OBG Management

Real progress was achieved in 2018 in the effort to reduce the US maternal mortality rate, the highest of any developed nation and where women of color are 3 to 4 times more likely than others to die of childbirth-related causes. Importantly, the United States is the only nation other than Afghanistan and Sudan where the rate is rising.¹

In May 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a Vital Signs document focused on preventable maternal deaths.² It affirmed that about 60% of the 700 pregnancy-related deaths that occur annually in the United States are preventable, and it provided important information on when and why these deaths occur.

Among the CDC findings, about:

• one-third of deaths (31%) occurred during pregnancy (before delivery)
• one-third (36%) occurred at delivery or in the week after
• one-third (33%) occurred 1 week to 1 year postpartum.

In addition, the CDC highlighted that:

• Heart disease and stroke caused more than 1 in 3 deaths (34%). Infections and severe bleeding were other leading causes of death.
• Black and American Indian/Alaska Native women were about 3 times as likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause as white women.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), under the leadership of President Lisa Hollier, MD, MPH (2018–2019), fully embraced the challenge and responsibility of meaningfully improving health care for every mom. In this article, I review some of the critical steps taken in 2018 and preview ACOG’s continued commitment for 2019 and beyond.

Efforts succeed: Bills are now laws of the land

ACOG and our partner organizations, including the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the March of Dimes, have long recognized the value of state-based maternal mortality review committees (MMRCs) in slowing and reversing the rate of maternal mortality. An MMRC brings together local experts to examine the causes of maternal deaths—not to find fault, but to find ways to prevent future deaths. With the right framework and support, MMRCs already are providing us with data and driving policy recommendations.

Supporting MMRCs in all states. With this in mind, ACOG helped pass and push to enactment HR 1318, the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act of 2018 (Public Law No. 115-344), a bipartisan bill designed to help develop and provide support for MMRCs in every state. The bill was introduced in the US House of Representatives by Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) and Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and in the US Senate by Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV). ACOG Fellow and US Rep. Michael Burgess, MD (R-TX), also was instrumental in the bill’s success. The CDC is actively working toward implementation of this law, and grantees are expected to be announced by the end of September.

Continue to: In addition, ACOG worked with Congress...

In addition, ACOG worked with Congress to secure $50 million in federal funding to reduce maternal mortality, allocated thusly:

• $12 million to support state MMRCs
• $3 million to support the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health
• $23 million for State Maternal Health Innovation Program grants
• $12 million to address maternal mortality in the Healthy Start program.

As these federal congressional initiatives worked their way into law, the states actively supported MMRCs as well. As of this writing, only 3 states—North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming—have not yet developed an MMRC.³

Filling the gaps in ObGyn care. Another key ACOG-sponsored bill signed into law will help bring more ObGyns into shortage areas. Sponsored by Rep. Burgess, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), and Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) and by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the Improving Access to Maternity Care Act (Public Law No. 115-320) requires the Department of Health and Human Services to identify maternity health professional target areas for use by the National Health Service Corps to bring ObGyns to where they are most needed.

Following up on that new law, ACOG currently is working closely with the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and the National Rural Health Association (NRHA) on the unique challenges women in rural areas face in accessing maternity and other women’s health care services. In June, Dr. Hollier represented ACOG at the Rural Maternal Health forum, which was convened by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and sponsored by ACOG, AAFP, and NRHA.⁴ We are pursuing policies designed to increase the number of ObGyns and other physicians who choose to train in rural areas and increase the clinical use of telehealth to help connect rural physicians and patients with subspecialists in urban areas.

Projects in the works

Congress is ready to do more. Already, 5 ACOG-supported bills have been introduced, including bills that extend women’s Medicaid coverage to 12 months postpartum (consistent with coverage for babies), support state perinatal quality collaboratives, and more. This interest is augmented by the work of the recently formed congressional Black Maternal Health Caucus, focused on reducing racial disparities in health care. In July, ACOG joined 12 members of Congress in a caucus summit to partner with these important congressional allies.

ACOG is expanding support for these legislative efforts through our work with another important ally, the American Medical Association (AMA). ACOG’s delegation to the 2019 Annual Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates in June scored important policy wins, including AMA support for Medicaid coverage for women 12 months postpartum and improving access to care in rural communities.

There is momentum on Capitol Hill to take action on these important issues, and ACOG’s priority is to ensure that any legislative package complements the important work many ObGyns are already doing to improve maternal health outcomes. ACOG has an important seat at the table and will continue to advocate each and every day for your practices and your patients as Congress deliberates legislative action.

Continue to: Your voice matters...

Your voice matters

Encourage your representatives in the House and the Senate to support ACOG-endorsed legislation and be sure they know the importance of ensuring access to women’s health care in your community. Get involved in advocacy; start by visiting the ACOG advocacy web page (www.acog.org/advocacy). Also note that members of Congress are back in their home states during seasonal breaks and many hold town halls and constituent meetings. The health of moms and babies is always an important issue, and you are the expert.

ACOG’s commitment to ensuring healthy moms and babies, and ensuring that our members can continue providing high-quality care, runs through everything we do.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks ACOG former Vice President for Health Policy Barbara Levy, MD, ACOG Senior Director Jeanne Mahoney, and ACOG Federal Affairs Director Rachel Tetlow for their helpful review and comments.

Real progress was achieved in 2018 in the effort to reduce the US maternal mortality rate, the highest of any developed nation and where women of color are 3 to 4 times more likely than others to die of childbirth-related causes. Importantly, the United States is the only nation other than Afghanistan and Sudan where the rate is rising.¹

In May 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a Vital Signs document focused on preventable maternal deaths.² It affirmed that about 60% of the 700 pregnancy-related deaths that occur annually in the United States are preventable, and it provided important information on when and why these deaths occur.

Among the CDC findings, about:

• one-third of deaths (31%) occurred during pregnancy (before delivery)
• one-third (36%) occurred at delivery or in the week after
• one-third (33%) occurred 1 week to 1 year postpartum.

In addition, the CDC highlighted that:

• Heart disease and stroke caused more than 1 in 3 deaths (34%). Infections and severe bleeding were other leading causes of death.
• Black and American Indian/Alaska Native women were about 3 times as likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause as white women.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), under the leadership of President Lisa Hollier, MD, MPH (2018–2019), fully embraced the challenge and responsibility of meaningfully improving health care for every mom. In this article, I review some of the critical steps taken in 2018 and preview ACOG’s continued commitment for 2019 and beyond.

Efforts succeed: Bills are now laws of the land

ACOG and our partner organizations, including the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the March of Dimes, have long recognized the value of state-based maternal mortality review committees (MMRCs) in slowing and reversing the rate of maternal mortality. An MMRC brings together local experts to examine the causes of maternal deaths—not to find fault, but to find ways to prevent future deaths. With the right framework and support, MMRCs already are providing us with data and driving policy recommendations.

Supporting MMRCs in all states. With this in mind, ACOG helped pass and push to enactment HR 1318, the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act of 2018 (Public Law No. 115-344), a bipartisan bill designed to help develop and provide support for MMRCs in every state. The bill was introduced in the US House of Representatives by Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) and Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and in the US Senate by Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV). ACOG Fellow and US Rep. Michael Burgess, MD (R-TX), also was instrumental in the bill’s success. The CDC is actively working toward implementation of this law, and grantees are expected to be announced by the end of September.

Continue to: In addition, ACOG worked with Congress...

In addition, ACOG worked with Congress to secure $50 million in federal funding to reduce maternal mortality, allocated thusly:

• $12 million to support state MMRCs
• $3 million to support the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health
• $23 million for State Maternal Health Innovation Program grants
• $12 million to address maternal mortality in the Healthy Start program.

As these federal congressional initiatives worked their way into law, the states actively supported MMRCs as well. As of this writing, only 3 states—North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming—have not yet developed an MMRC.³

Filling the gaps in ObGyn care. Another key ACOG-sponsored bill signed into law will help bring more ObGyns into shortage areas. Sponsored by Rep. Burgess, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), and Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) and by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the Improving Access to Maternity Care Act (Public Law No. 115-320) requires the Department of Health and Human Services to identify maternity health professional target areas for use by the National Health Service Corps to bring ObGyns to where they are most needed.

Following up on that new law, ACOG currently is working closely with the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and the National Rural Health Association (NRHA) on the unique challenges women in rural areas face in accessing maternity and other women’s health care services. In June, Dr. Hollier represented ACOG at the Rural Maternal Health forum, which was convened by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and sponsored by ACOG, AAFP, and NRHA.⁴ We are pursuing policies designed to increase the number of ObGyns and other physicians who choose to train in rural areas and increase the clinical use of telehealth to help connect rural physicians and patients with subspecialists in urban areas.

Projects in the works

Congress is ready to do more. Already, 5 ACOG-supported bills have been introduced, including bills that extend women’s Medicaid coverage to 12 months postpartum (consistent with coverage for babies), support state perinatal quality collaboratives, and more. This interest is augmented by the work of the recently formed congressional Black Maternal Health Caucus, focused on reducing racial disparities in health care. In July, ACOG joined 12 members of Congress in a caucus summit to partner with these important congressional allies.

ACOG is expanding support for these legislative efforts through our work with another important ally, the American Medical Association (AMA). ACOG’s delegation to the 2019 Annual Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates in June scored important policy wins, including AMA support for Medicaid coverage for women 12 months postpartum and improving access to care in rural communities.

There is momentum on Capitol Hill to take action on these important issues, and ACOG’s priority is to ensure that any legislative package complements the important work many ObGyns are already doing to improve maternal health outcomes. ACOG has an important seat at the table and will continue to advocate each and every day for your practices and your patients as Congress deliberates legislative action.

Continue to: Your voice matters...

Your voice matters

Encourage your representatives in the House and the Senate to support ACOG-endorsed legislation and be sure they know the importance of ensuring access to women’s health care in your community. Get involved in advocacy; start by visiting the ACOG advocacy web page (www.acog.org/advocacy). Also note that members of Congress are back in their home states during seasonal breaks and many hold town halls and constituent meetings. The health of moms and babies is always an important issue, and you are the expert.

ACOG’s commitment to ensuring healthy moms and babies, and ensuring that our members can continue providing high-quality care, runs through everything we do.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks ACOG former Vice President for Health Policy Barbara Levy, MD, ACOG Senior Director Jeanne Mahoney, and ACOG Federal Affairs Director Rachel Tetlow for their helpful review and comments.

Real progress was achieved in 2018 in the effort to reduce the US maternal mortality rate, the highest of any developed nation and where women of color are 3 to 4 times more likely than others to die of childbirth-related causes. Importantly, the United States is the only nation other than Afghanistan and Sudan where the rate is rising.¹

In May 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a Vital Signs document focused on preventable maternal deaths.² It affirmed that about 60% of the 700 pregnancy-related deaths that occur annually in the United States are preventable, and it provided important information on when and why these deaths occur.

Among the CDC findings, about:

• one-third of deaths (31%) occurred during pregnancy (before delivery)
• one-third (36%) occurred at delivery or in the week after
• one-third (33%) occurred 1 week to 1 year postpartum.

In addition, the CDC highlighted that:

• Heart disease and stroke caused more than 1 in 3 deaths (34%). Infections and severe bleeding were other leading causes of death.
• Black and American Indian/Alaska Native women were about 3 times as likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause as white women.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), under the leadership of President Lisa Hollier, MD, MPH (2018–2019), fully embraced the challenge and responsibility of meaningfully improving health care for every mom. In this article, I review some of the critical steps taken in 2018 and preview ACOG’s continued commitment for 2019 and beyond.

Efforts succeed: Bills are now laws of the land

ACOG and our partner organizations, including the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the March of Dimes, have long recognized the value of state-based maternal mortality review committees (MMRCs) in slowing and reversing the rate of maternal mortality. An MMRC brings together local experts to examine the causes of maternal deaths—not to find fault, but to find ways to prevent future deaths. With the right framework and support, MMRCs already are providing us with data and driving policy recommendations.

Supporting MMRCs in all states. With this in mind, ACOG helped pass and push to enactment HR 1318, the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act of 2018 (Public Law No. 115-344), a bipartisan bill designed to help develop and provide support for MMRCs in every state. The bill was introduced in the US House of Representatives by Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) and Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and in the US Senate by Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV). ACOG Fellow and US Rep. Michael Burgess, MD (R-TX), also was instrumental in the bill’s success. The CDC is actively working toward implementation of this law, and grantees are expected to be announced by the end of September.

Continue to: In addition, ACOG worked with Congress...

In addition, ACOG worked with Congress to secure $50 million in federal funding to reduce maternal mortality, allocated thusly:

• $12 million to support state MMRCs
• $3 million to support the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health
• $23 million for State Maternal Health Innovation Program grants
• $12 million to address maternal mortality in the Healthy Start program.

As these federal congressional initiatives worked their way into law, the states actively supported MMRCs as well. As of this writing, only 3 states—North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming—have not yet developed an MMRC.³

Filling the gaps in ObGyn care. Another key ACOG-sponsored bill signed into law will help bring more ObGyns into shortage areas. Sponsored by Rep. Burgess, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), and Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) and by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the Improving Access to Maternity Care Act (Public Law No. 115-320) requires the Department of Health and Human Services to identify maternity health professional target areas for use by the National Health Service Corps to bring ObGyns to where they are most needed.

Following up on that new law, ACOG currently is working closely with the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and the National Rural Health Association (NRHA) on the unique challenges women in rural areas face in accessing maternity and other women’s health care services. In June, Dr. Hollier represented ACOG at the Rural Maternal Health forum, which was convened by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and sponsored by ACOG, AAFP, and NRHA.⁴ We are pursuing policies designed to increase the number of ObGyns and other physicians who choose to train in rural areas and increase the clinical use of telehealth to help connect rural physicians and patients with subspecialists in urban areas.

Projects in the works

Congress is ready to do more. Already, 5 ACOG-supported bills have been introduced, including bills that extend women’s Medicaid coverage to 12 months postpartum (consistent with coverage for babies), support state perinatal quality collaboratives, and more. This interest is augmented by the work of the recently formed congressional Black Maternal Health Caucus, focused on reducing racial disparities in health care. In July, ACOG joined 12 members of Congress in a caucus summit to partner with these important congressional allies.

ACOG is expanding support for these legislative efforts through our work with another important ally, the American Medical Association (AMA). ACOG’s delegation to the 2019 Annual Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates in June scored important policy wins, including AMA support for Medicaid coverage for women 12 months postpartum and improving access to care in rural communities.

There is momentum on Capitol Hill to take action on these important issues, and ACOG’s priority is to ensure that any legislative package complements the important work many ObGyns are already doing to improve maternal health outcomes. ACOG has an important seat at the table and will continue to advocate each and every day for your practices and your patients as Congress deliberates legislative action.

Continue to: Your voice matters...

Your voice matters

Encourage your representatives in the House and the Senate to support ACOG-endorsed legislation and be sure they know the importance of ensuring access to women’s health care in your community. Get involved in advocacy; start by visiting the ACOG advocacy web page (www.acog.org/advocacy). Also note that members of Congress are back in their home states during seasonal breaks and many hold town halls and constituent meetings. The health of moms and babies is always an important issue, and you are the expert.

ACOG’s commitment to ensuring healthy moms and babies, and ensuring that our members can continue providing high-quality care, runs through everything we do.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks ACOG former Vice President for Health Policy Barbara Levy, MD, ACOG Senior Director Jeanne Mahoney, and ACOG Federal Affairs Director Rachel Tetlow for their helpful review and comments.

Fecal incontinence (FI), also known as accidental bowel leakage, is the involuntary loss of feces, which includes both liquid and solid stool as defined by the International Continence Society (ICS) and the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).^1,2 Fecal incontinence is common, occurring in 7% to 25% of community-dwelling women, and it increases with age.^2-6 The condition is rarely addressed, with only 30% of women seeking care.^6-8 This is due to patient embarrassment and the lack of a reliable screening tool. However, FI affects quality of life and mental health, and the associated economic burden likely will rise given the increased prevalence of FI among older women.^2,4,7,9

Fecal incontinence occurs due to poor stool consistency, anal and pelvic muscle weakness, reduced rectal compliance, reduced or increased rectal sensation, or bowel inflammation or dysfunction. Many conditions can cause FI (TABLE 1).^5,10,11 It is therefore important to elicit a full medical history with a focus on specific bowel symptoms, such as stool consistency type (TABLE 2),¹² FI frequency, and duration of symptoms, as well as to perform a complete examination to identify any readily reversible or malignant causes. A colonoscopy is recommended for individuals who meet screening criteria or present with a change in bowel symptoms, such as diarrhea, bleeding, or obstruction.^13,14

Fecal incontinence treatments include a range of approaches categorized from conservative, or first-line therapy, to fourth-line surgical managements (FIGURE 1).^1,10,13,14 In this Update, we review the results of 3 well-designed trials that enrolled women with frequent nonneurogenic FI. 

