OBG Management is a leading publication in the ObGyn specialty addressing patient care and practice management under one cover.

Theme
medstat_obgm
Top Sections
Product Review
Expert Commentary
Clinical Review
obgm
Main menu
OBGM Main Menu
Explore menu
OBGM Explore Menu
Proclivity ID
18811001
Unpublish
Citation Name
OBG Manag
Specialty Focus
Obstetrics
Gynecology
Surgery
Negative Keywords
gaming
gambling
compulsive behaviors
ammunition
assault rifle
black jack
Boko Haram
bondage
child abuse
cocaine
Daech
drug paraphernalia
explosion
gun
human trafficking
ISIL
ISIS
Islamic caliphate
Islamic state
mixed martial arts
MMA
molestation
national rifle association
NRA
nsfw
pedophile
pedophilia
poker
porn
pornography
psychedelic drug
recreational drug
sex slave rings
slot machine
terrorism
terrorist
Texas hold 'em
UFC
substance abuse
abuseed
abuseer
abusees
abuseing
abusely
abuses
aeolus
aeolused
aeoluser
aeoluses
aeolusing
aeolusly
aeoluss
ahole
aholeed
aholeer
aholees
aholeing
aholely
aholes
alcohol
alcoholed
alcoholer
alcoholes
alcoholing
alcoholly
alcohols
allman
allmaned
allmaner
allmanes
allmaning
allmanly
allmans
alted
altes
alting
altly
alts
analed
analer
anales
analing
anally
analprobe
analprobeed
analprobeer
analprobees
analprobeing
analprobely
analprobes
anals
anilingus
anilingused
anilinguser
anilinguses
anilingusing
anilingusly
anilinguss
anus
anused
anuser
anuses
anusing
anusly
anuss
areola
areolaed
areolaer
areolaes
areolaing
areolaly
areolas
areole
areoleed
areoleer
areolees
areoleing
areolely
areoles
arian
arianed
arianer
arianes
arianing
arianly
arians
aryan
aryaned
aryaner
aryanes
aryaning
aryanly
aryans
asiaed
asiaer
asiaes
asiaing
asialy
asias
ass
ass hole
ass lick
ass licked
ass licker
ass lickes
ass licking
ass lickly
ass licks
assbang
assbanged
assbangeded
assbangeder
assbangedes
assbangeding
assbangedly
assbangeds
assbanger
assbanges
assbanging
assbangly
assbangs
assbangsed
assbangser
assbangses
assbangsing
assbangsly
assbangss
assed
asser
asses
assesed
asseser
asseses
assesing
assesly
assess
assfuck
assfucked
assfucker
assfuckered
assfuckerer
assfuckeres
assfuckering
assfuckerly
assfuckers
assfuckes
assfucking
assfuckly
assfucks
asshat
asshated
asshater
asshates
asshating
asshatly
asshats
assholeed
assholeer
assholees
assholeing
assholely
assholes
assholesed
assholeser
assholeses
assholesing
assholesly
assholess
assing
assly
assmaster
assmastered
assmasterer
assmasteres
assmastering
assmasterly
assmasters
assmunch
assmunched
assmuncher
assmunches
assmunching
assmunchly
assmunchs
asss
asswipe
asswipeed
asswipeer
asswipees
asswipeing
asswipely
asswipes
asswipesed
asswipeser
asswipeses
asswipesing
asswipesly
asswipess
azz
azzed
azzer
azzes
azzing
azzly
azzs
babeed
babeer
babees
babeing
babely
babes
babesed
babeser
babeses
babesing
babesly
babess
ballsac
ballsaced
ballsacer
ballsaces
ballsacing
ballsack
ballsacked
ballsacker
ballsackes
ballsacking
ballsackly
ballsacks
ballsacly
ballsacs
ballsed
ballser
ballses
ballsing
ballsly
ballss
barf
barfed
barfer
barfes
barfing
barfly
barfs
bastard
bastarded
bastarder
bastardes
bastarding
bastardly
bastards
bastardsed
