reasonable options.

CASE 3 Treated SUI has mesh exposure

Ms. R. is a 60-year-old woman with a history of SUI that was previously managed with a retropubic midurethral sling placed at an outside hospital. She is a smoker and has developed a vaginal mesh exposure. Although she would like the mesh removed, she does not want her incontinence to come back. She tells you that she does not think she would be able to quit smoking.

What would be a reasonable next option for Ms. R.?

While complications from a midurethral sling are rare, mesh exposures occur in approximately 2% of patients, and urinary retention requiring release of the sling occurs in about 1% of patients.^3,6 It often helps to clarify for patients that the US Food and Drug Administration public health advisories on the use of transvaginal mesh have been directed specifically toward the use of transvaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), not the use of mesh for midurethral slings for SUI or transabdominal mesh for POP.^10,17

When considering use of a mesh sling, a thorough discussion of the potential risks, as well as the benefits and alternatives, is imperative. Patients must personally balance the probability of benefit with the potential risk of complications, and while physicians can help outline the benefits and risks through shared decision-making, ultimately it is the patient who should make this decision.

Certain patient populations may be at higher risk for mesh complications¹⁸ (See "Risk factors for mesh-related complications," below). These complications are managed in various ways (FIGURE 3). Patients who have experienced mesh complications previously are typically not good candidates for a repeat mesh sling, particularly when the risk factor for complications cannot be modified.

A mesh sling alternative

The most effective way to manage SUI in patients who are not good candidates for a mesh sling is to consider employing a sling that uses the patient’s own tissue.^19-21 Common approaches include harvesting a graft of rectus fascia through a Pfannenstiel skin incision or using fascia lata from the patient’s iliotibial band in the lateral thigh. Autologous slings are safe and effective, and even after a mesh sling has failed, autologous slings have an almost 70% cure rate for SUI.^20,21

Continue to: Timing of mesh removal and placement of an autologous fascial sling...

Timing of mesh removal and placement of an autologous fascial sling

Either concomitant or delayed placement of a pubovaginal sling is acceptable when removing mesh, though this should be a joint decision with the patient after counseling. If the risk for surgical complications is modifiable (for example, poorly controlled diabetes that could be improved with blood glucose control), it may be advisable to delay the fascial sling until the risk factors have been addressed. Similarly, if the reason for mesh removal is pain, it may be advisable to remove the mesh prior to placing a new sling to ensure that the pain resolves completely. Otherwise, if pain persists, it can be unclear whether the new sling is contributing to the pain, and this may lead to difficulties treating pain or incontinence in the future.

In this patient, who was an active smoker, we excised the exposed mesh and concomitantly placed an autologous fascial sling utilizing rectus fascia. This maintained continence without introducing mesh in a high-risk patient.

CASE 4 POP and occult SUI

Ms. B. is a 79-year-old woman with stage 3 POP planned for surgical repair. While she does not report urinary leakage, preoperative urodynamic testing revealed occult SUI with reduction of her prolapse. Her priorities are to avoid needing another surgery and to limit the chances of postoperative leakage, but she is nervous about her postoperative recovery and wants to avoid pain.

What approach would be appropriate?

Consider a mini sling for this patient

The single-incision (mini) sling is an option to consider for patients with mild incontinence or for those without evidence of intrinsic sphincter deficiency. It is also a good option for those who want to avoid the additional incisions required for full-length slings.

While currently there is not sufficient evidence to clearly state if single-incision slings are equivalent to other slings, recent studies show that single-incision slings appear to be safe and effective in the short term, with possibly fewer complications than traditional transobturator slings.^22-24 As patients are often concerned about the potential for groin pain with a transobturator sling, a single-incision sling is an acceptable alternative that avoids groin incisions and also avoids the retropubic space.

Patient counseling is crucial

Regardless of the route, sling procedures are highly effective and safe for treating women with SUI.³ Understanding the characteristics of each type of sling and the distinct surgical approaches enables informed counseling for patients who are navigating the treatment options for SUI.

Urinary incontinence affects approximately 50% of women, with up to 80% of these women experiencing stress urinary incontinence (SUI) at some point in their lives.^1-3 While conservative measures can offer some improvement in symptoms, the mainstay of treatment for SUI is surgical intervention.^4,5 The lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for SUI is 13.6%, and surgery leads to a major improvement in quality of life and productivity.^1,6

Types of slings used for SUI

Sling procedures are the most commonly used surgical approach for the treatment of SUI. Two types of urethral slings are used: the midurethral sling and the autologous fascial (pubovaginal) sling. The midurethral sling, which is the most frequently used sling today, can be further characterized as the retropubic sling, the transobturator sling, and the mini sling (FIGURE 1).

Retropubic sling

A retropubic sling is a midurethral mesh sling that is placed beneath the urethra at the midpoint between the urethral meatus and the bladder neck. The arms of the sling extend behind the pubic symphysis, providing a hammock-like support that helps prevent leakage with increased abdominal pressures. The retropubic sling is the most commonly used type of sling. For women presenting with uncomplicated SUI who desire surgical correction, it often is the best choice for providing long-term treatment success.⁷

Transobturator sling

A transobturator sling is a midurethral mesh sling that is placed beneath the urethra as described above, but the arms of the sling extend outward through the obturator foramen and into the groin. This enables support of the midurethra, but this sling is less likely to result in such complications as bladder perforation or postoperative urinary retention. Transobturator slings also are associated with lower rates of voiding dysfunction and urinary urgency than retropubic slings.^7-9 However, transobturator slings have higher rates of groin pain, and they are less effective in maintaining long-term cure of SUI.⁷

First introduced in 1996, the midurethral sling quickly grew in popularity for the treatment of SUI because of its high success rates and its minimally invasive approach.¹⁰ Both retropubic and transobturator slings are safe, extensively researched surgical approaches for the management of SUI.³ Midurethral slings have a very high rate of incontinence cure (80%–90%) and extremely high patient satisfaction rates (85%–90%), as even patients without complete cure report meaningful symptomatic improvement.^7,8,11

Single-incision (mini) sling

A single-incision sling is a midurethral mesh sling that is designed to be shorter in length than standard midurethral slings. The placed sling lies under the midurethra and extends toward the superior edge of the obturator foramen but does not penetrate it. The sling is held in place by small pledgets on either side of the mesh hammock that anchor it in place to the obturator internus muscular fascia. Because this “mini” sling was introduced in 2006, fewer long-term data are available for this sling than for standard midurethral slings.

Continue to: Autologous (fascial) sling...