Common first- and second-line treatments produce equivalent improvements in FI symptoms at
6 months 

Jelovsek JE, Markland AD, Whitehead WE, et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Controlling faecal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide: a randomized clinical trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:698-710. 

In a multicenter, randomized trial of first- and second-line treatments for FI, Jelovsek and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of oral placebo, loperamide, pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) with biofeedback using anorectal manometry, or combination therapy over a 24-week period. 

Continue to: Four treatments compared...

Three hundred women with FI occurring monthly for 3 months were included in the trial. Women were excluded if they had a stool classification of type 1 or type 7 on the Bristol Stool Scale, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), history of rectovaginal fistula or cloacal defect, rectal prolapse, prior bowel diversion, fecal impaction, neurologic disorder leading to incontinence, use of loperamide or diphenoxylate within the last 30 days, childbirth within the last 3 months, need for antiretroviral drugs, hepatic impairment, or chronic abdominal pain without diarrhea. 

Baseline characteristics and symptoms severity were similar among participants. The average age of the women was 63 years, with 79% white and 85% postmenopausal. Participants had a mean (SD) of 1.6 (1.8) leaks per day. 

Participants were randomly assigned in a 0.5:1:1:1 fashion to receive oral placebo, loperamide, oral placebo with PFPT/biofeedback, or loperamide with PFPT/biofeedback. All participants received a standardized educational pamphlet that outlined dietary and behavioral recommendations. 

Women assigned to PFPT/biofeedback received 6 sessions every other week. Loperamide was started at a dosage of 2 mg per day with the possibility of dose maintenance, escalation, reduction, or discontinuation. 

Study outcomes. The primary outcome was a change from baseline to 24 weeks in the Vaizey FI symptom severity score, which assesses fecal frequency, urgency, and use of pads and medications. Secondary outcomes included assessment of a 7-day bowel diary and other quality-of-life measures. Data at 24 weeks were available for 89% of the women. 

All treatment groups experienced improved FI symptoms 

Based on changes in Vaizey scores after 24 weeks of treatment, women in all treatment groups had similar improvement in symptoms severity. However, those who received loperamide and PFPT/biofeedback had decreased pad changes per week and more accident-free days compared with women treated with placebo and biofeedback. Quality of life at 24 weeks was not statistically different between treatment groups as improvement was seen in all groups, including those who received oral placebo and patient education. 

Adverse events. The proportion of gastrointestinal adverse effects was similar between treatment groups, ranging from 45% to 63%. Constipation was the most common adverse event overall and was more common in those taking loperamide, occurring in 51% of the loperamide plus PFPT/biofeedback group, 38% of those who received loperamide alone, 23% of the biofeedback with placebo group, and 12% of the placebo-alone group. 

Strengths and limitations. Strengths of this study include its multisite, large sample size, low dropout rate, and sufficiently powered design to compare various combinations of first- and second-line therapies in women with a mean baseline FI of 1.6 leaks per day. Another strength is the robustness of the PFPT/biofeedback sessions that used anorectal manometry. This may, however, limit the study's external validity given that clinical use of this device is likely rare. Additionally, the population was comprised largely of postmenopausal and white women, which may make the findings less generalizable to other populations. 

Continue to: Novel vaginal bowel control system...

Novel vaginal bowel control system is effective, durable over 12 months for FI treatment 

Richter HE, Dunivan G, Brown HW, et al. A 12-month clinical durability of effectiveness and safety evaluation of a vaginal bowel control system for the nonsurgical treatment of fecal incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25:113-119. 

Richter and colleagues characterized clinical success, effect on quality of life, and durability over 12 months of a novel vaginal bowel control device (Eclipse System; Pelvalon) for FI in a prospective cohort study. The device is a silicone-coated vaginal insert with a detachable pump and balloon that deflects the rectovaginal septum posteriorly, thus impeding the passage of stool in the rectum (FIGURE 2). 

Study eligibility criteria and treatment protocol 

Women were eligible for the study if they had 4 or more episodes of fecal soiling on a 2-week bowel diary and had FI for at least 6 months. Participants were excluded if they had prolapse outside the hymen, rectovaginal fistula, IBD, congenital anorectal malformation, urinary or colorectal infection, chronic pelvic or anorectal pain, pregnancy or planning pregnancy in the next 5 months, unmanaged chronic watery diarrhea, presence of an open wound or tear in the vagina, significant urogenital atrophy, or any psychiatric or neurologic disorder that would hinder the ability to participate. 

Participants successfully fitted with the device (3 attempts were allowed) were entered into the study's run-in phase. Those who were successfully fitted and had a 50% or greater reduction in FI continued into the treatment phase with 12 months of follow-up. 

Of the 137 women eligible for device fitting, 62% were successfully fitted. The 73 (86%) women who had a 50% or greater reduction in FI during the run-in period comprised the intent-to-treat study population. On average, these women were 61.3 years of age, with 70% white and 82% postmenopausal. At baseline, they had a mean of 14.1 episodes of FI over 2 weeks. (Prior to enrollment, 97.3% of women attempted self-management strategies, 17.8% to 23% failed conservative therapy, and 7.8% to 13.7% failed surgical therapy.) The follow-up rate at 12 months was 74%. 

Study outcomes. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as proportion of subjects with a 50% or greater reduction in FI episodes at 3 months; this outcome also was evaluated at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the number of FI episodes and quality-of-life measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. 

Treatment success, patient satisfaction high 

In the treatment phase, women had sustained improvements in symptom severity and quality-of-life measures over 12 months. Treatment success was 73% at 3 months, 71% at 6 months, and 70% at 12 months. Complete continence was achieved in 46% of participants at 12 months, and major FI episodes (requiring immediate change of undergarments) decreased from 5.0 at baseline to 0.5 at 12 months. Quality-of-life measures were improved at 3 months, and improvement was sustained over 12 months. Satisfaction was 94% at 12 months. 

Adverse events. No serious device-related adverse events occurred. Mild device-related adverse events were experienced by 45% of women during the fitting process and by 38% during treatment period. These included vaginal wall injury such as hyperemia and erosion; vaginal or pelvic discomfort; vaginal infection; constipation; and lower urinary tract issues such as urinary tract infection, urinary incontinence, and voiding dysfunction. No adverse events led to treatment discontinuation. 

Strengths and limitations. Strengths of this study include that it was conducted at multiple clinical sites, had a large sample size, and had a 1-year follow-up period in a population with daily FI. A limitation was that only women who had a 50% or greater reduction in FI episodes during the run-in period were followed for 12 months; however, this was 86% of the original cohort. The use of a comparative group using other devices, such as anal plugs, would have strengthened this study. 

Continue to: Sacroneuromodulation for FI…

Sacral neuromodulation for FI is effective long-term 

Hull T, Giese C, Wexner SD, et al; for the SNS Study Group. Long-term durability of sacral nerve stimulation therapy for chronic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:234-245. 

In this multicenter, prospective cohort study, Hull and colleagues evaluated the 5-year efficacy of sacral neuromodulation (SNM), also known as sacral nerve stimulation, for treatment of FI. This study followed an earlier investigation by Wexner and colleagues, which reported that 83% of 120 patients treated with SNM had a 50% or greater improvement in FI episodes at 12 months.¹⁶ 

Details of the study 

The investigators enrolled 133 participants (92% female) who had more than 2 episodes of FI per week for longer than 6 months (12 months after vaginal delivery). Participants were excluded if they had congenital anorectal malformations, prior rectal surgery within the past 12 months (or 24 months if due to cancer), defects greater than 120° of the external anal sphincter (EAS), IBD, unmanaged chronic watery diarrhea, stool consistency type 6 or type 7 on the Bristol Stool Scale, sequela of pelvic radiation, active anal abscess or fistula, pregnancy, or planned pregnancy. 

Eligible participants underwent a 2-stage procedure with the InterStim bowel control device (Medtronic). If participants experienced a 50% or greater reduction in incontinence episodes with a wearable external SNM device in the test stimulation (stage 1), they received the chronic SNM implant device (stage 2). 

Participants who underwent device implantation were followed at 1, 3, and 6 months and annually for 5 years or until they exited the study. Bowel diaries and quality of life assessments were completed at baseline and at follow-up. 

The primary outcome was therapeutic success, defined as 50% or greater improvement in FI episodes per week. 

A total of 120 participants (90%) underwent implantation of the chronic lead and neuromodulator, and 76 (63%) were followed for 5 years. Baseline characteristics available in the initial study of 133 participants showed that the mean age was 60.5 years; 25% had undergone a prior anal sphincteroplasty; and 16.5% and 10.5% had EAS or internal anal sphincter (IAS) defects, respectively, on endoanal ultrasonography.¹⁶ 

Therapeutic success was high at 5 years 

At the 5-year follow-up, 89% (64/72) of participants met therapeutic success, with a reduction in weekly FI episodes from 9.1 at baseline to 1.7 at 5 years. The number of incontinence pads required decreased, and more participants wore no pads at 5 years. In the intention-to-treat analysis, carrying forward the baseline FI rate in participants who lacked follow-up data, the therapeutic success rate was 69%. Quality-of-life measures improved at 5 years, both statistically and by minimal clinical difference. 

Adverse events. Sixty-eight percent of participants experienced device-related adverse events, including implant site pain, change in sensation of stimulation, change in efficacy, implant site infection, or neurostimulator battery depletion (neurostimulator use commonly expires after 3 to 5 years). Of these events, 80% were successfully treated with medications, reprogramming, or no intervention. The 5-year probability of device revision or replacement was 24.4%, and the 5-year probability of device explant was 19.0%. 

Strengths and limitations. Overall, this study was a well-designed, multicenter trial with long-term follow-up that showed significant improvement in FI with the use of SNM. Its strengths include the enrollment of postmenopausal women who had current defects in EAS and/or IAS on endoanal ultrasonography and 25% who had a prior sphincteroplasty. The findings therefore are relevant to the gynecologic population in whom anal sphincteroplasty would not be recommended. The study also accounted for dropouts and reported the adjusted success rate of 69% at 5 years in that group. 

The lack of a control arm to rule out the placebo effect is a limitation of this study, although randomized trials comparing the effect of SNM "on" versus "off" showed greater improvement with the device "on."¹⁷ 

Fecal incontinence (FI), also known as accidental bowel leakage, is the involuntary loss of feces, which includes both liquid and solid stool as defined by the International Continence Society (ICS) and the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).^1,2 Fecal incontinence is common, occurring in 7% to 25% of community-dwelling women, and it increases with age.^2-6 The condition is rarely addressed, with only 30% of women seeking care.^6-8 This is due to patient embarrassment and the lack of a reliable screening tool. However, FI affects quality of life and mental health, and the associated economic burden likely will rise given the increased prevalence of FI among older women.^2,4,7,9

Fecal incontinence occurs due to poor stool consistency, anal and pelvic muscle weakness, reduced rectal compliance, reduced or increased rectal sensation, or bowel inflammation or dysfunction. Many conditions can cause FI (TABLE 1).^5,10,11 It is therefore important to elicit a full medical history with a focus on specific bowel symptoms, such as stool consistency type (TABLE 2),¹² FI frequency, and duration of symptoms, as well as to perform a complete examination to identify any readily reversible or malignant causes. A colonoscopy is recommended for individuals who meet screening criteria or present with a change in bowel symptoms, such as diarrhea, bleeding, or obstruction.^13,14

Fecal incontinence treatments include a range of approaches categorized from conservative, or first-line therapy, to fourth-line surgical managements (FIGURE 1).^1,10,13,14 In this Update, we review the results of 3 well-designed trials that enrolled women with frequent nonneurogenic FI. 

Common first- and second-line treatments produce equivalent improvements in FI symptoms at
6 months 

Jelovsek JE, Markland AD, Whitehead WE, et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Controlling faecal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide: a randomized clinical trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:698-710. 

In a multicenter, randomized trial of first- and second-line treatments for FI, Jelovsek and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of oral placebo, loperamide, pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) with biofeedback using anorectal manometry, or combination therapy over a 24-week period. 

Continue to: Four treatments compared...

Three hundred women with FI occurring monthly for 3 months were included in the trial. Women were excluded if they had a stool classification of type 1 or type 7 on the Bristol Stool Scale, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), history of rectovaginal fistula or cloacal defect, rectal prolapse, prior bowel diversion, fecal impaction, neurologic disorder leading to incontinence, use of loperamide or diphenoxylate within the last 30 days, childbirth within the last 3 months, need for antiretroviral drugs, hepatic impairment, or chronic abdominal pain without diarrhea. 

Baseline characteristics and symptoms severity were similar among participants. The average age of the women was 63 years, with 79% white and 85% postmenopausal. Participants had a mean (SD) of 1.6 (1.8) leaks per day. 

Participants were randomly assigned in a 0.5:1:1:1 fashion to receive oral placebo, loperamide, oral placebo with PFPT/biofeedback, or loperamide with PFPT/biofeedback. All participants received a standardized educational pamphlet that outlined dietary and behavioral recommendations. 

Women assigned to PFPT/biofeedback received 6 sessions every other week. Loperamide was started at a dosage of 2 mg per day with the possibility of dose maintenance, escalation, reduction, or discontinuation. 

Study outcomes. The primary outcome was a change from baseline to 24 weeks in the Vaizey FI symptom severity score, which assesses fecal frequency, urgency, and use of pads and medications. Secondary outcomes included assessment of a 7-day bowel diary and other quality-of-life measures. Data at 24 weeks were available for 89% of the women. 

All treatment groups experienced improved FI symptoms 

Based on changes in Vaizey scores after 24 weeks of treatment, women in all treatment groups had similar improvement in symptoms severity. However, those who received loperamide and PFPT/biofeedback had decreased pad changes per week and more accident-free days compared with women treated with placebo and biofeedback. Quality of life at 24 weeks was not statistically different between treatment groups as improvement was seen in all groups, including those who received oral placebo and patient education. 

Adverse events. The proportion of gastrointestinal adverse effects was similar between treatment groups, ranging from 45% to 63%. Constipation was the most common adverse event overall and was more common in those taking loperamide, occurring in 51% of the loperamide plus PFPT/biofeedback group, 38% of those who received loperamide alone, 23% of the biofeedback with placebo group, and 12% of the placebo-alone group. 

Strengths and limitations. Strengths of this study include its multisite, large sample size, low dropout rate, and sufficiently powered design to compare various combinations of first- and second-line therapies in women with a mean baseline FI of 1.6 leaks per day. Another strength is the robustness of the PFPT/biofeedback sessions that used anorectal manometry. This may, however, limit the study's external validity given that clinical use of this device is likely rare. Additionally, the population was comprised largely of postmenopausal and white women, which may make the findings less generalizable to other populations. 

Continue to: Novel vaginal bowel control system...

Novel vaginal bowel control system is effective, durable over 12 months for FI treatment 

Richter HE, Dunivan G, Brown HW, et al. A 12-month clinical durability of effectiveness and safety evaluation of a vaginal bowel control system for the nonsurgical treatment of fecal incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25:113-119. 

Richter and colleagues characterized clinical success, effect on quality of life, and durability over 12 months of a novel vaginal bowel control device (Eclipse System; Pelvalon) for FI in a prospective cohort study. The device is a silicone-coated vaginal insert with a detachable pump and balloon that deflects the rectovaginal septum posteriorly, thus impeding the passage of stool in the rectum (FIGURE 2). 

Study eligibility criteria and treatment protocol 

Women were eligible for the study if they had 4 or more episodes of fecal soiling on a 2-week bowel diary and had FI for at least 6 months. Participants were excluded if they had prolapse outside the hymen, rectovaginal fistula, IBD, congenital anorectal malformation, urinary or colorectal infection, chronic pelvic or anorectal pain, pregnancy or planning pregnancy in the next 5 months, unmanaged chronic watery diarrhea, presence of an open wound or tear in the vagina, significant urogenital atrophy, or any psychiatric or neurologic disorder that would hinder the ability to participate. 

Participants successfully fitted with the device (3 attempts were allowed) were entered into the study's run-in phase. Those who were successfully fitted and had a 50% or greater reduction in FI continued into the treatment phase with 12 months of follow-up. 

Of the 137 women eligible for device fitting, 62% were successfully fitted. The 73 (86%) women who had a 50% or greater reduction in FI during the run-in period comprised the intent-to-treat study population. On average, these women were 61.3 years of age, with 70% white and 82% postmenopausal. At baseline, they had a mean of 14.1 episodes of FI over 2 weeks. (Prior to enrollment, 97.3% of women attempted self-management strategies, 17.8% to 23% failed conservative therapy, and 7.8% to 13.7% failed surgical therapy.) The follow-up rate at 12 months was 74%. 

Study outcomes. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as proportion of subjects with a 50% or greater reduction in FI episodes at 3 months; this outcome also was evaluated at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the number of FI episodes and quality-of-life measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. 