bastardser
bastardses
bastardsing
bastardsly
bastardss
bawdy
bawdyed
bawdyer
bawdyes
bawdying
bawdyly
bawdys
beaner
beanered
beanerer
beaneres
beanering
beanerly
beaners
beardedclam
beardedclamed
beardedclamer
beardedclames
beardedclaming
beardedclamly
beardedclams
beastiality
beastialityed
beastialityer
beastialityes
beastialitying
beastialityly
beastialitys
beatch
beatched
beatcher
beatches
beatching
beatchly
beatchs
beater
beatered
beaterer
beateres
beatering
beaterly
beaters
beered
beerer
beeres
beering
beerly
beeyotch
beeyotched
beeyotcher
beeyotches
beeyotching
beeyotchly
beeyotchs
beotch
beotched
beotcher
beotches
beotching
beotchly
beotchs
biatch
biatched
biatcher
biatches
biatching
biatchly
biatchs
big tits
big titsed
big titser
big titses
big titsing
big titsly
big titss
bigtits
bigtitsed
bigtitser
bigtitses
bigtitsing
bigtitsly
bigtitss
bimbo
bimboed
bimboer
bimboes
bimboing
bimboly
bimbos
bisexualed
bisexualer
bisexuales
bisexualing
bisexually
bisexuals
bitch
bitched
bitcheded
bitcheder
bitchedes
bitcheding
bitchedly
bitcheds
bitcher
bitches
bitchesed
bitcheser
bitcheses
bitchesing
bitchesly
bitchess
bitching
bitchly
bitchs
bitchy
bitchyed
bitchyer
bitchyes
bitchying
bitchyly
bitchys
bleached
bleacher
bleaches
bleaching
bleachly
bleachs
blow job
blow jobed
blow jober
blow jobes
blow jobing
blow jobly
blow jobs
blowed
blower
blowes
blowing
blowjob
blowjobed
blowjober
blowjobes
blowjobing
blowjobly
blowjobs
blowjobsed
blowjobser
blowjobses
blowjobsing
blowjobsly
blowjobss
blowly
blows
boink
boinked
boinker
boinkes
boinking
boinkly
boinks
bollock
bollocked
bollocker
bollockes
bollocking
bollockly
bollocks
bollocksed
bollockser
bollockses
bollocksing
bollocksly
bollockss
bollok
bolloked
bolloker
bollokes
bolloking
bollokly
bolloks
boner
bonered
bonerer
boneres
bonering
bonerly
boners
bonersed
bonerser
bonerses
bonersing
bonersly
bonerss
bong
bonged
bonger
bonges
bonging
bongly
bongs
boob
boobed
boober
boobes
boobies
boobiesed
boobieser
boobieses
boobiesing
boobiesly
boobiess
boobing
boobly
boobs
boobsed
boobser
boobses
boobsing
boobsly
boobss
booby
boobyed
boobyer
boobyes
boobying
boobyly
boobys
booger
boogered
boogerer
boogeres
boogering
boogerly
boogers
bookie
bookieed
bookieer
bookiees
bookieing
bookiely
bookies
bootee
booteeed
booteeer
booteees
booteeing
booteely
bootees
bootie
bootieed
bootieer
bootiees
bootieing
bootiely
booties
booty
bootyed
bootyer
bootyes
bootying
bootyly
bootys
boozeed
boozeer
boozees
boozeing
boozely
boozer
boozered
boozerer
boozeres
boozering
boozerly
boozers
boozes
boozy
boozyed
boozyer
boozyes
boozying
boozyly
boozys
bosomed
bosomer
bosomes
bosoming
bosomly
bosoms
bosomy
bosomyed
bosomyer
bosomyes
bosomying
bosomyly
bosomys
bugger
buggered
buggerer
buggeres
buggering
buggerly
buggers
bukkake
bukkakeed
bukkakeer
bukkakees
bukkakeing
bukkakely
bukkakes
bull shit
bull shited
bull shiter
bull shites
bull shiting
bull shitly
bull shits
bullshit
bullshited
bullshiter
bullshites
bullshiting
bullshitly
bullshits
bullshitsed
bullshitser
bullshitses
bullshitsing
bullshitsly
bullshitss
bullshitted
bullshitteded
bullshitteder
bullshittedes
bullshitteding
bullshittedly
bullshitteds
bullturds
bullturdsed
bullturdser
bullturdses
bullturdsing
bullturdsly
bullturdss
bung
bunged
bunger
bunges
bunging
bungly
bungs
busty
bustyed
bustyer
bustyes
bustying
bustyly
bustys
butt
butt fuck
butt fucked
butt fucker
butt fuckes
butt fucking
butt fuckly
butt fucks
butted
buttes
buttfuck
buttfucked
buttfucker
buttfuckered
buttfuckerer
buttfuckeres
buttfuckering
buttfuckerly
buttfuckers
buttfuckes
buttfucking
buttfuckly
buttfucks
butting
buttly
buttplug
buttpluged
buttpluger
buttpluges
buttpluging
buttplugly
buttplugs
butts
caca
cacaed
cacaer
cacaes
cacaing
cacaly
cacas
cahone
cahoneed
cahoneer
cahonees
cahoneing
cahonely
cahones
cameltoe
cameltoeed
cameltoeer
cameltoees
cameltoeing
cameltoely
cameltoes
carpetmuncher
carpetmunchered
carpetmuncherer
carpetmuncheres
carpetmunchering
carpetmuncherly
carpetmunchers
cawk
cawked
cawker
cawkes
cawking
cawkly
cawks
chinc
chinced
chincer
chinces
chincing
chincly
chincs
chincsed
chincser
chincses
chincsing
chincsly
chincss
chink
chinked
chinker
chinkes
chinking
chinkly
chinks
chode
chodeed
chodeer
chodees
chodeing
chodely
chodes
chodesed
chodeser
chodeses
chodesing
chodesly
chodess
clit
clited
cliter
clites
cliting
clitly
clitoris
clitorised
clitoriser
clitorises
clitorising
clitorisly
clitoriss
clitorus
clitorused
clitoruser
clitoruses
clitorusing
clitorusly
clitoruss
clits
clitsed
clitser
clitses
clitsing
clitsly
clitss
clitty
clittyed
clittyer
clittyes
clittying
clittyly
clittys
cocain
cocaine
cocained
cocaineed
cocaineer
cocainees
cocaineing
cocainely
cocainer
cocaines
cocaining
cocainly
cocains
cock
cock sucker
cock suckered
cock suckerer
cock suckeres
cock suckering
cock suckerly
cock suckers
cockblock
cockblocked
cockblocker
cockblockes
cockblocking
cockblockly
cockblocks
cocked
cocker
cockes
cockholster
cockholstered
cockholsterer
cockholsteres
cockholstering
cockholsterly
cockholsters
cocking
cockknocker
cockknockered
cockknockerer
cockknockeres
cockknockering
cockknockerly
cockknockers
cockly
cocks
cocksed
cockser
cockses
cocksing
cocksly
cocksmoker
cocksmokered
cocksmokerer
cocksmokeres
cocksmokering
cocksmokerly
cocksmokers
cockss
cocksucker
cocksuckered
cocksuckerer
cocksuckeres
cocksuckering
cocksuckerly
cocksuckers
coital
coitaled
coitaler
coitales
coitaling
coitally
coitals
commie
commieed
commieer
commiees
commieing
commiely
commies
condomed
condomer
condomes
condoming
condomly
condoms
coon
cooned
cooner
coones
cooning
coonly
coons
coonsed
coonser
coonses
coonsing
coonsly
coonss
corksucker
corksuckered
corksuckerer
corksuckeres
corksuckering
corksuckerly
corksuckers
cracked
crackwhore
crackwhoreed
crackwhoreer
crackwhorees
crackwhoreing
crackwhorely
crackwhores
crap
craped
craper
crapes
craping
craply
crappy
crappyed
crappyer
crappyes
crappying
crappyly
crappys
cum
cumed
cumer
cumes
cuming
cumly
cummin
cummined
cumminer
cummines
cumming
cumminged
cumminger
cumminges
cumminging
cummingly
cummings
cummining
cumminly
cummins
cums
cumshot
cumshoted
cumshoter
cumshotes
cumshoting
cumshotly
cumshots
cumshotsed
cumshotser
cumshotses
cumshotsing
cumshotsly
cumshotss
cumslut
cumsluted