Treatment success, patient satisfaction high 

In the treatment phase, women had sustained improvements in symptom severity and quality-of-life measures over 12 months. Treatment success was 73% at 3 months, 71% at 6 months, and 70% at 12 months. Complete continence was achieved in 46% of participants at 12 months, and major FI episodes (requiring immediate change of undergarments) decreased from 5.0 at baseline to 0.5 at 12 months. Quality-of-life measures were improved at 3 months, and improvement was sustained over 12 months. Satisfaction was 94% at 12 months. 

Adverse events. No serious device-related adverse events occurred. Mild device-related adverse events were experienced by 45% of women during the fitting process and by 38% during treatment period. These included vaginal wall injury such as hyperemia and erosion; vaginal or pelvic discomfort; vaginal infection; constipation; and lower urinary tract issues such as urinary tract infection, urinary incontinence, and voiding dysfunction. No adverse events led to treatment discontinuation. 

Strengths and limitations. Strengths of this study include that it was conducted at multiple clinical sites, had a large sample size, and had a 1-year follow-up period in a population with daily FI. A limitation was that only women who had a 50% or greater reduction in FI episodes during the run-in period were followed for 12 months; however, this was 86% of the original cohort. The use of a comparative group using other devices, such as anal plugs, would have strengthened this study. 

Continue to: Sacroneuromodulation for FI…

Sacral neuromodulation for FI is effective long-term 

Hull T, Giese C, Wexner SD, et al; for the SNS Study Group. Long-term durability of sacral nerve stimulation therapy for chronic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:234-245. 

In this multicenter, prospective cohort study, Hull and colleagues evaluated the 5-year efficacy of sacral neuromodulation (SNM), also known as sacral nerve stimulation, for treatment of FI. This study followed an earlier investigation by Wexner and colleagues, which reported that 83% of 120 patients treated with SNM had a 50% or greater improvement in FI episodes at 12 months.¹⁶ 

Details of the study 

The investigators enrolled 133 participants (92% female) who had more than 2 episodes of FI per week for longer than 6 months (12 months after vaginal delivery). Participants were excluded if they had congenital anorectal malformations, prior rectal surgery within the past 12 months (or 24 months if due to cancer), defects greater than 120° of the external anal sphincter (EAS), IBD, unmanaged chronic watery diarrhea, stool consistency type 6 or type 7 on the Bristol Stool Scale, sequela of pelvic radiation, active anal abscess or fistula, pregnancy, or planned pregnancy. 

Eligible participants underwent a 2-stage procedure with the InterStim bowel control device (Medtronic). If participants experienced a 50% or greater reduction in incontinence episodes with a wearable external SNM device in the test stimulation (stage 1), they received the chronic SNM implant device (stage 2). 

Participants who underwent device implantation were followed at 1, 3, and 6 months and annually for 5 years or until they exited the study. Bowel diaries and quality of life assessments were completed at baseline and at follow-up. 

The primary outcome was therapeutic success, defined as 50% or greater improvement in FI episodes per week. 

A total of 120 participants (90%) underwent implantation of the chronic lead and neuromodulator, and 76 (63%) were followed for 5 years. Baseline characteristics available in the initial study of 133 participants showed that the mean age was 60.5 years; 25% had undergone a prior anal sphincteroplasty; and 16.5% and 10.5% had EAS or internal anal sphincter (IAS) defects, respectively, on endoanal ultrasonography.¹⁶ 

Therapeutic success was high at 5 years 

At the 5-year follow-up, 89% (64/72) of participants met therapeutic success, with a reduction in weekly FI episodes from 9.1 at baseline to 1.7 at 5 years. The number of incontinence pads required decreased, and more participants wore no pads at 5 years. In the intention-to-treat analysis, carrying forward the baseline FI rate in participants who lacked follow-up data, the therapeutic success rate was 69%. Quality-of-life measures improved at 5 years, both statistically and by minimal clinical difference. 

Adverse events. Sixty-eight percent of participants experienced device-related adverse events, including implant site pain, change in sensation of stimulation, change in efficacy, implant site infection, or neurostimulator battery depletion (neurostimulator use commonly expires after 3 to 5 years). Of these events, 80% were successfully treated with medications, reprogramming, or no intervention. The 5-year probability of device revision or replacement was 24.4%, and the 5-year probability of device explant was 19.0%. 

Strengths and limitations. Overall, this study was a well-designed, multicenter trial with long-term follow-up that showed significant improvement in FI with the use of SNM. Its strengths include the enrollment of postmenopausal women who had current defects in EAS and/or IAS on endoanal ultrasonography and 25% who had a prior sphincteroplasty. The findings therefore are relevant to the gynecologic population in whom anal sphincteroplasty would not be recommended. The study also accounted for dropouts and reported the adjusted success rate of 69% at 5 years in that group. 

The lack of a control arm to rule out the placebo effect is a limitation of this study, although randomized trials comparing the effect of SNM "on" versus "off" showed greater improvement with the device "on."¹⁷ 

Fecal incontinence (FI), also known as accidental bowel leakage, is the involuntary loss of feces, which includes both liquid and solid stool as defined by the International Continence Society (ICS) and the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).^1,2 Fecal incontinence is common, occurring in 7% to 25% of community-dwelling women, and it increases with age.^2-6 The condition is rarely addressed, with only 30% of women seeking care.^6-8 This is due to patient embarrassment and the lack of a reliable screening tool. However, FI affects quality of life and mental health, and the associated economic burden likely will rise given the increased prevalence of FI among older women.^2,4,7,9

Fecal incontinence occurs due to poor stool consistency, anal and pelvic muscle weakness, reduced rectal compliance, reduced or increased rectal sensation, or bowel inflammation or dysfunction. Many conditions can cause FI (TABLE 1).^5,10,11 It is therefore important to elicit a full medical history with a focus on specific bowel symptoms, such as stool consistency type (TABLE 2),¹² FI frequency, and duration of symptoms, as well as to perform a complete examination to identify any readily reversible or malignant causes. A colonoscopy is recommended for individuals who meet screening criteria or present with a change in bowel symptoms, such as diarrhea, bleeding, or obstruction.^13,14

Fecal incontinence treatments include a range of approaches categorized from conservative, or first-line therapy, to fourth-line surgical managements (FIGURE 1).^1,10,13,14 In this Update, we review the results of 3 well-designed trials that enrolled women with frequent nonneurogenic FI. 

Common first- and second-line treatments produce equivalent improvements in FI symptoms at
6 months 

Jelovsek JE, Markland AD, Whitehead WE, et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Controlling faecal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide: a randomized clinical trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:698-710. 

In a multicenter, randomized trial of first- and second-line treatments for FI, Jelovsek and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of oral placebo, loperamide, pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) with biofeedback using anorectal manometry, or combination therapy over a 24-week period. 

Continue to: Four treatments compared...

Three hundred women with FI occurring monthly for 3 months were included in the trial. Women were excluded if they had a stool classification of type 1 or type 7 on the Bristol Stool Scale, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), history of rectovaginal fistula or cloacal defect, rectal prolapse, prior bowel diversion, fecal impaction, neurologic disorder leading to incontinence, use of loperamide or diphenoxylate within the last 30 days, childbirth within the last 3 months, need for antiretroviral drugs, hepatic impairment, or chronic abdominal pain without diarrhea. 

Baseline characteristics and symptoms severity were similar among participants. The average age of the women was 63 years, with 79% white and 85% postmenopausal. Participants had a mean (SD) of 1.6 (1.8) leaks per day. 

Participants were randomly assigned in a 0.5:1:1:1 fashion to receive oral placebo, loperamide, oral placebo with PFPT/biofeedback, or loperamide with PFPT/biofeedback. All participants received a standardized educational pamphlet that outlined dietary and behavioral recommendations. 

Women assigned to PFPT/biofeedback received 6 sessions every other week. Loperamide was started at a dosage of 2 mg per day with the possibility of dose maintenance, escalation, reduction, or discontinuation. 

Study outcomes. The primary outcome was a change from baseline to 24 weeks in the Vaizey FI symptom severity score, which assesses fecal frequency, urgency, and use of pads and medications. Secondary outcomes included assessment of a 7-day bowel diary and other quality-of-life measures. Data at 24 weeks were available for 89% of the women. 

All treatment groups experienced improved FI symptoms 

Based on changes in Vaizey scores after 24 weeks of treatment, women in all treatment groups had similar improvement in symptoms severity. However, those who received loperamide and PFPT/biofeedback had decreased pad changes per week and more accident-free days compared with women treated with placebo and biofeedback. Quality of life at 24 weeks was not statistically different between treatment groups as improvement was seen in all groups, including those who received oral placebo and patient education. 

Adverse events. The proportion of gastrointestinal adverse effects was similar between treatment groups, ranging from 45% to 63%. Constipation was the most common adverse event overall and was more common in those taking loperamide, occurring in 51% of the loperamide plus PFPT/biofeedback group, 38% of those who received loperamide alone, 23% of the biofeedback with placebo group, and 12% of the placebo-alone group. 

Strengths and limitations. Strengths of this study include its multisite, large sample size, low dropout rate, and sufficiently powered design to compare various combinations of first- and second-line therapies in women with a mean baseline FI of 1.6 leaks per day. Another strength is the robustness of the PFPT/biofeedback sessions that used anorectal manometry. This may, however, limit the study's external validity given that clinical use of this device is likely rare. Additionally, the population was comprised largely of postmenopausal and white women, which may make the findings less generalizable to other populations. 

Continue to: Novel vaginal bowel control system...

Novel vaginal bowel control system is effective, durable over 12 months for FI treatment 

Richter HE, Dunivan G, Brown HW, et al. A 12-month clinical durability of effectiveness and safety evaluation of a vaginal bowel control system for the nonsurgical treatment of fecal incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25:113-119. 

Richter and colleagues characterized clinical success, effect on quality of life, and durability over 12 months of a novel vaginal bowel control device (Eclipse System; Pelvalon) for FI in a prospective cohort study. The device is a silicone-coated vaginal insert with a detachable pump and balloon that deflects the rectovaginal septum posteriorly, thus impeding the passage of stool in the rectum (FIGURE 2). 

Study eligibility criteria and treatment protocol 

Women were eligible for the study if they had 4 or more episodes of fecal soiling on a 2-week bowel diary and had FI for at least 6 months. Participants were excluded if they had prolapse outside the hymen, rectovaginal fistula, IBD, congenital anorectal malformation, urinary or colorectal infection, chronic pelvic or anorectal pain, pregnancy or planning pregnancy in the next 5 months, unmanaged chronic watery diarrhea, presence of an open wound or tear in the vagina, significant urogenital atrophy, or any psychiatric or neurologic disorder that would hinder the ability to participate. 

Participants successfully fitted with the device (3 attempts were allowed) were entered into the study's run-in phase. Those who were successfully fitted and had a 50% or greater reduction in FI continued into the treatment phase with 12 months of follow-up. 

Of the 137 women eligible for device fitting, 62% were successfully fitted. The 73 (86%) women who had a 50% or greater reduction in FI during the run-in period comprised the intent-to-treat study population. On average, these women were 61.3 years of age, with 70% white and 82% postmenopausal. At baseline, they had a mean of 14.1 episodes of FI over 2 weeks. (Prior to enrollment, 97.3% of women attempted self-management strategies, 17.8% to 23% failed conservative therapy, and 7.8% to 13.7% failed surgical therapy.) The follow-up rate at 12 months was 74%. 

Study outcomes. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as proportion of subjects with a 50% or greater reduction in FI episodes at 3 months; this outcome also was evaluated at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the number of FI episodes and quality-of-life measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. 

Treatment success, patient satisfaction high 

In the treatment phase, women had sustained improvements in symptom severity and quality-of-life measures over 12 months. Treatment success was 73% at 3 months, 71% at 6 months, and 70% at 12 months. Complete continence was achieved in 46% of participants at 12 months, and major FI episodes (requiring immediate change of undergarments) decreased from 5.0 at baseline to 0.5 at 12 months. Quality-of-life measures were improved at 3 months, and improvement was sustained over 12 months. Satisfaction was 94% at 12 months. 

Adverse events. No serious device-related adverse events occurred. Mild device-related adverse events were experienced by 45% of women during the fitting process and by 38% during treatment period. These included vaginal wall injury such as hyperemia and erosion; vaginal or pelvic discomfort; vaginal infection; constipation; and lower urinary tract issues such as urinary tract infection, urinary incontinence, and voiding dysfunction. No adverse events led to treatment discontinuation. 

Strengths and limitations. Strengths of this study include that it was conducted at multiple clinical sites, had a large sample size, and had a 1-year follow-up period in a population with daily FI. A limitation was that only women who had a 50% or greater reduction in FI episodes during the run-in period were followed for 12 months; however, this was 86% of the original cohort. The use of a comparative group using other devices, such as anal plugs, would have strengthened this study. 

Continue to: Sacroneuromodulation for FI…

Sacral neuromodulation for FI is effective long-term 

Hull T, Giese C, Wexner SD, et al; for the SNS Study Group. Long-term durability of sacral nerve stimulation therapy for chronic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:234-245. 

In this multicenter, prospective cohort study, Hull and colleagues evaluated the 5-year efficacy of sacral neuromodulation (SNM), also known as sacral nerve stimulation, for treatment of FI. This study followed an earlier investigation by Wexner and colleagues, which reported that 83% of 120 patients treated with SNM had a 50% or greater improvement in FI episodes at 12 months.¹⁶ 

Details of the study 

The investigators enrolled 133 participants (92% female) who had more than 2 episodes of FI per week for longer than 6 months (12 months after vaginal delivery). Participants were excluded if they had congenital anorectal malformations, prior rectal surgery within the past 12 months (or 24 months if due to cancer), defects greater than 120° of the external anal sphincter (EAS), IBD, unmanaged chronic watery diarrhea, stool consistency type 6 or type 7 on the Bristol Stool Scale, sequela of pelvic radiation, active anal abscess or fistula, pregnancy, or planned pregnancy. 

Eligible participants underwent a 2-stage procedure with the InterStim bowel control device (Medtronic). If participants experienced a 50% or greater reduction in incontinence episodes with a wearable external SNM device in the test stimulation (stage 1), they received the chronic SNM implant device (stage 2). 

Participants who underwent device implantation were followed at 1, 3, and 6 months and annually for 5 years or until they exited the study. Bowel diaries and quality of life assessments were completed at baseline and at follow-up. 

The primary outcome was therapeutic success, defined as 50% or greater improvement in FI episodes per week. 

A total of 120 participants (90%) underwent implantation of the chronic lead and neuromodulator, and 76 (63%) were followed for 5 years. Baseline characteristics available in the initial study of 133 participants showed that the mean age was 60.5 years; 25% had undergone a prior anal sphincteroplasty; and 16.5% and 10.5% had EAS or internal anal sphincter (IAS) defects, respectively, on endoanal ultrasonography.¹⁶ 

Therapeutic success was high at 5 years 

At the 5-year follow-up, 89% (64/72) of participants met therapeutic success, with a reduction in weekly FI episodes from 9.1 at baseline to 1.7 at 5 years. The number of incontinence pads required decreased, and more participants wore no pads at 5 years. In the intention-to-treat analysis, carrying forward the baseline FI rate in participants who lacked follow-up data, the therapeutic success rate was 69%. Quality-of-life measures improved at 5 years, both statistically and by minimal clinical difference. 

Adverse events. Sixty-eight percent of participants experienced device-related adverse events, including implant site pain, change in sensation of stimulation, change in efficacy, implant site infection, or neurostimulator battery depletion (neurostimulator use commonly expires after 3 to 5 years). Of these events, 80% were successfully treated with medications, reprogramming, or no intervention. The 5-year probability of device revision or replacement was 24.4%, and the 5-year probability of device explant was 19.0%. 

Strengths and limitations. Overall, this study was a well-designed, multicenter trial with long-term follow-up that showed significant improvement in FI with the use of SNM. Its strengths include the enrollment of postmenopausal women who had current defects in EAS and/or IAS on endoanal ultrasonography and 25% who had a prior sphincteroplasty. The findings therefore are relevant to the gynecologic population in whom anal sphincteroplasty would not be recommended. The study also accounted for dropouts and reported the adjusted success rate of 69% at 5 years in that group. 

The lack of a control arm to rule out the placebo effect is a limitation of this study, although randomized trials comparing the effect of SNM "on" versus "off" showed greater improvement with the device "on."¹⁷ 

“Take pride in your surgical work. Do it in such a way that you would be willing to sign your name to it…the operation was performed by me.”

—Raymond A. Lee, MD

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently ordered companies to cease selling transvaginal mesh intended for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair (but not for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence [SUI] or for abdominal sacrocolpopexy).^1,2 The FDA is also requiring companies preparing premarket approval applications for mesh products for the treatment of transvaginal POP to continue safety and efficacy follow-up in existing section 522 postmarket surveillance studies.³

It is, therefore, incumbent upon gynecologic surgeons to understand the surgical options that remain and perfect their surgical approach to POP to optimize patient outcomes. POP may be performed transvaginally or transabdominally, with each approach offering its own set of risks and benefits. The ability to perform both effectively allows the surgeon to tailor the approach to the condition and circumstances encountered. It is also important to realize that “cures” are elusive in POP surgery. While we can frequently alleviate patient symptoms and improve quality of life, a lifelong “cure” is an unrealistic goal for most prolapse procedures.