cumsluter
cumslutes
cumsluting
cumslutly
cumsluts
cumstain
cumstained
cumstainer
cumstaines
cumstaining
cumstainly
cumstains
cunilingus
cunilingused
cunilinguser
cunilinguses
cunilingusing
cunilingusly
cunilinguss
cunnilingus
cunnilingused
cunnilinguser
cunnilinguses
cunnilingusing
cunnilingusly
cunnilinguss
cunny
cunnyed
cunnyer
cunnyes
cunnying
cunnyly
cunnys
cunt
cunted
cunter
cuntes
cuntface
cuntfaceed
cuntfaceer
cuntfacees
cuntfaceing
cuntfacely
cuntfaces
cunthunter
cunthuntered
cunthunterer
cunthunteres
cunthuntering
cunthunterly
cunthunters
cunting
cuntlick
cuntlicked
cuntlicker
cuntlickered
cuntlickerer
cuntlickeres
cuntlickering
cuntlickerly
cuntlickers
cuntlickes
cuntlicking
cuntlickly
cuntlicks
cuntly
cunts
cuntsed
cuntser
cuntses
cuntsing
cuntsly
cuntss
dago
dagoed
dagoer
dagoes
dagoing
dagoly
dagos
dagosed
dagoser
dagoses
dagosing
dagosly
dagoss
dammit
dammited
dammiter
dammites
dammiting
dammitly
dammits
damn
damned
damneded
damneder
damnedes
damneding
damnedly
damneds
damner
damnes
damning
damnit
damnited
damniter
damnites
damniting
damnitly
damnits
damnly
damns
dick
dickbag
dickbaged
dickbager
dickbages
dickbaging
dickbagly
dickbags
dickdipper
dickdippered
dickdipperer
dickdipperes
dickdippering
dickdipperly
dickdippers
dicked
dicker
dickes
dickface
dickfaceed
dickfaceer
dickfacees
dickfaceing
dickfacely
dickfaces
dickflipper
dickflippered
dickflipperer
dickflipperes
dickflippering
dickflipperly
dickflippers
dickhead
dickheaded
dickheader
dickheades
dickheading
dickheadly
dickheads
dickheadsed
dickheadser
dickheadses
dickheadsing
dickheadsly
dickheadss
dicking
dickish
dickished
dickisher
dickishes
dickishing
dickishly
dickishs
dickly
dickripper
dickrippered
dickripperer
dickripperes
dickrippering
dickripperly
dickrippers
dicks
dicksipper
dicksippered
dicksipperer
dicksipperes
dicksippering
dicksipperly
dicksippers
dickweed
dickweeded
dickweeder
dickweedes
dickweeding
dickweedly
dickweeds
dickwhipper
dickwhippered
dickwhipperer
dickwhipperes
dickwhippering
dickwhipperly
dickwhippers
dickzipper
dickzippered
dickzipperer
dickzipperes
dickzippering
dickzipperly
dickzippers
diddle
diddleed
diddleer
diddlees
diddleing
diddlely
diddles
dike
dikeed
dikeer
dikees
dikeing
dikely
dikes
dildo
dildoed
dildoer
dildoes
dildoing
dildoly
dildos
dildosed
dildoser
dildoses
dildosing
dildosly
dildoss
diligaf
diligafed
diligafer
diligafes
diligafing
diligafly
diligafs
dillweed
dillweeded
dillweeder
dillweedes
dillweeding
dillweedly
dillweeds
dimwit
dimwited
dimwiter
dimwites
dimwiting
dimwitly
dimwits
dingle
dingleed
dingleer
dinglees
dingleing
dinglely
dingles
dipship
dipshiped
dipshiper
dipshipes
dipshiping
dipshiply
dipships
dizzyed
dizzyer
dizzyes
dizzying
dizzyly
dizzys
doggiestyleed
doggiestyleer
doggiestylees
doggiestyleing
doggiestylely
doggiestyles
doggystyleed
doggystyleer
doggystylees
doggystyleing
doggystylely
doggystyles
dong
donged
donger
donges
donging
dongly
dongs
doofus
doofused
doofuser
doofuses
doofusing
doofusly
doofuss
doosh
dooshed
doosher
dooshes
dooshing
dooshly
dooshs
dopeyed
dopeyer
dopeyes
dopeying
dopeyly
dopeys
douchebag
douchebaged
douchebager