This article focuses on transvaginal native tissue repair,⁴ specifically the Mayo approach.

View related videos from Dr. Gebhart on apical suspension, anterior repair, and posterior repair techniques.

---

Watch video here

Vaginal surgery fundamentals

Before we explore the details of the Mayo technique, let’s review some basic principles of vaginal surgery. First, it is important to make a good clinical diagnosis so that you know which compartments (apex, anterior, or posterior) are involved. Although single compartment defects exist, multicompartment defects are far more common. Failing to recognize all compartment defects often results in incomplete repair, which can mean recurrent prolapse and additional interventions.

Second, exposure is critical when performing surgery by any route. You must be able to see your surgical field completely in order to properly execute your surgical approach. Table height, lighting, and retraction are all important to surgical success.

Lastly, it is important to know how to effectively execute your intended procedure. Native tissue repair is often criticized for having a high failure rate. It makes sense that mesh augmentation offers greater durability of a repair, but an effective native tissue repair will also effectively treat the majority of patients. An ineffective repair does not benefit the patient and contributes to high failure rates.

Vaginal apex repairs

Data from the OPTIMAL trial suggest that uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament fixation are equally effective in treating apical prolapse.⁵ Our preference is a McCall culdoplasty (uterosacral ligament plication). It allows direct visualization (internally or externally) to place apical support stitches and plicates the ligaments in the midline of the vaginal cuff to help prevent enterocele protrusion. DeLancey has described the levels of support in the female pelvis and places importance on apical support.⁶ Keep in mind that anterior and posterior compartment prolapse is often accompanied by apical prolapse. Therefore, treating the apex is critical for overall success.

External vs internal McCall sutures: My technique. Envision the open vaginal cuff after completing a vaginal hysterectomy or after opening the vaginal cuff for a posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse (FIGURE 1). External (suture placed through the vaginal cuff epithelium into the peritoneal cavity, incorporating the uterosacral ligaments and intervening peritoneum, and ultimately brought back out through the posterior cuff and tied) or internal (suture placed in the intraperitoneal space, incorporating the uterosacral ligaments and intervening peritoneum, and tied internally) McCall sutures can be utilized (FIGURE 2). I prefer a combination of both. I use 0-polyglactin for external sutures, as the sutures will ultimately dissolve and not remain in the vaginal cavity. I usually place at least 2 external sutures with the lowest suture on the vaginal cuff being the deepest uterosacral stitch. Each subsequent suture is placed closer to the vaginal cuff and closer to the ends of the ligamentous stumps, starting deepest and working back toward the cuff with each stitch. I place 1 or 2 internal sutures (delayed absorbable or permanent) between my 2 external sutures. Because these sutures will be tied internally and located in the intraperitoneal space, permanent sutures may be used.

Continue to: Anterior compartment repairs...

Anterior compartment repairs

The anterior compartment seems the most susceptible to forces within the pelvis and is a common site of prolapse. Many theories exist as to what causes a cystocele—distension, displacement, detachment, etc. While paravaginal defects exist, I believe that most cystoceles arise horizontally at the base of the bladder as the anterior endopelvic fascia detaches from the apex or cervix. The tissue then attenuates as the hernia progresses.

For surgical success: Make certain your repair addresses re-establishing continuity of the anterior endopelvic fascia with the fascia and ligaments at the vaginal apex; it will increase your success in treating anterior compartment prolapse.

We prefer to mobilize the epithelium in the midline from the vaginal apex to the mid‑urethra (if performing a midurethral sling, we stop short of the bladder neck and perform a separate suburethral incision). When incising the epithelium in the midline, the underlying fascia is also split in the midline, creating a midline defect. Once the epithelium is split and mobilized laterally off the underlying fascia, we can begin reconstruction.

The midline fascial defect that was just created is closed with a running 2-0 polyglactin from just beneath the bladder neck down to and including the fascia and uterosacral ligaments at the apex. This is accomplished in an upside down ‘T’ orientation (FIGURE 3). It is critical that the fascia is reunited at the base or you will leave the patient with a hernia.

For surgical success: To check intraoperatively that the fascia is reunited at the base, try to place an index finger between the base of the cystocele repair and the apex. If you can insert your finger, that is where the hernia still exists. If you meet resistance with your finger, you are palpating reunification of the anterior and apical fascia.

Lastly, given that we have just dissected and then plicated the tissues beneath the bladder, I like to perform cystoscopy to be certain the bladder has not been violated. It is also important not to over-plicate the anterior fascia so that the sutures shear through the fascia and weaken the support or narrow the vaginal lumen.

Continue to: Posterior compartment repairs...

Posterior compartment repairs

Like with the anterior compartment, opinions differ as to the site of posterior compartment prolapse. Midline, lateral, distal, and site-specific defects and surgical approaches have been described. Research suggests that there is no benefit to the use of mesh in the posterior compartment.⁷ It is very important to recognize that over-plication of the posterior compartment can lead to narrowing/stricture and dyspareunia. Therefore, monitor vaginal caliber throughout repair of the posterior compartment.

Although we believe that a midline defect in the endopelvic fascia is primarily responsible for rectoceles, we also appreciate that the fascia must be reconstructed all the way to the perineal body and that narrowing the genital hiatus is very important and often underappreciated (FIGURE 5). Thus, perineal reconstruction is universally performed. I will emphasize again that reconstruction must be performed while also monitoring vaginal caliber. If it is too tight with the patient under anesthesia, it will be too tight when the patient recovers. Avoidance is the best option. If the patient does not desire a functional vagina (eg, an elderly patient), then narrowing is a desired goal.

Perineal reconstruction technique and tips for success

A retractor at 12 o’clock to support the apex and anterior wall can be helpful for visualization in the posterior compartment. We start with a v-shaped incision on the perineum. The width is determined by how much you want to build up the perineum and narrow the vagina (the wider the incision, the more building up of the perineal body and vaginal narrowing). A strip of epithelium is then mobilized in the midline (be careful not to excise too much). This dissection is carried all the way up the midline to just short of the tied apical suspension sutures at the posterior vaginal apex. The posterior dissection tends to be the most vascular in my experience.

Utilize cautery to obtain hemostasis along your dissection margins while protecting the underlying rectum. We have not found it necessary to dissect the posterior epithelium off the underlying fascia (that is an option at this point, however, if you feel more comfortable doing this). With an index finger in the vagina, compressing the rectum posteriorly, interrupted 1-0 polyglactin suture is placed through the epithelium and underlying fascia (avoiding the rectum) on one side, then the other, and then tied. The next sutures are placed utilizing the same technique, and the caliber of the vagina is noted with the placement of each suture (if it is too tight, then remove and replace the suture and recheck). It is important to realize you want to plicate the fascia in the midline and not perform an aggressive levatorplasty that could lead to muscle pain. Additionally, each suture should get the same purchase of tissue on each side, and the spacing of each suture should be uniform, like rungs on a ladder. Ultimately, the repair is carried down to the hymenal ring. At this point, the perineal reconstruction is performed, plicating the perineal body in the midline with deeper horizontal sutures and then closing the perineal skin with interrupted or subcuticular sutures (FIGURE 6). Completion of these repairs should orient the vagina toward the hollow of the sacrum (FIGURE 7), allowing downward forces to compress the vaginal supports posteriorly onto the pelvic floor instead of forcing it out the vaginal lumen (FIGURE 8).

Our patients generally stay in the hospital overnight, and we place a vaginal pack to provide topical pressure throughout the vagina overnight. We tell patients no lifting more than 15 lb and no intercourse for 6 weeks. While we do not tend to use hydrodissection in our repairs, it is a perfectly acceptable option.

Continue to: Commit to knowledge of native tissue techniques...

Commit to knowledge of native tissue techniques

Given the recent FDA ban on the sale of transvaginal mesh for POP and the public’s negative perception of mesh (based often on misleading information in the media), it is incumbent upon gynecologic surgeons to invest in learning or relearning effective native tissue techniques for the transvaginal treatment of POP. While not perfect, they offer an effective nonmesh treatment option for many of our patients.

“Take pride in your surgical work. Do it in such a way that you would be willing to sign your name to it…the operation was performed by me.”

—Raymond A. Lee, MD

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently ordered companies to cease selling transvaginal mesh intended for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair (but not for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence [SUI] or for abdominal sacrocolpopexy).^1,2 The FDA is also requiring companies preparing premarket approval applications for mesh products for the treatment of transvaginal POP to continue safety and efficacy follow-up in existing section 522 postmarket surveillance studies.³

It is, therefore, incumbent upon gynecologic surgeons to understand the surgical options that remain and perfect their surgical approach to POP to optimize patient outcomes. POP may be performed transvaginally or transabdominally, with each approach offering its own set of risks and benefits. The ability to perform both effectively allows the surgeon to tailor the approach to the condition and circumstances encountered. It is also important to realize that “cures” are elusive in POP surgery. While we can frequently alleviate patient symptoms and improve quality of life, a lifelong “cure” is an unrealistic goal for most prolapse procedures.

This article focuses on transvaginal native tissue repair,⁴ specifically the Mayo approach.

View related videos from Dr. Gebhart on apical suspension, anterior repair, and posterior repair techniques.

---

Watch video here

Vaginal surgery fundamentals

Before we explore the details of the Mayo technique, let’s review some basic principles of vaginal surgery. First, it is important to make a good clinical diagnosis so that you know which compartments (apex, anterior, or posterior) are involved. Although single compartment defects exist, multicompartment defects are far more common. Failing to recognize all compartment defects often results in incomplete repair, which can mean recurrent prolapse and additional interventions.

Second, exposure is critical when performing surgery by any route. You must be able to see your surgical field completely in order to properly execute your surgical approach. Table height, lighting, and retraction are all important to surgical success.

Lastly, it is important to know how to effectively execute your intended procedure. Native tissue repair is often criticized for having a high failure rate. It makes sense that mesh augmentation offers greater durability of a repair, but an effective native tissue repair will also effectively treat the majority of patients. An ineffective repair does not benefit the patient and contributes to high failure rates.

Vaginal apex repairs

Data from the OPTIMAL trial suggest that uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament fixation are equally effective in treating apical prolapse.⁵ Our preference is a McCall culdoplasty (uterosacral ligament plication). It allows direct visualization (internally or externally) to place apical support stitches and plicates the ligaments in the midline of the vaginal cuff to help prevent enterocele protrusion. DeLancey has described the levels of support in the female pelvis and places importance on apical support.⁶ Keep in mind that anterior and posterior compartment prolapse is often accompanied by apical prolapse. Therefore, treating the apex is critical for overall success.

External vs internal McCall sutures: My technique. Envision the open vaginal cuff after completing a vaginal hysterectomy or after opening the vaginal cuff for a posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse (FIGURE 1). External (suture placed through the vaginal cuff epithelium into the peritoneal cavity, incorporating the uterosacral ligaments and intervening peritoneum, and ultimately brought back out through the posterior cuff and tied) or internal (suture placed in the intraperitoneal space, incorporating the uterosacral ligaments and intervening peritoneum, and tied internally) McCall sutures can be utilized (FIGURE 2). I prefer a combination of both. I use 0-polyglactin for external sutures, as the sutures will ultimately dissolve and not remain in the vaginal cavity. I usually place at least 2 external sutures with the lowest suture on the vaginal cuff being the deepest uterosacral stitch. Each subsequent suture is placed closer to the vaginal cuff and closer to the ends of the ligamentous stumps, starting deepest and working back toward the cuff with each stitch. I place 1 or 2 internal sutures (delayed absorbable or permanent) between my 2 external sutures. Because these sutures will be tied internally and located in the intraperitoneal space, permanent sutures may be used.

Continue to: Anterior compartment repairs...

Anterior compartment repairs

The anterior compartment seems the most susceptible to forces within the pelvis and is a common site of prolapse. Many theories exist as to what causes a cystocele—distension, displacement, detachment, etc. While paravaginal defects exist, I believe that most cystoceles arise horizontally at the base of the bladder as the anterior endopelvic fascia detaches from the apex or cervix. The tissue then attenuates as the hernia progresses.

For surgical success: Make certain your repair addresses re-establishing continuity of the anterior endopelvic fascia with the fascia and ligaments at the vaginal apex; it will increase your success in treating anterior compartment prolapse.

We prefer to mobilize the epithelium in the midline from the vaginal apex to the mid‑urethra (if performing a midurethral sling, we stop short of the bladder neck and perform a separate suburethral incision). When incising the epithelium in the midline, the underlying fascia is also split in the midline, creating a midline defect. Once the epithelium is split and mobilized laterally off the underlying fascia, we can begin reconstruction.

The midline fascial defect that was just created is closed with a running 2-0 polyglactin from just beneath the bladder neck down to and including the fascia and uterosacral ligaments at the apex. This is accomplished in an upside down ‘T’ orientation (FIGURE 3). It is critical that the fascia is reunited at the base or you will leave the patient with a hernia.

For surgical success: To check intraoperatively that the fascia is reunited at the base, try to place an index finger between the base of the cystocele repair and the apex. If you can insert your finger, that is where the hernia still exists. If you meet resistance with your finger, you are palpating reunification of the anterior and apical fascia.

Lastly, given that we have just dissected and then plicated the tissues beneath the bladder, I like to perform cystoscopy to be certain the bladder has not been violated. It is also important not to over-plicate the anterior fascia so that the sutures shear through the fascia and weaken the support or narrow the vaginal lumen.

Continue to: Posterior compartment repairs...

Posterior compartment repairs

Like with the anterior compartment, opinions differ as to the site of posterior compartment prolapse. Midline, lateral, distal, and site-specific defects and surgical approaches have been described. Research suggests that there is no benefit to the use of mesh in the posterior compartment.⁷ It is very important to recognize that over-plication of the posterior compartment can lead to narrowing/stricture and dyspareunia. Therefore, monitor vaginal caliber throughout repair of the posterior compartment.

Although we believe that a midline defect in the endopelvic fascia is primarily responsible for rectoceles, we also appreciate that the fascia must be reconstructed all the way to the perineal body and that narrowing the genital hiatus is very important and often underappreciated (FIGURE 5). Thus, perineal reconstruction is universally performed. I will emphasize again that reconstruction must be performed while also monitoring vaginal caliber. If it is too tight with the patient under anesthesia, it will be too tight when the patient recovers. Avoidance is the best option. If the patient does not desire a functional vagina (eg, an elderly patient), then narrowing is a desired goal.

Perineal reconstruction technique and tips for success

A retractor at 12 o’clock to support the apex and anterior wall can be helpful for visualization in the posterior compartment. We start with a v-shaped incision on the perineum. The width is determined by how much you want to build up the perineum and narrow the vagina (the wider the incision, the more building up of the perineal body and vaginal narrowing). A strip of epithelium is then mobilized in the midline (be careful not to excise too much). This dissection is carried all the way up the midline to just short of the tied apical suspension sutures at the posterior vaginal apex. The posterior dissection tends to be the most vascular in my experience.

Utilize cautery to obtain hemostasis along your dissection margins while protecting the underlying rectum. We have not found it necessary to dissect the posterior epithelium off the underlying fascia (that is an option at this point, however, if you feel more comfortable doing this). With an index finger in the vagina, compressing the rectum posteriorly, interrupted 1-0 polyglactin suture is placed through the epithelium and underlying fascia (avoiding the rectum) on one side, then the other, and then tied. The next sutures are placed utilizing the same technique, and the caliber of the vagina is noted with the placement of each suture (if it is too tight, then remove and replace the suture and recheck). It is important to realize you want to plicate the fascia in the midline and not perform an aggressive levatorplasty that could lead to muscle pain. Additionally, each suture should get the same purchase of tissue on each side, and the spacing of each suture should be uniform, like rungs on a ladder. Ultimately, the repair is carried down to the hymenal ring. At this point, the perineal reconstruction is performed, plicating the perineal body in the midline with deeper horizontal sutures and then closing the perineal skin with interrupted or subcuticular sutures (FIGURE 6). Completion of these repairs should orient the vagina toward the hollow of the sacrum (FIGURE 7), allowing downward forces to compress the vaginal supports posteriorly onto the pelvic floor instead of forcing it out the vaginal lumen (FIGURE 8).

Our patients generally stay in the hospital overnight, and we place a vaginal pack to provide topical pressure throughout the vagina overnight. We tell patients no lifting more than 15 lb and no intercourse for 6 weeks. While we do not tend to use hydrodissection in our repairs, it is a perfectly acceptable option.

Continue to: Commit to knowledge of native tissue techniques...

Commit to knowledge of native tissue techniques

Given the recent FDA ban on the sale of transvaginal mesh for POP and the public’s negative perception of mesh (based often on misleading information in the media), it is incumbent upon gynecologic surgeons to invest in learning or relearning effective native tissue techniques for the transvaginal treatment of POP. While not perfect, they offer an effective nonmesh treatment option for many of our patients.

“Take pride in your surgical work. Do it in such a way that you would be willing to sign your name to it…the operation was performed by me.”

—Raymond A. Lee, MD

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently ordered companies to cease selling transvaginal mesh intended for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair (but not for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence [SUI] or for abdominal sacrocolpopexy).^1,2 The FDA is also requiring companies preparing premarket approval applications for mesh products for the treatment of transvaginal POP to continue safety and efficacy follow-up in existing section 522 postmarket surveillance studies.³

It is, therefore, incumbent upon gynecologic surgeons to understand the surgical options that remain and perfect their surgical approach to POP to optimize patient outcomes. POP may be performed transvaginally or transabdominally, with each approach offering its own set of risks and benefits. The ability to perform both effectively allows the surgeon to tailor the approach to the condition and circumstances encountered. It is also important to realize that “cures” are elusive in POP surgery. While we can frequently alleviate patient symptoms and improve quality of life, a lifelong “cure” is an unrealistic goal for most prolapse procedures.

This article focuses on transvaginal native tissue repair,⁴ specifically the Mayo approach.

View related videos from Dr. Gebhart on apical suspension, anterior repair, and posterior repair techniques.

---

Watch video here

Vaginal surgery fundamentals

Before we explore the details of the Mayo technique, let’s review some basic principles of vaginal surgery. First, it is important to make a good clinical diagnosis so that you know which compartments (apex, anterior, or posterior) are involved. Although single compartment defects exist, multicompartment defects are far more common. Failing to recognize all compartment defects often results in incomplete repair, which can mean recurrent prolapse and additional interventions.

Second, exposure is critical when performing surgery by any route. You must be able to see your surgical field completely in order to properly execute your surgical approach. Table height, lighting, and retraction are all important to surgical success.

Lastly, it is important to know how to effectively execute your intended procedure. Native tissue repair is often criticized for having a high failure rate. It makes sense that mesh augmentation offers greater durability of a repair, but an effective native tissue repair will also effectively treat the majority of patients. An ineffective repair does not benefit the patient and contributes to high failure rates.

Vaginal apex repairs

Data from the OPTIMAL trial suggest that uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament fixation are equally effective in treating apical prolapse.⁵ Our preference is a McCall culdoplasty (uterosacral ligament plication). It allows direct visualization (internally or externally) to place apical support stitches and plicates the ligaments in the midline of the vaginal cuff to help prevent enterocele protrusion. DeLancey has described the levels of support in the female pelvis and places importance on apical support.⁶ Keep in mind that anterior and posterior compartment prolapse is often accompanied by apical prolapse. Therefore, treating the apex is critical for overall success.

External vs internal McCall sutures: My technique. Envision the open vaginal cuff after completing a vaginal hysterectomy or after opening the vaginal cuff for a posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse (FIGURE 1). External (suture placed through the vaginal cuff epithelium into the peritoneal cavity, incorporating the uterosacral ligaments and intervening peritoneum, and ultimately brought back out through the posterior cuff and tied) or internal (suture placed in the intraperitoneal space, incorporating the uterosacral ligaments and intervening peritoneum, and tied internally) McCall sutures can be utilized (FIGURE 2). I prefer a combination of both. I use 0-polyglactin for external sutures, as the sutures will ultimately dissolve and not remain in the vaginal cavity. I usually place at least 2 external sutures with the lowest suture on the vaginal cuff being the deepest uterosacral stitch. Each subsequent suture is placed closer to the vaginal cuff and closer to the ends of the ligamentous stumps, starting deepest and working back toward the cuff with each stitch. I place 1 or 2 internal sutures (delayed absorbable or permanent) between my 2 external sutures. Because these sutures will be tied internally and located in the intraperitoneal space, permanent sutures may be used.

Continue to: Anterior compartment repairs...

Anterior compartment repairs

The anterior compartment seems the most susceptible to forces within the pelvis and is a common site of prolapse. Many theories exist as to what causes a cystocele—distension, displacement, detachment, etc. While paravaginal defects exist, I believe that most cystoceles arise horizontally at the base of the bladder as the anterior endopelvic fascia detaches from the apex or cervix. The tissue then attenuates as the hernia progresses.

For surgical success: Make certain your repair addresses re-establishing continuity of the anterior endopelvic fascia with the fascia and ligaments at the vaginal apex; it will increase your success in treating anterior compartment prolapse.

We prefer to mobilize the epithelium in the midline from the vaginal apex to the mid‑urethra (if performing a midurethral sling, we stop short of the bladder neck and perform a separate suburethral incision). When incising the epithelium in the midline, the underlying fascia is also split in the midline, creating a midline defect. Once the epithelium is split and mobilized laterally off the underlying fascia, we can begin reconstruction.

The midline fascial defect that was just created is closed with a running 2-0 polyglactin from just beneath the bladder neck down to and including the fascia and uterosacral ligaments at the apex. This is accomplished in an upside down ‘T’ orientation (FIGURE 3). It is critical that the fascia is reunited at the base or you will leave the patient with a hernia.

For surgical success: To check intraoperatively that the fascia is reunited at the base, try to place an index finger between the base of the cystocele repair and the apex. If you can insert your finger, that is where the hernia still exists. If you meet resistance with your finger, you are palpating reunification of the anterior and apical fascia.

Lastly, given that we have just dissected and then plicated the tissues beneath the bladder, I like to perform cystoscopy to be certain the bladder has not been violated. It is also important not to over-plicate the anterior fascia so that the sutures shear through the fascia and weaken the support or narrow the vaginal lumen.

Continue to: Posterior compartment repairs...

Posterior compartment repairs

Like with the anterior compartment, opinions differ as to the site of posterior compartment prolapse. Midline, lateral, distal, and site-specific defects and surgical approaches have been described. Research suggests that there is no benefit to the use of mesh in the posterior compartment.⁷ It is very important to recognize that over-plication of the posterior compartment can lead to narrowing/stricture and dyspareunia. Therefore, monitor vaginal caliber throughout repair of the posterior compartment.

Although we believe that a midline defect in the endopelvic fascia is primarily responsible for rectoceles, we also appreciate that the fascia must be reconstructed all the way to the perineal body and that narrowing the genital hiatus is very important and often underappreciated (FIGURE 5). Thus, perineal reconstruction is universally performed. I will emphasize again that reconstruction must be performed while also monitoring vaginal caliber. If it is too tight with the patient under anesthesia, it will be too tight when the patient recovers. Avoidance is the best option. If the patient does not desire a functional vagina (eg, an elderly patient), then narrowing is a desired goal.

Perineal reconstruction technique and tips for success

A retractor at 12 o’clock to support the apex and anterior wall can be helpful for visualization in the posterior compartment. We start with a v-shaped incision on the perineum. The width is determined by how much you want to build up the perineum and narrow the vagina (the wider the incision, the more building up of the perineal body and vaginal narrowing). A strip of epithelium is then mobilized in the midline (be careful not to excise too much). This dissection is carried all the way up the midline to just short of the tied apical suspension sutures at the posterior vaginal apex. The posterior dissection tends to be the most vascular in my experience.

Utilize cautery to obtain hemostasis along your dissection margins while protecting the underlying rectum. We have not found it necessary to dissect the posterior epithelium off the underlying fascia (that is an option at this point, however, if you feel more comfortable doing this). With an index finger in the vagina, compressing the rectum posteriorly, interrupted 1-0 polyglactin suture is placed through the epithelium and underlying fascia (avoiding the rectum) on one side, then the other, and then tied. The next sutures are placed utilizing the same technique, and the caliber of the vagina is noted with the placement of each suture (if it is too tight, then remove and replace the suture and recheck). It is important to realize you want to plicate the fascia in the midline and not perform an aggressive levatorplasty that could lead to muscle pain. Additionally, each suture should get the same purchase of tissue on each side, and the spacing of each suture should be uniform, like rungs on a ladder. Ultimately, the repair is carried down to the hymenal ring. At this point, the perineal reconstruction is performed, plicating the perineal body in the midline with deeper horizontal sutures and then closing the perineal skin with interrupted or subcuticular sutures (FIGURE 6). Completion of these repairs should orient the vagina toward the hollow of the sacrum (FIGURE 7), allowing downward forces to compress the vaginal supports posteriorly onto the pelvic floor instead of forcing it out the vaginal lumen (FIGURE 8).

Our patients generally stay in the hospital overnight, and we place a vaginal pack to provide topical pressure throughout the vagina overnight. We tell patients no lifting more than 15 lb and no intercourse for 6 weeks. While we do not tend to use hydrodissection in our repairs, it is a perfectly acceptable option.

Continue to: Commit to knowledge of native tissue techniques...

Commit to knowledge of native tissue techniques

Given the recent FDA ban on the sale of transvaginal mesh for POP and the public’s negative perception of mesh (based often on misleading information in the media), it is incumbent upon gynecologic surgeons to invest in learning or relearning effective native tissue techniques for the transvaginal treatment of POP. While not perfect, they offer an effective nonmesh treatment option for many of our patients.

Sudhof LS, Shainker SA, Einerson BD. Tranexamic acid in the routine treatment of postpartum hemorrhage in the United States: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Published online June 18, 2019. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.06.030.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Postpartum hemorrhage is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The World Maternal Antifibrinolytic (WOMAN) trial showed that the use of TXA, an antifibrinolytic agent, for PPH decreases hemorrhage-related mortality and laparotomy. Routine use of TXA for PPH has demonstrated cost-effectiveness in low-resource countries, where hemorrhage-related mortality rates are higher than in the United States. This study aimed to determine if routine use of TXA for PPH in the United States also is cost-effective.

Details of the study

Sudhof and colleagues conducted a decision-tree analysis to compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 strategies regarding routine use of TXA for PPH in the United States: no TXA, TXA given at any time, and TXA given within 3 hours of delivery.

Health care system perspective. In the primary analysis, the 3 strategies were evaluated from the perspective of the health care system. Outcomes included cost, number of laparotomies, and maternal deaths from delivery until 6 weeks postpartum. Rates of hemorrhage and related complications, as well as cost assumptions, were derived from multiple US-based studies. The relative risk reduction in death and laparotomy with TXA in the United States was assumed to be similar to that found in the WOMAN trial (19% and 36%, respectively).

Societal perspective. In the secondary analysis, the 3 TXA strategies were evaluated from the societal perspective, comparing quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost per QALY. For both the primary and secondary analyses, sensitivity analyses were performed across a range of values for each input.

Main findings. Tranexamic acid use would be cost saving if the relative risk reduction for maternal death with TXA was greater than approximately 5%, which is significantly lower than that seen in the WOMAN trial (19%). The primary analysis demonstrated that—assuming a 3% rate of PPH—giving TXA to women with PPH would save $11.3 million, prevent 334 laparotomies, and avert 9 maternal deaths annually in the United States. This cost saving nearly tripled if TXA was administered within 3 hours of delivery, with 5 additional maternal deaths prevented.

Secondary analysis incorporating QALYs also showed TXA use to be cost-effective. These findings held through various sensitivity analyses.

Continue to: Study strengths and limitations...

Study strengths and limitations

This study is novel in its critical objective to determine the cost-effectiveness of routine use of TXA for PPH in the United States. Robust modeling using Monte Carlo estimation and a variety of sensitivity analyses add reliability to the authors’ findings.

This work is limited, however, by the assumptions put into the authors’ models. For example, outcome data regarding effectiveness of TXA was taken from the WOMAN trial, which was not performed within the United States. In addition, it is difficult to quantify in dollars an event as profound as a maternal death. The authors recognize that they likely underestimate the “cost” of a maternal death, but that this underestimation would only increase the cost-effectiveness of TXA.

Finally, it is important to take into account that such economic analyses are helpful to inform institutional guidelines and hemorrhage protocols, but that patient-specific decision-making should be individualized based on the clinical scenario at hand.

Sudhof LS, Shainker SA, Einerson BD. Tranexamic acid in the routine treatment of postpartum hemorrhage in the United States: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Published online June 18, 2019. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.06.030.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Postpartum hemorrhage is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The World Maternal Antifibrinolytic (WOMAN) trial showed that the use of TXA, an antifibrinolytic agent, for PPH decreases hemorrhage-related mortality and laparotomy. Routine use of TXA for PPH has demonstrated cost-effectiveness in low-resource countries, where hemorrhage-related mortality rates are higher than in the United States. This study aimed to determine if routine use of TXA for PPH in the United States also is cost-effective.

Details of the study

Sudhof and colleagues conducted a decision-tree analysis to compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 strategies regarding routine use of TXA for PPH in the United States: no TXA, TXA given at any time, and TXA given within 3 hours of delivery.

Health care system perspective. In the primary analysis, the 3 strategies were evaluated from the perspective of the health care system. Outcomes included cost, number of laparotomies, and maternal deaths from delivery until 6 weeks postpartum. Rates of hemorrhage and related complications, as well as cost assumptions, were derived from multiple US-based studies. The relative risk reduction in death and laparotomy with TXA in the United States was assumed to be similar to that found in the WOMAN trial (19% and 36%, respectively).

Societal perspective. In the secondary analysis, the 3 TXA strategies were evaluated from the societal perspective, comparing quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost per QALY. For both the primary and secondary analyses, sensitivity analyses were performed across a range of values for each input.

Main findings. Tranexamic acid use would be cost saving if the relative risk reduction for maternal death with TXA was greater than approximately 5%, which is significantly lower than that seen in the WOMAN trial (19%). The primary analysis demonstrated that—assuming a 3% rate of PPH—giving TXA to women with PPH would save $11.3 million, prevent 334 laparotomies, and avert 9 maternal deaths annually in the United States. This cost saving nearly tripled if TXA was administered within 3 hours of delivery, with 5 additional maternal deaths prevented.

Secondary analysis incorporating QALYs also showed TXA use to be cost-effective. These findings held through various sensitivity analyses.

Continue to: Study strengths and limitations...

Study strengths and limitations

This study is novel in its critical objective to determine the cost-effectiveness of routine use of TXA for PPH in the United States. Robust modeling using Monte Carlo estimation and a variety of sensitivity analyses add reliability to the authors’ findings.

This work is limited, however, by the assumptions put into the authors’ models. For example, outcome data regarding effectiveness of TXA was taken from the WOMAN trial, which was not performed within the United States. In addition, it is difficult to quantify in dollars an event as profound as a maternal death. The authors recognize that they likely underestimate the “cost” of a maternal death, but that this underestimation would only increase the cost-effectiveness of TXA.

Finally, it is important to take into account that such economic analyses are helpful to inform institutional guidelines and hemorrhage protocols, but that patient-specific decision-making should be individualized based on the clinical scenario at hand.

Sudhof LS, Shainker SA, Einerson BD. Tranexamic acid in the routine treatment of postpartum hemorrhage in the United States: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Published online June 18, 2019. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.06.030.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Postpartum hemorrhage is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The World Maternal Antifibrinolytic (WOMAN) trial showed that the use of TXA, an antifibrinolytic agent, for PPH decreases hemorrhage-related mortality and laparotomy. Routine use of TXA for PPH has demonstrated cost-effectiveness in low-resource countries, where hemorrhage-related mortality rates are higher than in the United States. This study aimed to determine if routine use of TXA for PPH in the United States also is cost-effective.

Details of the study

Sudhof and colleagues conducted a decision-tree analysis to compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 strategies regarding routine use of TXA for PPH in the United States: no TXA, TXA given at any time, and TXA given within 3 hours of delivery.

Health care system perspective. In the primary analysis, the 3 strategies were evaluated from the perspective of the health care system. Outcomes included cost, number of laparotomies, and maternal deaths from delivery until 6 weeks postpartum. Rates of hemorrhage and related complications, as well as cost assumptions, were derived from multiple US-based studies. The relative risk reduction in death and laparotomy with TXA in the United States was assumed to be similar to that found in the WOMAN trial (19% and 36%, respectively).

Societal perspective. In the secondary analysis, the 3 TXA strategies were evaluated from the societal perspective, comparing quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost per QALY. For both the primary and secondary analyses, sensitivity analyses were performed across a range of values for each input.

Main findings. Tranexamic acid use would be cost saving if the relative risk reduction for maternal death with TXA was greater than approximately 5%, which is significantly lower than that seen in the WOMAN trial (19%). The primary analysis demonstrated that—assuming a 3% rate of PPH—giving TXA to women with PPH would save $11.3 million, prevent 334 laparotomies, and avert 9 maternal deaths annually in the United States. This cost saving nearly tripled if TXA was administered within 3 hours of delivery, with 5 additional maternal deaths prevented.

Secondary analysis incorporating QALYs also showed TXA use to be cost-effective. These findings held through various sensitivity analyses.