douchebages
douchebaging
douchebagly
douchebags
douchebagsed
douchebagser
douchebagses
douchebagsing
douchebagsly
douchebagss
doucheed
doucheer
douchees
doucheing
douchely
douches
douchey
doucheyed
doucheyer
doucheyes
doucheying
doucheyly
doucheys
drunk
drunked
drunker
drunkes
drunking
drunkly
drunks
dumass
dumassed
dumasser
dumasses
dumassing
dumassly
dumasss
dumbass
dumbassed
dumbasser
dumbasses
dumbassesed
dumbasseser
dumbasseses
dumbassesing
dumbassesly
dumbassess
dumbassing
dumbassly
dumbasss
dummy
dummyed
dummyer
dummyes
dummying
dummyly
dummys
dyke
dykeed
dykeer
dykees
dykeing
dykely
dykes
dykesed
dykeser
dykeses
dykesing
dykesly
dykess
erotic
eroticed
eroticer
erotices
eroticing
eroticly
erotics
extacy
extacyed
extacyer
extacyes
extacying
extacyly
extacys
extasy
extasyed
extasyer
extasyes
extasying
extasyly
extasys
fack
facked
facker
fackes
facking
fackly
facks
fag
faged
fager
fages
fagg
fagged
faggeded
faggeder
faggedes
faggeding
faggedly
faggeds
fagger
fagges
fagging
faggit
faggited
faggiter
faggites
faggiting
faggitly
faggits
faggly
faggot
faggoted
faggoter
faggotes
faggoting
faggotly
faggots
faggs
faging
fagly
fagot
fagoted
fagoter
fagotes
fagoting
fagotly
fagots
fags
fagsed
fagser
fagses
fagsing
fagsly
fagss
faig
faiged
faiger
faiges
faiging
faigly
faigs
faigt
faigted
faigter
faigtes
faigting
faigtly
faigts
fannybandit
fannybandited
fannybanditer
fannybandites
fannybanditing
fannybanditly
fannybandits
farted
farter
fartes
farting
fartknocker
fartknockered
fartknockerer
fartknockeres
fartknockering
fartknockerly
fartknockers
fartly
farts
felch
felched
felcher
felchered
felcherer
felcheres
felchering
felcherly
felchers
felches
felching
felchinged
felchinger
felchinges
felchinging
felchingly
felchings
felchly
felchs
fellate
fellateed
fellateer
fellatees
fellateing
fellately
fellates
fellatio
fellatioed
fellatioer
fellatioes
fellatioing
fellatioly
fellatios
feltch
feltched
feltcher
feltchered
feltcherer
feltcheres
feltchering
feltcherly
feltchers
feltches
feltching
feltchly
feltchs
feom
feomed
feomer
feomes
feoming
feomly
feoms
fisted
fisteded
fisteder
fistedes
fisteding
fistedly
fisteds
fisting
fistinged
fistinger
fistinges
fistinging
fistingly
fistings
fisty
fistyed
fistyer
fistyes
fistying
fistyly
fistys
floozy
floozyed
floozyer
floozyes
floozying
floozyly
floozys
foad
foaded
foader
foades
foading
foadly
foads
fondleed
fondleer
fondlees
fondleing
fondlely
fondles
foobar
foobared
foobarer
foobares
foobaring
foobarly
foobars
freex
freexed
freexer
freexes
freexing
freexly
freexs
frigg
frigga
friggaed
friggaer
friggaes
friggaing
friggaly
friggas
frigged
frigger
frigges
frigging
friggly
friggs
fubar
fubared
fubarer
fubares
fubaring
fubarly
fubars
fuck
fuckass
fuckassed
fuckasser
fuckasses
fuckassing
fuckassly
fuckasss
fucked
fuckeded
fuckeder
fuckedes
fuckeding
fuckedly
fuckeds
fucker
fuckered
fuckerer
fuckeres
fuckering
fuckerly
fuckers
fuckes
fuckface
fuckfaceed
fuckfaceer
fuckfacees
fuckfaceing
fuckfacely
fuckfaces
fuckin
fuckined
fuckiner
fuckines
fucking
fuckinged
fuckinger
fuckinges
fuckinging
fuckingly
fuckings
fuckining
fuckinly
fuckins
fuckly
fucknugget