Continue to: Study strengths and limitations...

Study strengths and limitations

This study is novel in its critical objective to determine the cost-effectiveness of routine use of TXA for PPH in the United States. Robust modeling using Monte Carlo estimation and a variety of sensitivity analyses add reliability to the authors’ findings.

This work is limited, however, by the assumptions put into the authors’ models. For example, outcome data regarding effectiveness of TXA was taken from the WOMAN trial, which was not performed within the United States. In addition, it is difficult to quantify in dollars an event as profound as a maternal death. The authors recognize that they likely underestimate the “cost” of a maternal death, but that this underestimation would only increase the cost-effectiveness of TXA.

Finally, it is important to take into account that such economic analyses are helpful to inform institutional guidelines and hemorrhage protocols, but that patient-specific decision-making should be individualized based on the clinical scenario at hand.

Case 1 Induction at 39 weeks in a healthy nulliparous woman

A healthy 35-year-old woman (G1P0) at 39 weeks 0 days and with an uncomplicated pregnancy presents to your office for a routine prenatal visit. She inquires about scheduling an induction of labor, noting that she read a news story about induction at 39 weeks and that it might lower her chance of having a cesarean delivery (CD).

You perform a cervical exam—she is 1 cm dilated, 3 cm long, -2 station, posterior, and firm. You sweep her membranes after obtaining verbal consent. After describing the induction process, you explain that she might be hospitalized for several days before the birth given the need for cervical ripening. “You mean I need to stay in the hospital for the entire process?” she asks incredulously.
 

Over the past 20 years, the percentage of patients undergoing induction of labor (IOL) has increased from 10% to 25%.¹ This percentage likely will rise over time, particularly in the wake of a recent randomized controlled trial suggesting potential maternal benefits, such as reduced CD rate, for nulliparas induced at 39 weeks compared with expectant management.² Although there have not been any changes to guidelines for timing of IOL from such professional societies such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) or the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, key considerations of rising IOL volume include patient experience, labor and delivery (L&D) units’ capacity and resources, and associated health care costs.

An essential part of successful induction involves patience. Induction can be a lengthy process, particularly for nulliparas with unripe cervices. Cervical ripening is a necessary component of successful labor induction, whether achieved mechanically or pharmacologically with synthetic prostaglandins, and it has been shown to lower the chance of CD.^3,4 However, achieving a ripe cervix is often the lengthiest part of an induction, and not uncommonly consumes 12 to 24 hours or more of inpatient time. Investigators have sought ways to make this process more expeditious. For example, the FOR-MOMI trial demonstrated that the induction-to-delivery time was several hours shorter when cervical ripening combined mechanical and pharmacologic approaches (Foley balloon plus misoprostol), compared with either method alone, without any increase in maternal or fetal complication rates.⁵

Better yet, what if admission to the L&D unit for IOL at term could be deferred until the cervix is ripe? A number of hospitals in the United States have successfully introduced outpatient cervical ripening, and several small observational and randomized controlled trials have reported good results in terms of safety, efficacy and time saved, and patient experience. Here, we will make the case that outpatient cervical ripening should be the standard of care for low-risk pregnancies.

Mechanical cervical ripening

Safety

Although data are limited on the safety, the authors of an ACOG Practice Bulletin suggest that, based on the available evidence of mechanical ripening in an inpatient setting, it is also appropriate in the outpatient setting.⁶ Unlike cervical ripening using prostaglandins, mechanical ripening is not associated with tachysystole, fetal intolerance of labor, or meconium staining.³ A cohort study of nearly 2,000 low-risk patients who underwent Foley catheter placement for cervical ripening using an outpatient protocol but monitored overnight as inpatients and evaluated for adverse outcomes found no CD for fetal distress, vaginal bleeding, placental abruption, or intrapartum stillbirth.⁷ The authors posited that, given this safety profile in the inpatient setting, that mechanical cervical ripening with a Foley catheter would be appropriate for outpatient use in low-risk populations. Other systematic reviews have been reassuring as well, with exceedingly low complication rates during inpatient mechanical cervical ripening.⁸ These data advocate for the evaluation of cervical ripening in the outpatient setting.

The evidence for outpatient mechanical ripening, although again limited, also has demonstrated safety. There does not appear to be an increased rate of maternal or neonatal complications, including infectious morbidity, postpartum hemorrhage, CD, operative vaginal delivery, or fetal distress.^9-12

Continue to: Efficacy and length-of-stay...

Efficacy and length-of-stay

Efficacy also generally has been shown to be similar when mechanical methods are used in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Small randomized trials of outpatient versus inpatient Foley catheter ripening have shown decreased length of stay (by 10 to 13 hours) and similar or less oxytocin use in the outpatient groups, as well as similar Bishop scores after cervical ripening and no difference in maternal or fetal outcomes.^9,11,13,14

One major concern with increasing IOL prevalence is the availability of hospital resources and the associated health care costs, given the known increased length of inpatient stay due to cervical ripening time. Admission to an L&D unit is resource intensive; the costs are similar to admission to an intensive care unit in many hospitals given its level of acuity and high nurse/patient ratio. However, given the safety of outpatient mechanical cervical ripening described above, we argue that routinely admitting low-risk patients for mechanical ripening constitutes a suboptimal use of costly resources.

Indeed, data suggest significant inpatient time savings if cervical ripening can be accomplished prior to admission. A cost-effectiveness analysis in the Netherlands demonstrated a nearly 1,000-euro decrease in cost per induction when Foley catheter induction was done on an outpatient basis.¹⁵ Interestingly, a recent trial confined to multiparas found no differences in hospital time when comparing outpatient ripening with Foley balloon alone with inpatient ripening with Foley balloon plus simultaneous oxytocin.¹⁰ This certainly merits further study, but it may be that the largest time- and cost-savings are among nulliparas.

Patient preferences

Relatively few studies specifically have addressed patient experiences with outpatient versus inpatient mechanical cervical ripening. Outpatient cervical ripening may provide patients with the benefits of being in the comfort of their own homes with their preferred support persons, increased mobility, more bodily autonomy, and satisfaction with their birthing process.

In a pilot trial involving 48 women, inpatient was compared with outpatient cervical ripening using a Foley balloon. Those in the outpatient group reported getting more rest, feeling less isolated, and having enough privacy. However, participants in both groups were equally satisfied and equally likely to recommend their method of induction to others.¹¹ Another study comparing outpatient versus inpatient Foley balloon cervical ripening found that 85% of patients who underwent outpatient ripening were satisfied with the induction method; however, no query or comparison was done with the inpatient group.¹² A trial comparing outpatient mechanical cervical ripening with inpatient misoprostol found that outpatient participants reported several hours more sleep and less pain.¹⁶ And in a discrete choice experiment of British gravidas, participants favored the option of outpatient cervical ripening, even if it meant an extra 1.4 trips to the hospital and over an hour of extra travel time.¹⁷

While these preliminary findings provide some insight that patients may prefer an outpatient approach to cervical ripening, more studies are needed to fully evaluate patient desires.

Continue to: Our approach to mechanical cervical ripening...

Our approach to mechanical cervical ripening

Most patients undergoing scheduled IOL are reasonable candidates for outpatient cervical ripening based on safety and efficacy. By definition, scheduling in advance implies that the provider has determined that outpatient management is reasonable until that date, and the plan for outpatient ripening need not prolong this period.

FIGURES 1 and 2 show protocols for our 2 hospital centers, which regularly allow for outpatient mechanical cervical ripening. In the process of protocol development, we identified absolute and relative contraindications to determine appropriate candidates. We exclude women who require inpatient management of medical or obstetric conditions (for example, women with severe preeclampsia or any condition requiring continuous fetal monitoring). We also do not routinely recommend outpatient cervical ripening to patients who do not have the necessary social conditions to make this process as safe as possible (including stable housing, reliable transportation, and a support person), although this occurs with some exceptions depending on individual patient situations.

Some examples of ideal candidates for outpatient mechanical cervical ripening include those undergoing elective or routine prolonged gestation inductions, or inductions for well-controlled, stable conditions (chronic hypertension and gestational diabetes). At one center, after thorough counseling and assessment, outpatient cervical ripening is also offered to patients with mild risk factors, including twins, prior low transverse CD, stable preeclampsia without severe features, isolated oligohydramnios with otherwise reassuring fetal status, and other similar conditions.

After mechanical cervical ripening placement (either Foley catheter or mechanical dilators), the clinician completes a postprocedure safety checklist and detailed procedure documentation, including number and type of foreign bodies placed. If there are any concerns regarding maternal or fetal well-being, the patient is sent to L&D for evaluation. If the procedure was tolerated well, the patient is discharged home, after a reactive postprocedure nonstress test is done, with detailed instructions for self-care, as well as with a list of symptoms that warrant prompt evaluation prior to scheduled induction time. In a large California hospital group following a similar protocol, only about 5% of women presented in labor before their scheduled induction.¹⁸

Case 2 Cervical ripening for labor preparation in low-risk pregnancy

A 32-year-old woman (G1P0) with an uncomplicated pregnancy at 40 weeks and 3 days presents to your office for a routine prenatal visit. Her vital signs are normal, and her fetus is vertex with an estimated fetal weight of 7.5 lb by Leopald’s maneuvers. You perform a cervical exam and find that her cervix is closed, long, and posterior.

You discuss with her your recommendation for induction of labor by 41 weeks, and she agrees. You also discuss the need for cervical ripening and recommend misoprostol given her closed cervix. You explain that several doses may be needed to get her cervix ready for labor, and she asks, “Do I have to stay in the hospital that whole time?”

Pharmacologic cervical ripening

Efficacy

There are multiple pharmacologic agents that can be used for ripening an unfavorable cervix. The main agents used in the United States are prostaglandins, either PGE1 (oral or vaginal misoprostol) or PGE2 in a gel or sustained-release vaginal insert (dinoprostone).

Outpatient misoprostol to avoid labor induction. Many studies have looked at outpatient misoprostol use as a “prophylactic measure” (to prevent the need for labor induction). For example, Gaffaney and colleagues showed that administering outpatient oral misoprostol (100 µg every 24 hours for up to 3 doses) after 40 weeks’ gestation to women with an unfavorable cervix significantly decreased the time to delivery by a day and a half.¹⁹ Similarly, PonMalar and colleagues demonstrated that administering 25 µg of vaginal misoprostol in a single dose as an outpatient after stripping the membranes significantly reduced time to delivery by 2 days.²⁰ And Stitely and colleagues found a significant reduction in the need for labor induction with the use of outpatient vaginal misoprostol. They administered up to 2 doses of misoprostol 25 µg vaginally every 24 hours for the 48 hours prior to a scheduled postdates induction and found a large reduction in the need for labor induction (11% vs 85%; P<.01).²¹

Continue to: Multiple protocols and regimens...

Multiple protocols and regimens have been studied but, overall, the findings suggest that administering outpatient misoprostol may shorten the time interval to spontaneous labor and decrease the need for a formal labor induction.^19-23

Inpatient compared with outpatient prostaglandin use. These trials of “prophylactic” misoprostol generally have compared outpatient administration of misoprostol with placebo. Prostaglandins are one of the most common methods of inpatient cervical ripening, so what about comparisons of inpatient cervical ripening with outpatient prostaglandin administration? There are a handful of studies that make this comparison.

Chang and colleagues looked retrospectively at inpatient and outpatient misoprostol and found that outpatient administration saved 3 to 5 hours on labor and delivery.²⁴ Biem and colleagues randomly assigned women to either inpatient cervical ripening with PGE2 intravaginal inserts or 1 hour of inpatient monitoring after PGE2 administration and then outpatient discharge until the onset of labor or for a nonstress test at 12 hours. They found that those who underwent outpatient ripening spent 8 hours less on labor and delivery and were more highly satisfied with the initial 12 hours of labor induction experience (56% vs 39%; P<.01).²⁵

The largest randomized controlled trial conducted to study outpatient prostaglandin use was the OPRA study (involving 827 women). Investigators compared inpatient to outpatient PGE2 intravaginal gel.²⁶ The primary outcome was total oxytocin administration, which was not different between groups. The study was underpowered, however, as 50% of women labored spontaneously postrandomization. But in the outpatient arm, less than half of the women required additional inpatient ripening, and nearly 40% returned in spontaneous labor, suggesting that outpatient prostaglandin administration may indeed save women a significant amount of time on labor and delivery.

Safety

The safety of outpatient administration of prostaglandins is the biggest concern, especially since, when prostaglandins are compared to outpatient Foley catheter use, Foleys are overall associated with less tachysystole, fetal intolerance, and meconium-stained fluid.³ Foley catheter use for cervical ripening may not be an appropriate choice for all patients, however. For instance, our case patient has a closed cervix, which could make Foley insertion uncomfortable or even impossible. Misoprostol use also offers the potential for flexibility in cervical ripening protocols as patients need not return for Foley balloon removal and indeed labor induction need not take place immediately after administration of misoprostol.

Patients also may prefer outpatient cervical ripening with misoprostol over a Foley. There are some data to suggest that women, overall, have a preference toward prostaglandins; in the PROBAAT-II trial, which compared inpatient oral misoprostol to Foley catheter for cervical ripening, 12% of women in the Foley arm would have preferred another method of induction (vs 6% in the misoprostol arm; P = .02).²⁷ This preference may be magnified in an outpatient setting.

But, again, is outpatient administration of prostaglandins safe? The published trials thus far have not reported an increase in out-of-hospital deliveries or adverse fetal outcomes. However, studies have been of limited size to see more rare outcomes. Unfortunately, an adequately powered study to demonstrate safety is likely never to be accomplished, given that if used responsibly (in low-risk patients with adequate monitoring after administration) the incidence of adverse fetal outcomes during the at-home portion of cervical ripening is likely to be very low. With responsible use, outpatient administration of prostaglandins should be safe. Women are monitored after misoprostol administration and are not sent home if there are any concerns for fetal distress or if frequent contractions continue. Misoprostol reaches maximum blood concentration 30 minutes after oral administration and 70 to 80 minutes after vaginal administration.²⁸ After this time, if contractions start to intensify it is likely that misoprostol has triggered spontaneous labor. In this setting, women are routinely allowed to spontaneously labor at home. One may even argue that outpatient misoprostol could lead to improved safety, as women essentially have a contraction stress test prior to spontaneous labor, and misoprostol administration as an outpatient, as opposed to as an inpatient, may allow for longer time intervals between doses, which could prevent dose stacking.

Continue to: Our approach to pharmacologic cervical ripening...

Our approach to pharmacologic cervical ripening

Our hospital has been conducting outpatient cervical ripening using vaginal misoprostol for more than 15 years without any known adverse safety concerns (FIGURE 3). Women with a low-risk, singleton pregnancy between 39+0 and 40+6 weeks are potential candidates for outpatient ripening. The majority of outpatient inductions are done electively without any medical indication. Women with stable, minor risk factors (such as diet-controlled gestational diabetes) also may be candidates at their clinician’s discretion. Patients are monitored either in our L&D triage area or in our outpatient antenatal unit; both units are in the same building. One clinician offers outpatient misoprostol in the office, across the street from L&D. We allow for clinician flexibility after administration. Some clinicians do 1 or 2 doses of outpatient cervical ripening in a day prior to a scheduled inpatient induction the next day. Some do multiple daily doses over the course of a week.

Conclusion

While the data continue to be limited, we strongly believe there is sufficient quality evidence from a safety and efficacy perspective to support implementation and evaluation of outpatient cervical ripening protocols for low-risk pregnancies. In the setting of renewed commitments to reducing suboptimal health care costs and utilization as well as increasing patient satisfaction and control in their birthing experiences, we posit it is the responsibility of obstetricians, L&D leadership, and health care institutions to explore the implementation of outpatient cervical ripening for appropriate candidates in their settings.

Case 1 Induction at 39 weeks in a healthy nulliparous woman

A healthy 35-year-old woman (G1P0) at 39 weeks 0 days and with an uncomplicated pregnancy presents to your office for a routine prenatal visit. She inquires about scheduling an induction of labor, noting that she read a news story about induction at 39 weeks and that it might lower her chance of having a cesarean delivery (CD).

You perform a cervical exam—she is 1 cm dilated, 3 cm long, -2 station, posterior, and firm. You sweep her membranes after obtaining verbal consent. After describing the induction process, you explain that she might be hospitalized for several days before the birth given the need for cervical ripening. “You mean I need to stay in the hospital for the entire process?” she asks incredulously.
 

Over the past 20 years, the percentage of patients undergoing induction of labor (IOL) has increased from 10% to 25%.¹ This percentage likely will rise over time, particularly in the wake of a recent randomized controlled trial suggesting potential maternal benefits, such as reduced CD rate, for nulliparas induced at 39 weeks compared with expectant management.² Although there have not been any changes to guidelines for timing of IOL from such professional societies such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) or the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, key considerations of rising IOL volume include patient experience, labor and delivery (L&D) units’ capacity and resources, and associated health care costs.