fucknuggeted
fucknuggeter
fucknuggetes
fucknuggeting
fucknuggetly
fucknuggets
fucknut
fucknuted
fucknuter
fucknutes
fucknuting
fucknutly
fucknuts
fuckoff
fuckoffed
fuckoffer
fuckoffes
fuckoffing
fuckoffly
fuckoffs
fucks
fucksed
fuckser
fuckses
fucksing
fucksly
fuckss
fucktard
fucktarded
fucktarder
fucktardes
fucktarding
fucktardly
fucktards
fuckup
fuckuped
fuckuper
fuckupes
fuckuping
fuckuply
fuckups
fuckwad
fuckwaded
fuckwader
fuckwades
fuckwading
fuckwadly
fuckwads
fuckwit
fuckwited
fuckwiter
fuckwites
fuckwiting
fuckwitly
fuckwits
fudgepacker
fudgepackered
fudgepackerer
fudgepackeres
fudgepackering
fudgepackerly
fudgepackers
fuk
fuked
fuker
fukes
fuking
fukly
fuks
fvck
fvcked
fvcker
fvckes
fvcking
fvckly
fvcks
fxck
fxcked
fxcker
fxckes
fxcking
fxckly
fxcks
gae
gaeed
gaeer
gaees
gaeing
gaely
gaes
gai
gaied
gaier
gaies
gaiing
gaily
gais
ganja
ganjaed
ganjaer
ganjaes
ganjaing
ganjaly
ganjas
gayed
gayer
gayes
gaying
gayly
gays
gaysed
gayser
gayses
gaysing
gaysly
gayss
gey
geyed
geyer
geyes
geying
geyly
geys
gfc
gfced
gfcer
gfces
gfcing
gfcly
gfcs
gfy
gfyed
gfyer
gfyes
gfying
gfyly
gfys
ghay
ghayed
ghayer
ghayes
ghaying
ghayly
ghays
ghey
gheyed
gheyer
gheyes
gheying
gheyly
gheys
gigolo
gigoloed
gigoloer
gigoloes
gigoloing
gigololy
gigolos
goatse
goatseed
goatseer
goatsees
goatseing
goatsely
goatses
godamn
godamned
godamner
godamnes
godamning
godamnit
godamnited
godamniter
godamnites
godamniting
godamnitly
godamnits
godamnly
godamns
goddam
goddamed
goddamer
goddames
goddaming
goddamly
goddammit
goddammited
goddammiter
goddammites
goddammiting
goddammitly
goddammits
goddamn
goddamned
goddamner
goddamnes
goddamning
goddamnly
goddamns
goddams
goldenshower
goldenshowered
goldenshowerer
goldenshoweres
goldenshowering
goldenshowerly
goldenshowers
gonad
gonaded
gonader
gonades
gonading
gonadly
gonads
gonadsed
gonadser
gonadses
gonadsing
gonadsly
gonadss
gook
gooked
gooker
gookes
gooking
gookly
gooks
gooksed
gookser
gookses
gooksing
gooksly
gookss
gringo
gringoed
gringoer
gringoes
gringoing
gringoly
gringos
gspot
gspoted
gspoter
gspotes
gspoting
gspotly
gspots
gtfo
gtfoed
gtfoer
gtfoes
gtfoing
gtfoly
gtfos
guido
guidoed
guidoer
guidoes
guidoing
guidoly
guidos
handjob
handjobed
handjober
handjobes
handjobing
handjobly
handjobs
hard on
hard oned
hard oner
hard ones
hard oning
hard only
hard ons
hardknight
hardknighted
hardknighter
hardknightes
hardknighting
hardknightly
hardknights
hebe
hebeed
hebeer
hebees
hebeing
hebely
hebes
heeb
heebed
heeber
heebes
heebing
heebly
heebs
hell
helled
heller
helles
helling
hellly
hells
hemp
hemped
hemper
hempes
hemping
hemply
hemps
heroined
heroiner
heroines
heroining
heroinly
heroins
herp
herped
herper
herpes
herpesed
herpeser
herpeses
herpesing
herpesly
herpess
herping
herply
herps
herpy
herpyed
herpyer
herpyes
herpying
herpyly
herpys
hitler
hitlered
hitlerer
hitleres
hitlering
hitlerly
hitlers
hived
hiver
hives
hiving
hivly
hivs
hobag
hobaged
hobager
hobages
hobaging
hobagly
hobags
homey
homeyed
homeyer
homeyes
homeying
homeyly
homeys
homo
homoed
homoer
homoes
homoey
homoeyed
homoeyer
homoeyes
homoeying
homoeyly
homoeys
homoing
homoly
homos
honky
honkyed
honkyer
honkyes
honkying
honkyly
honkys
hooch
hooched
hoocher
hooches
hooching
hoochly
hoochs
hookah
hookahed
hookaher
hookahes
hookahing
hookahly
hookahs
hooker
hookered
hookerer
hookeres
hookering
hookerly
hookers
hoor
hoored
hoorer
hoores
hooring
hoorly
hoors
hootch
hootched
hootcher
hootches
hootching
hootchly
hootchs
hooter
hootered
hooterer
hooteres
hootering
hooterly
hooters
hootersed
hooterser
hooterses
hootersing
hootersly
hooterss
horny
hornyed
hornyer
hornyes
hornying
hornyly
hornys
houstoned
houstoner
houstones
houstoning
houstonly
houstons
hump
humped
humpeded
humpeder
humpedes
humpeding
humpedly
humpeds
humper
humpes
humping
humpinged
humpinger
humpinges
humpinging
humpingly
humpings
humply
humps
husbanded
husbander
husbandes
husbanding
husbandly
husbands
hussy
hussyed
hussyer
hussyes
hussying
hussyly
hussys
hymened
hymener
hymenes
hymening
hymenly
hymens
inbred
inbreded
inbreder
inbredes
inbreding
inbredly
inbreds
incest
incested
incester
incestes
incesting
incestly
incests
injun
injuned
injuner
injunes
injuning
injunly
injuns
jackass
jackassed
jackasser
jackasses
jackassing
jackassly
jackasss
jackhole
jackholeed
jackholeer
jackholees
jackholeing
jackholely
jackholes
jackoff
jackoffed
jackoffer
jackoffes
jackoffing
jackoffly
jackoffs
jap
japed
japer
japes
japing
japly
japs
japsed
japser
japses
japsing
japsly
japss
jerkoff
jerkoffed
jerkoffer
jerkoffes
jerkoffing
jerkoffly
jerkoffs
jerks
jism
jismed
jismer
jismes
jisming
jismly
jisms
jiz
jized
jizer
jizes
jizing
jizly
jizm
jizmed
jizmer
jizmes
jizming
jizmly
jizms
jizs
jizz
jizzed
jizzeded
jizzeder
jizzedes
jizzeding
jizzedly
jizzeds
jizzer
jizzes
jizzing
jizzly
jizzs
junkie
junkieed
junkieer
junkiees
junkieing
junkiely
junkies
junky
junkyed
junkyer
junkyes
junkying
junkyly
junkys
kike
kikeed
kikeer
kikees
kikeing
kikely
kikes
kikesed
kikeser
kikeses
kikesing
kikesly
kikess
killed
killer
killes
killing
killly
kills
kinky
kinkyed
kinkyer
kinkyes
kinkying
kinkyly
kinkys
kkk
kkked
kkker
kkkes
kkking
kkkly
kkks
klan
klaned
klaner
klanes
klaning
klanly
klans
knobend
knobended
knobender
knobendes
knobending
knobendly
knobends
kooch
kooched
koocher
kooches
koochesed
koocheser
koocheses
koochesing
koochesly
koochess
kooching
koochly
koochs
kootch
kootched
kootcher
kootches
kootching
kootchly
kootchs
kraut
krauted
krauter
krautes
krauting
krautly
krauts
kyke
kykeed
kykeer
kykees
kykeing
kykely
kykes
lech
leched
lecher
leches
leching
lechly
lechs
leper
lepered
leperer
leperes
lepering
leperly
lepers
lesbiansed
lesbianser
lesbianses
lesbiansing
lesbiansly
lesbianss
lesbo
lesboed
lesboer
lesboes
lesboing
lesboly
lesbos
lesbosed
lesboser
lesboses
lesbosing
lesbosly
lesboss
lez
lezbianed
lezbianer
lezbianes
lezbianing
lezbianly
lezbians
lezbiansed
lezbianser
lezbianses
lezbiansing
lezbiansly
lezbianss
lezbo
lezboed
lezboer
lezboes
lezboing
lezboly
lezbos
lezbosed
lezboser
lezboses
lezbosing
lezbosly
lezboss
lezed
lezer
lezes
lezing
lezly
lezs
lezzie
lezzieed
lezzieer
lezziees
lezzieing
lezziely
lezzies
lezziesed
lezzieser
lezzieses
lezziesing
lezziesly
lezziess
lezzy
lezzyed
lezzyer
lezzyes
lezzying
lezzyly
lezzys