An essential part of successful induction involves patience. Induction can be a lengthy process, particularly for nulliparas with unripe cervices. Cervical ripening is a necessary component of successful labor induction, whether achieved mechanically or pharmacologically with synthetic prostaglandins, and it has been shown to lower the chance of CD.^3,4 However, achieving a ripe cervix is often the lengthiest part of an induction, and not uncommonly consumes 12 to 24 hours or more of inpatient time. Investigators have sought ways to make this process more expeditious. For example, the FOR-MOMI trial demonstrated that the induction-to-delivery time was several hours shorter when cervical ripening combined mechanical and pharmacologic approaches (Foley balloon plus misoprostol), compared with either method alone, without any increase in maternal or fetal complication rates.⁵

Better yet, what if admission to the L&D unit for IOL at term could be deferred until the cervix is ripe? A number of hospitals in the United States have successfully introduced outpatient cervical ripening, and several small observational and randomized controlled trials have reported good results in terms of safety, efficacy and time saved, and patient experience. Here, we will make the case that outpatient cervical ripening should be the standard of care for low-risk pregnancies.

Mechanical cervical ripening

Safety

Although data are limited on the safety, the authors of an ACOG Practice Bulletin suggest that, based on the available evidence of mechanical ripening in an inpatient setting, it is also appropriate in the outpatient setting.⁶ Unlike cervical ripening using prostaglandins, mechanical ripening is not associated with tachysystole, fetal intolerance of labor, or meconium staining.³ A cohort study of nearly 2,000 low-risk patients who underwent Foley catheter placement for cervical ripening using an outpatient protocol but monitored overnight as inpatients and evaluated for adverse outcomes found no CD for fetal distress, vaginal bleeding, placental abruption, or intrapartum stillbirth.⁷ The authors posited that, given this safety profile in the inpatient setting, that mechanical cervical ripening with a Foley catheter would be appropriate for outpatient use in low-risk populations. Other systematic reviews have been reassuring as well, with exceedingly low complication rates during inpatient mechanical cervical ripening.⁸ These data advocate for the evaluation of cervical ripening in the outpatient setting.

The evidence for outpatient mechanical ripening, although again limited, also has demonstrated safety. There does not appear to be an increased rate of maternal or neonatal complications, including infectious morbidity, postpartum hemorrhage, CD, operative vaginal delivery, or fetal distress.^9-12

Continue to: Efficacy and length-of-stay...

Efficacy and length-of-stay

Efficacy also generally has been shown to be similar when mechanical methods are used in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Small randomized trials of outpatient versus inpatient Foley catheter ripening have shown decreased length of stay (by 10 to 13 hours) and similar or less oxytocin use in the outpatient groups, as well as similar Bishop scores after cervical ripening and no difference in maternal or fetal outcomes.^9,11,13,14

One major concern with increasing IOL prevalence is the availability of hospital resources and the associated health care costs, given the known increased length of inpatient stay due to cervical ripening time. Admission to an L&D unit is resource intensive; the costs are similar to admission to an intensive care unit in many hospitals given its level of acuity and high nurse/patient ratio. However, given the safety of outpatient mechanical cervical ripening described above, we argue that routinely admitting low-risk patients for mechanical ripening constitutes a suboptimal use of costly resources.

Indeed, data suggest significant inpatient time savings if cervical ripening can be accomplished prior to admission. A cost-effectiveness analysis in the Netherlands demonstrated a nearly 1,000-euro decrease in cost per induction when Foley catheter induction was done on an outpatient basis.¹⁵ Interestingly, a recent trial confined to multiparas found no differences in hospital time when comparing outpatient ripening with Foley balloon alone with inpatient ripening with Foley balloon plus simultaneous oxytocin.¹⁰ This certainly merits further study, but it may be that the largest time- and cost-savings are among nulliparas.

Patient preferences

Relatively few studies specifically have addressed patient experiences with outpatient versus inpatient mechanical cervical ripening. Outpatient cervical ripening may provide patients with the benefits of being in the comfort of their own homes with their preferred support persons, increased mobility, more bodily autonomy, and satisfaction with their birthing process.

In a pilot trial involving 48 women, inpatient was compared with outpatient cervical ripening using a Foley balloon. Those in the outpatient group reported getting more rest, feeling less isolated, and having enough privacy. However, participants in both groups were equally satisfied and equally likely to recommend their method of induction to others.¹¹ Another study comparing outpatient versus inpatient Foley balloon cervical ripening found that 85% of patients who underwent outpatient ripening were satisfied with the induction method; however, no query or comparison was done with the inpatient group.¹² A trial comparing outpatient mechanical cervical ripening with inpatient misoprostol found that outpatient participants reported several hours more sleep and less pain.¹⁶ And in a discrete choice experiment of British gravidas, participants favored the option of outpatient cervical ripening, even if it meant an extra 1.4 trips to the hospital and over an hour of extra travel time.¹⁷

While these preliminary findings provide some insight that patients may prefer an outpatient approach to cervical ripening, more studies are needed to fully evaluate patient desires.

Continue to: Our approach to mechanical cervical ripening...

Our approach to mechanical cervical ripening

Most patients undergoing scheduled IOL are reasonable candidates for outpatient cervical ripening based on safety and efficacy. By definition, scheduling in advance implies that the provider has determined that outpatient management is reasonable until that date, and the plan for outpatient ripening need not prolong this period.

FIGURES 1 and 2 show protocols for our 2 hospital centers, which regularly allow for outpatient mechanical cervical ripening. In the process of protocol development, we identified absolute and relative contraindications to determine appropriate candidates. We exclude women who require inpatient management of medical or obstetric conditions (for example, women with severe preeclampsia or any condition requiring continuous fetal monitoring). We also do not routinely recommend outpatient cervical ripening to patients who do not have the necessary social conditions to make this process as safe as possible (including stable housing, reliable transportation, and a support person), although this occurs with some exceptions depending on individual patient situations.

Some examples of ideal candidates for outpatient mechanical cervical ripening include those undergoing elective or routine prolonged gestation inductions, or inductions for well-controlled, stable conditions (chronic hypertension and gestational diabetes). At one center, after thorough counseling and assessment, outpatient cervical ripening is also offered to patients with mild risk factors, including twins, prior low transverse CD, stable preeclampsia without severe features, isolated oligohydramnios with otherwise reassuring fetal status, and other similar conditions.

After mechanical cervical ripening placement (either Foley catheter or mechanical dilators), the clinician completes a postprocedure safety checklist and detailed procedure documentation, including number and type of foreign bodies placed. If there are any concerns regarding maternal or fetal well-being, the patient is sent to L&D for evaluation. If the procedure was tolerated well, the patient is discharged home, after a reactive postprocedure nonstress test is done, with detailed instructions for self-care, as well as with a list of symptoms that warrant prompt evaluation prior to scheduled induction time. In a large California hospital group following a similar protocol, only about 5% of women presented in labor before their scheduled induction.¹⁸

Case 2 Cervical ripening for labor preparation in low-risk pregnancy

A 32-year-old woman (G1P0) with an uncomplicated pregnancy at 40 weeks and 3 days presents to your office for a routine prenatal visit. Her vital signs are normal, and her fetus is vertex with an estimated fetal weight of 7.5 lb by Leopald’s maneuvers. You perform a cervical exam and find that her cervix is closed, long, and posterior.

You discuss with her your recommendation for induction of labor by 41 weeks, and she agrees. You also discuss the need for cervical ripening and recommend misoprostol given her closed cervix. You explain that several doses may be needed to get her cervix ready for labor, and she asks, “Do I have to stay in the hospital that whole time?”

Pharmacologic cervical ripening

Efficacy

There are multiple pharmacologic agents that can be used for ripening an unfavorable cervix. The main agents used in the United States are prostaglandins, either PGE1 (oral or vaginal misoprostol) or PGE2 in a gel or sustained-release vaginal insert (dinoprostone).

Outpatient misoprostol to avoid labor induction. Many studies have looked at outpatient misoprostol use as a “prophylactic measure” (to prevent the need for labor induction). For example, Gaffaney and colleagues showed that administering outpatient oral misoprostol (100 µg every 24 hours for up to 3 doses) after 40 weeks’ gestation to women with an unfavorable cervix significantly decreased the time to delivery by a day and a half.¹⁹ Similarly, PonMalar and colleagues demonstrated that administering 25 µg of vaginal misoprostol in a single dose as an outpatient after stripping the membranes significantly reduced time to delivery by 2 days.²⁰ And Stitely and colleagues found a significant reduction in the need for labor induction with the use of outpatient vaginal misoprostol. They administered up to 2 doses of misoprostol 25 µg vaginally every 24 hours for the 48 hours prior to a scheduled postdates induction and found a large reduction in the need for labor induction (11% vs 85%; P<.01).²¹

Continue to: Multiple protocols and regimens...

Multiple protocols and regimens have been studied but, overall, the findings suggest that administering outpatient misoprostol may shorten the time interval to spontaneous labor and decrease the need for a formal labor induction.^19-23

Inpatient compared with outpatient prostaglandin use. These trials of “prophylactic” misoprostol generally have compared outpatient administration of misoprostol with placebo. Prostaglandins are one of the most common methods of inpatient cervical ripening, so what about comparisons of inpatient cervical ripening with outpatient prostaglandin administration? There are a handful of studies that make this comparison.

Chang and colleagues looked retrospectively at inpatient and outpatient misoprostol and found that outpatient administration saved 3 to 5 hours on labor and delivery.²⁴ Biem and colleagues randomly assigned women to either inpatient cervical ripening with PGE2 intravaginal inserts or 1 hour of inpatient monitoring after PGE2 administration and then outpatient discharge until the onset of labor or for a nonstress test at 12 hours. They found that those who underwent outpatient ripening spent 8 hours less on labor and delivery and were more highly satisfied with the initial 12 hours of labor induction experience (56% vs 39%; P<.01).²⁵

The largest randomized controlled trial conducted to study outpatient prostaglandin use was the OPRA study (involving 827 women). Investigators compared inpatient to outpatient PGE2 intravaginal gel.²⁶ The primary outcome was total oxytocin administration, which was not different between groups. The study was underpowered, however, as 50% of women labored spontaneously postrandomization. But in the outpatient arm, less than half of the women required additional inpatient ripening, and nearly 40% returned in spontaneous labor, suggesting that outpatient prostaglandin administration may indeed save women a significant amount of time on labor and delivery.

Safety

The safety of outpatient administration of prostaglandins is the biggest concern, especially since, when prostaglandins are compared to outpatient Foley catheter use, Foleys are overall associated with less tachysystole, fetal intolerance, and meconium-stained fluid.³ Foley catheter use for cervical ripening may not be an appropriate choice for all patients, however. For instance, our case patient has a closed cervix, which could make Foley insertion uncomfortable or even impossible. Misoprostol use also offers the potential for flexibility in cervical ripening protocols as patients need not return for Foley balloon removal and indeed labor induction need not take place immediately after administration of misoprostol.

Patients also may prefer outpatient cervical ripening with misoprostol over a Foley. There are some data to suggest that women, overall, have a preference toward prostaglandins; in the PROBAAT-II trial, which compared inpatient oral misoprostol to Foley catheter for cervical ripening, 12% of women in the Foley arm would have preferred another method of induction (vs 6% in the misoprostol arm; P = .02).²⁷ This preference may be magnified in an outpatient setting.

But, again, is outpatient administration of prostaglandins safe? The published trials thus far have not reported an increase in out-of-hospital deliveries or adverse fetal outcomes. However, studies have been of limited size to see more rare outcomes. Unfortunately, an adequately powered study to demonstrate safety is likely never to be accomplished, given that if used responsibly (in low-risk patients with adequate monitoring after administration) the incidence of adverse fetal outcomes during the at-home portion of cervical ripening is likely to be very low. With responsible use, outpatient administration of prostaglandins should be safe. Women are monitored after misoprostol administration and are not sent home if there are any concerns for fetal distress or if frequent contractions continue. Misoprostol reaches maximum blood concentration 30 minutes after oral administration and 70 to 80 minutes after vaginal administration.²⁸ After this time, if contractions start to intensify it is likely that misoprostol has triggered spontaneous labor. In this setting, women are routinely allowed to spontaneously labor at home. One may even argue that outpatient misoprostol could lead to improved safety, as women essentially have a contraction stress test prior to spontaneous labor, and misoprostol administration as an outpatient, as opposed to as an inpatient, may allow for longer time intervals between doses, which could prevent dose stacking.

Continue to: Our approach to pharmacologic cervical ripening...

Our approach to pharmacologic cervical ripening

Our hospital has been conducting outpatient cervical ripening using vaginal misoprostol for more than 15 years without any known adverse safety concerns (FIGURE 3). Women with a low-risk, singleton pregnancy between 39+0 and 40+6 weeks are potential candidates for outpatient ripening. The majority of outpatient inductions are done electively without any medical indication. Women with stable, minor risk factors (such as diet-controlled gestational diabetes) also may be candidates at their clinician’s discretion. Patients are monitored either in our L&D triage area or in our outpatient antenatal unit; both units are in the same building. One clinician offers outpatient misoprostol in the office, across the street from L&D. We allow for clinician flexibility after administration. Some clinicians do 1 or 2 doses of outpatient cervical ripening in a day prior to a scheduled inpatient induction the next day. Some do multiple daily doses over the course of a week.

Conclusion

While the data continue to be limited, we strongly believe there is sufficient quality evidence from a safety and efficacy perspective to support implementation and evaluation of outpatient cervical ripening protocols for low-risk pregnancies. In the setting of renewed commitments to reducing suboptimal health care costs and utilization as well as increasing patient satisfaction and control in their birthing experiences, we posit it is the responsibility of obstetricians, L&D leadership, and health care institutions to explore the implementation of outpatient cervical ripening for appropriate candidates in their settings.

Case 1 Induction at 39 weeks in a healthy nulliparous woman

A healthy 35-year-old woman (G1P0) at 39 weeks 0 days and with an uncomplicated pregnancy presents to your office for a routine prenatal visit. She inquires about scheduling an induction of labor, noting that she read a news story about induction at 39 weeks and that it might lower her chance of having a cesarean delivery (CD).

You perform a cervical exam—she is 1 cm dilated, 3 cm long, -2 station, posterior, and firm. You sweep her membranes after obtaining verbal consent. After describing the induction process, you explain that she might be hospitalized for several days before the birth given the need for cervical ripening. “You mean I need to stay in the hospital for the entire process?” she asks incredulously.
 

Over the past 20 years, the percentage of patients undergoing induction of labor (IOL) has increased from 10% to 25%.¹ This percentage likely will rise over time, particularly in the wake of a recent randomized controlled trial suggesting potential maternal benefits, such as reduced CD rate, for nulliparas induced at 39 weeks compared with expectant management.² Although there have not been any changes to guidelines for timing of IOL from such professional societies such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) or the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, key considerations of rising IOL volume include patient experience, labor and delivery (L&D) units’ capacity and resources, and associated health care costs.

An essential part of successful induction involves patience. Induction can be a lengthy process, particularly for nulliparas with unripe cervices. Cervical ripening is a necessary component of successful labor induction, whether achieved mechanically or pharmacologically with synthetic prostaglandins, and it has been shown to lower the chance of CD.^3,4 However, achieving a ripe cervix is often the lengthiest part of an induction, and not uncommonly consumes 12 to 24 hours or more of inpatient time. Investigators have sought ways to make this process more expeditious. For example, the FOR-MOMI trial demonstrated that the induction-to-delivery time was several hours shorter when cervical ripening combined mechanical and pharmacologic approaches (Foley balloon plus misoprostol), compared with either method alone, without any increase in maternal or fetal complication rates.⁵

Better yet, what if admission to the L&D unit for IOL at term could be deferred until the cervix is ripe? A number of hospitals in the United States have successfully introduced outpatient cervical ripening, and several small observational and randomized controlled trials have reported good results in terms of safety, efficacy and time saved, and patient experience. Here, we will make the case that outpatient cervical ripening should be the standard of care for low-risk pregnancies.

Mechanical cervical ripening

Safety

Although data are limited on the safety, the authors of an ACOG Practice Bulletin suggest that, based on the available evidence of mechanical ripening in an inpatient setting, it is also appropriate in the outpatient setting.⁶ Unlike cervical ripening using prostaglandins, mechanical ripening is not associated with tachysystole, fetal intolerance of labor, or meconium staining.³ A cohort study of nearly 2,000 low-risk patients who underwent Foley catheter placement for cervical ripening using an outpatient protocol but monitored overnight as inpatients and evaluated for adverse outcomes found no CD for fetal distress, vaginal bleeding, placental abruption, or intrapartum stillbirth.⁷ The authors posited that, given this safety profile in the inpatient setting, that mechanical cervical ripening with a Foley catheter would be appropriate for outpatient use in low-risk populations. Other systematic reviews have been reassuring as well, with exceedingly low complication rates during inpatient mechanical cervical ripening.⁸ These data advocate for the evaluation of cervical ripening in the outpatient setting.

The evidence for outpatient mechanical ripening, although again limited, also has demonstrated safety. There does not appear to be an increased rate of maternal or neonatal complications, including infectious morbidity, postpartum hemorrhage, CD, operative vaginal delivery, or fetal distress.^9-12

Continue to: Efficacy and length-of-stay...

Efficacy and length-of-stay

Efficacy also generally has been shown to be similar when mechanical methods are used in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Small randomized trials of outpatient versus inpatient Foley catheter ripening have shown decreased length of stay (by 10 to 13 hours) and similar or less oxytocin use in the outpatient groups, as well as similar Bishop scores after cervical ripening and no difference in maternal or fetal outcomes.^9,11,13,14

One major concern with increasing IOL prevalence is the availability of hospital resources and the associated health care costs, given the known increased length of inpatient stay due to cervical ripening time. Admission to an L&D unit is resource intensive; the costs are similar to admission to an intensive care unit in many hospitals given its level of acuity and high nurse/patient ratio. However, given the safety of outpatient mechanical cervical ripening described above, we argue that routinely admitting low-risk patients for mechanical ripening constitutes a suboptimal use of costly resources.

Indeed, data suggest significant inpatient time savings if cervical ripening can be accomplished prior to admission. A cost-effectiveness analysis in the Netherlands demonstrated a nearly 1,000-euro decrease in cost per induction when Foley catheter induction was done on an outpatient basis.¹⁵ Interestingly, a recent trial confined to multiparas found no differences in hospital time when comparing outpatient ripening with Foley balloon alone with inpatient ripening with Foley balloon plus simultaneous oxytocin.¹⁰ This certainly merits further study, but it may be that the largest time- and cost-savings are among nulliparas.

Patient preferences

Relatively few studies specifically have addressed patient experiences with outpatient versus inpatient mechanical cervical ripening. Outpatient cervical ripening may provide patients with the benefits of being in the comfort of their own homes with their preferred support persons, increased mobility, more bodily autonomy, and satisfaction with their birthing process.

In a pilot trial involving 48 women, inpatient was compared with outpatient cervical ripening using a Foley balloon. Those in the outpatient group reported getting more rest, feeling less isolated, and having enough privacy. However, participants in both groups were equally satisfied and equally likely to recommend their method of induction to others.¹¹ Another study comparing outpatient versus inpatient Foley balloon cervical ripening found that 85% of patients who underwent outpatient ripening were satisfied with the induction method; however, no query or comparison was done with the inpatient group.¹² A trial comparing outpatient mechanical cervical ripening with inpatient misoprostol found that outpatient participants reported several hours more sleep and less pain.¹⁶ And in a discrete choice experiment of British gravidas, participants favored the option of outpatient cervical ripening, even if it meant an extra 1.4 trips to the hospital and over an hour of extra travel time.¹⁷

While these preliminary findings provide some insight that patients may prefer an outpatient approach to cervical ripening, more studies are needed to fully evaluate patient desires.

Continue to: Our approach to mechanical cervical ripening...

Our approach to mechanical cervical ripening

Most patients undergoing scheduled IOL are reasonable candidates for outpatient cervical ripening based on safety and efficacy. By definition, scheduling in advance implies that the provider has determined that outpatient management is reasonable until that date, and the plan for outpatient ripening need not prolong this period.

FIGURES 1 and 2 show protocols for our 2 hospital centers, which regularly allow for outpatient mechanical cervical ripening. In the process of protocol development, we identified absolute and relative contraindications to determine appropriate candidates. We exclude women who require inpatient management of medical or obstetric conditions (for example, women with severe preeclampsia or any condition requiring continuous fetal monitoring). We also do not routinely recommend outpatient cervical ripening to patients who do not have the necessary social conditions to make this process as safe as possible (including stable housing, reliable transportation, and a support person), although this occurs with some exceptions depending on individual patient situations.

Some examples of ideal candidates for outpatient mechanical cervical ripening include those undergoing elective or routine prolonged gestation inductions, or inductions for well-controlled, stable conditions (chronic hypertension and gestational diabetes). At one center, after thorough counseling and assessment, outpatient cervical ripening is also offered to patients with mild risk factors, including twins, prior low transverse CD, stable preeclampsia without severe features, isolated oligohydramnios with otherwise reassuring fetal status, and other similar conditions.

After mechanical cervical ripening placement (either Foley catheter or mechanical dilators), the clinician completes a postprocedure safety checklist and detailed procedure documentation, including number and type of foreign bodies placed. If there are any concerns regarding maternal or fetal well-being, the patient is sent to L&D for evaluation. If the procedure was tolerated well, the patient is discharged home, after a reactive postprocedure nonstress test is done, with detailed instructions for self-care, as well as with a list of symptoms that warrant prompt evaluation prior to scheduled induction time. In a large California hospital group following a similar protocol, only about 5% of women presented in labor before their scheduled induction.¹⁸

Case 2 Cervical ripening for labor preparation in low-risk pregnancy

A 32-year-old woman (G1P0) with an uncomplicated pregnancy at 40 weeks and 3 days presents to your office for a routine prenatal visit. Her vital signs are normal, and her fetus is vertex with an estimated fetal weight of 7.5 lb by Leopald’s maneuvers. You perform a cervical exam and find that her cervix is closed, long, and posterior.

You discuss with her your recommendation for induction of labor by 41 weeks, and she agrees. You also discuss the need for cervical ripening and recommend misoprostol given her closed cervix. You explain that several doses may be needed to get her cervix ready for labor, and she asks, “Do I have to stay in the hospital that whole time?”

Pharmacologic cervical ripening

Efficacy

There are multiple pharmacologic agents that can be used for ripening an unfavorable cervix. The main agents used in the United States are prostaglandins, either PGE1 (oral or vaginal misoprostol) or PGE2 in a gel or sustained-release vaginal insert (dinoprostone).

Outpatient misoprostol to avoid labor induction. Many studies have looked at outpatient misoprostol use as a “prophylactic measure” (to prevent the need for labor induction). For example, Gaffaney and colleagues showed that administering outpatient oral misoprostol (100 µg every 24 hours for up to 3 doses) after 40 weeks’ gestation to women with an unfavorable cervix significantly decreased the time to delivery by a day and a half.¹⁹ Similarly, PonMalar and colleagues demonstrated that administering 25 µg of vaginal misoprostol in a single dose as an outpatient after stripping the membranes significantly reduced time to delivery by 2 days.²⁰ And Stitely and colleagues found a significant reduction in the need for labor induction with the use of outpatient vaginal misoprostol. They administered up to 2 doses of misoprostol 25 µg vaginally every 24 hours for the 48 hours prior to a scheduled postdates induction and found a large reduction in the need for labor induction (11% vs 85%; P<.01).²¹

Continue to: Multiple protocols and regimens...

Multiple protocols and regimens have been studied but, overall, the findings suggest that administering outpatient misoprostol may shorten the time interval to spontaneous labor and decrease the need for a formal labor induction.^19-23

Inpatient compared with outpatient prostaglandin use. These trials of “prophylactic” misoprostol generally have compared outpatient administration of misoprostol with placebo. Prostaglandins are one of the most common methods of inpatient cervical ripening, so what about comparisons of inpatient cervical ripening with outpatient prostaglandin administration? There are a handful of studies that make this comparison.

Chang and colleagues looked retrospectively at inpatient and outpatient misoprostol and found that outpatient administration saved 3 to 5 hours on labor and delivery.²⁴ Biem and colleagues randomly assigned women to either inpatient cervical ripening with PGE2 intravaginal inserts or 1 hour of inpatient monitoring after PGE2 administration and then outpatient discharge until the onset of labor or for a nonstress test at 12 hours. They found that those who underwent outpatient ripening spent 8 hours less on labor and delivery and were more highly satisfied with the initial 12 hours of labor induction experience (56% vs 39%; P<.01).²⁵

The largest randomized controlled trial conducted to study outpatient prostaglandin use was the OPRA study (involving 827 women). Investigators compared inpatient to outpatient PGE2 intravaginal gel.²⁶ The primary outcome was total oxytocin administration, which was not different between groups. The study was underpowered, however, as 50% of women labored spontaneously postrandomization. But in the outpatient arm, less than half of the women required additional inpatient ripening, and nearly 40% returned in spontaneous labor, suggesting that outpatient prostaglandin administration may indeed save women a significant amount of time on labor and delivery.

Safety

The safety of outpatient administration of prostaglandins is the biggest concern, especially since, when prostaglandins are compared to outpatient Foley catheter use, Foleys are overall associated with less tachysystole, fetal intolerance, and meconium-stained fluid.³ Foley catheter use for cervical ripening may not be an appropriate choice for all patients, however. For instance, our case patient has a closed cervix, which could make Foley insertion uncomfortable or even impossible. Misoprostol use also offers the potential for flexibility in cervical ripening protocols as patients need not return for Foley balloon removal and indeed labor induction need not take place immediately after administration of misoprostol.

Patients also may prefer outpatient cervical ripening with misoprostol over a Foley. There are some data to suggest that women, overall, have a preference toward prostaglandins; in the PROBAAT-II trial, which compared inpatient oral misoprostol to Foley catheter for cervical ripening, 12% of women in the Foley arm would have preferred another method of induction (vs 6% in the misoprostol arm; P = .02).²⁷ This preference may be magnified in an outpatient setting.

But, again, is outpatient administration of prostaglandins safe? The published trials thus far have not reported an increase in out-of-hospital deliveries or adverse fetal outcomes. However, studies have been of limited size to see more rare outcomes. Unfortunately, an adequately powered study to demonstrate safety is likely never to be accomplished, given that if used responsibly (in low-risk patients with adequate monitoring after administration) the incidence of adverse fetal outcomes during the at-home portion of cervical ripening is likely to be very low. With responsible use, outpatient administration of prostaglandins should be safe. Women are monitored after misoprostol administration and are not sent home if there are any concerns for fetal distress or if frequent contractions continue. Misoprostol reaches maximum blood concentration 30 minutes after oral administration and 70 to 80 minutes after vaginal administration.²⁸ After this time, if contractions start to intensify it is likely that misoprostol has triggered spontaneous labor. In this setting, women are routinely allowed to spontaneously labor at home. One may even argue that outpatient misoprostol could lead to improved safety, as women essentially have a contraction stress test prior to spontaneous labor, and misoprostol administration as an outpatient, as opposed to as an inpatient, may allow for longer time intervals between doses, which could prevent dose stacking.

Continue to: Our approach to pharmacologic cervical ripening...

Our approach to pharmacologic cervical ripening

Our hospital has been conducting outpatient cervical ripening using vaginal misoprostol for more than 15 years without any known adverse safety concerns (FIGURE 3). Women with a low-risk, singleton pregnancy between 39+0 and 40+6 weeks are potential candidates for outpatient ripening. The majority of outpatient inductions are done electively without any medical indication. Women with stable, minor risk factors (such as diet-controlled gestational diabetes) also may be candidates at their clinician’s discretion. Patients are monitored either in our L&D triage area or in our outpatient antenatal unit; both units are in the same building. One clinician offers outpatient misoprostol in the office, across the street from L&D. We allow for clinician flexibility after administration. Some clinicians do 1 or 2 doses of outpatient cervical ripening in a day prior to a scheduled inpatient induction the next day. Some do multiple daily doses over the course of a week.

Conclusion

While the data continue to be limited, we strongly believe there is sufficient quality evidence from a safety and efficacy perspective to support implementation and evaluation of outpatient cervical ripening protocols for low-risk pregnancies. In the setting of renewed commitments to reducing suboptimal health care costs and utilization as well as increasing patient satisfaction and control in their birthing experiences, we posit it is the responsibility of obstetricians, L&D leadership, and health care institutions to explore the implementation of outpatient cervical ripening for appropriate candidates in their settings.

The role of minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer has been the subject of heated debate since the presentation of the results of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) Trial at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer in 2018. This was an international, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MH) to open radical hysterectomy (OH) in the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. The trial was closed early by the study’s Data and Safety Monitoring Committee due to an imbalance of deaths between the groups, with a higher rate in the minimally invasive arm. The final results, which were largely unexpected by the medical community, showed that the disease-free survival (DFS) at 4.5 years was 86.0% in the MH arm and 96.5% in the OH arm, which was a larger difference than their noninferiority cutoff of -7.2 percentage points.¹ Results of an epidemiologic study, which used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program and the National Cancer Database, also were presented at this meeting, and they reinforced the findings of the LACC trial.²

The combined results have caused significant concern and confusion from the medical community regarding the clinical implication that minimally invasive surgery may be an unacceptable approach for radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer. Prior to this study, retrospective data supported similar outcomes between the two approaches.³ Additionally, robotic surgery has made radical hysterectomy an option for those with a higher body mass index, as an open radical hysterectomy can be technically challenging in larger patients and result in a higher rate of adverse outcomes.

LACC trial questioned by US surgeons

Many in the United States have questioned the design and conclusions of the LACC trial. This trial was conducted primarily outside of North America and utilized conventional laparoscopic surgery 85% of the time as opposed to robotic surgery. Additionally, the found difference in DFS between MH and OH may have been driven more by the superior performance of the OH group (compared with historical data) than the poorly performing MH group.⁴ Other criticisms have touched on the low number of overall survival events, the low bar for surgeon volume or skill assessment, and the inability to make conclusions regarding “low-risk” lesions (<2 cm, no lymphovascular space invasion, <1 cm depth of invasion).

Were requirements for surgical skill adequate? Regarding surgeon skill, the LACC trial required documentation of the perioperative outcomes from 10 laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomies, as well as 2 unedited videos of each surgeon participating in the study to verify their technique, which some have considered inadequate to sufficiently vet a surgeon’s ability. Additionally, 14 of the 33 centers enrolled in the study accrued 71% of the patients, and concerns about the surgeon volume of the remaining 19 centers have been raised. Finally, there has been discussion about whether the variance in surgical approach can even be adequately assessed in a trial of this nature, as surgical skill is not a binary variable that is easily amenable to randomization. Unlike other trials, which have clear exposure and control arms, no 2 surgeries are exactly alike, and surgical technique is highly variable between surgeons, institutions, and countries.

Continue to: New data evaluate for surgeon volume

New data evaluate for surgeon volume

In an effort to address the concerns regarding surgical approach and expertise, the recently published study by Cusimano and colleagues uses population-based data from Ontario for all women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer over a 10-year period from 2006 through 2016.⁵ The primary outcome was all-cause death, but the study also sought to address whether surgeon volume has an impact on recurrence rates for patients undergoing MH versus OH. To measure this impact the authors stratified surgeon characteristics by technique-specific volume and cervical cancer volume, splitting these volumes at the 50% percentile for low- and high-volume surgeons. They defined technique-specific volume as the number of simple and radical hysterectomies performed in the prior year using the selected approach (MH or OH). Cervical cancer volume was calculated as the number of hysterectomies of any type for cervical cancer in the previous 2 years. The technique-specific volume variable was subsequently re-categorized into tertiles, examined as a continuous variable, and analyzed at the 50th percentile for each year of the study.

Death and recurrence rates better in the OH group. The final cohort included 958 women that were relatively evenly split between MH and OH procedures. Results from their analysis show no difference in terms of all-cause death, cervical cancer–specific death, or recurrence. However, all 3 of these parameters were significantly different in favor of the OH group in women with Stage IB disease, which comprised over half of the overall cohort. Importantly, neither technique-specific volume nor cervical cancer volume had an effect on death or recurrence in Stage IB patients in any of the investigators’ analyses.

Important limitations. There are several limitations to this study that have to be taken into account before drawing any conclusions. Pathologic data were obtained from the database and did not include some important details about the tumor specimens (including specifying subgroups of Stage IA and IB disease, tumor size, presence of lymphovascular space invasion, and depth of stromal invasion). All of these details have been shown to be important prognostic variables in early-stage cervical cancer. Additionally, the MH group included a predominantly laparoscopic approach with only 10% of cases performed robotically, which again brings into question the generalizability of the data.

However, despite some of these shortcomings, the study authors do make a compelling argument that surgeon volume alone does not seem to play a significant role in cancer outcomes after MH.

With surgical approaches hard to compare, turn to careful patient counseling

Definitive assessment of the impact of surgical skill and experience on cervical cancer outcomes is probably an impossible task, as even a perfectly designed trial cannot entirely account for the intricacies of a complex surgical procedure. Variations in tumor characteristics and patient anatomy that affect operative decision making are not likely to be reflected when a patient’s outcome is plugged into a database. As a result, some surgeons and departments have turned to reporting personal or institutional recurrence rates for MH, which they believe may be a better representation of a patient’s risk in their hands. Meanwhile, many surgeons and groups have stopped performing MH altogether, largely due to the results of the LACC trial. Irrespective of final surgical route, it is important that the risks and benefits of both minimally invasive and open approaches be adequately discussed with patients so that they can make informed decisions regarding their own medical care.