lmaoed
lmaoer
lmaoes
lmaoing
lmaoly
lmaos
lmfao
lmfaoed
lmfaoer
lmfaoes
lmfaoing
lmfaoly
lmfaos
loined
loiner
loines
loining
loinly
loins
loinsed
loinser
loinses
loinsing
loinsly
loinss
lubeed
lubeer
lubees
lubeing
lubely
lubes
lusty
lustyed
lustyer
lustyes
lustying
lustyly
lustys
massa
massaed
massaer
massaes
massaing
massaly
massas
masterbate
masterbateed
masterbateer
masterbatees
masterbateing
masterbately
masterbates
masterbating
masterbatinged
masterbatinger
masterbatinges
masterbatinging
masterbatingly
masterbatings
masterbation
masterbationed
masterbationer
masterbationes
masterbationing
masterbationly
masterbations
masturbate
masturbateed
masturbateer
masturbatees
masturbateing
masturbately
masturbates
masturbating
masturbatinged
masturbatinger
masturbatinges
masturbatinging
masturbatingly
masturbatings
masturbation
masturbationed
masturbationer
masturbationes
masturbationing
masturbationly
masturbations
methed
mether
methes
mething
methly
meths
militaryed
militaryer
militaryes
militarying
militaryly
militarys
mofo
mofoed
mofoer
mofoes
mofoing
mofoly
mofos
molest
molested
molester
molestes
molesting
molestly
molests
moolie
moolieed
moolieer
mooliees
moolieing
mooliely
moolies
moron
moroned
moroner
morones
moroning
moronly
morons
motherfucka
motherfuckaed
motherfuckaer
motherfuckaes
motherfuckaing
motherfuckaly
motherfuckas
motherfucker
motherfuckered
motherfuckerer
motherfuckeres
motherfuckering
motherfuckerly
motherfuckers
motherfucking
motherfuckinged
motherfuckinger
motherfuckinges
motherfuckinging
motherfuckingly
motherfuckings
mtherfucker
mtherfuckered
mtherfuckerer
mtherfuckeres
mtherfuckering
mtherfuckerly
mtherfuckers
mthrfucker
mthrfuckered
mthrfuckerer
mthrfuckeres
mthrfuckering
mthrfuckerly
mthrfuckers
mthrfucking
mthrfuckinged
mthrfuckinger
mthrfuckinges
mthrfuckinging
mthrfuckingly
mthrfuckings
muff
muffdiver
muffdivered
muffdiverer
muffdiveres
muffdivering
muffdiverly
muffdivers
muffed
muffer
muffes
muffing
muffly
muffs
murdered
murderer
murderes
murdering
murderly
murders
muthafuckaz
muthafuckazed
muthafuckazer
muthafuckazes
muthafuckazing
muthafuckazly
muthafuckazs
muthafucker
muthafuckered
muthafuckerer
muthafuckeres
muthafuckering
muthafuckerly
muthafuckers
mutherfucker
mutherfuckered
mutherfuckerer
mutherfuckeres
mutherfuckering
mutherfuckerly
mutherfuckers
mutherfucking
mutherfuckinged
mutherfuckinger
mutherfuckinges
mutherfuckinging
mutherfuckingly
mutherfuckings
muthrfucking
muthrfuckinged
muthrfuckinger
muthrfuckinges
muthrfuckinging
muthrfuckingly
muthrfuckings
nad
naded
nader
nades
nading
nadly
nads
nadsed
nadser
nadses
nadsing
nadsly
nadss
nakeded
nakeder
nakedes
nakeding
nakedly
nakeds
napalm
napalmed
napalmer
napalmes
napalming
napalmly
napalms
nappy
nappyed
nappyer
nappyes
nappying
nappyly
nappys
nazi
nazied
nazier
nazies
naziing
nazily
nazis
nazism
nazismed
nazismer
nazismes
nazisming
nazismly
nazisms
negro
negroed
negroer
negroes
negroing
negroly
negros
nigga
niggaed
niggaer
niggaes
niggah
niggahed
niggaher
niggahes
niggahing
niggahly
niggahs
niggaing
niggaly
niggas
niggased
niggaser
niggases
niggasing
niggasly
niggass
niggaz
niggazed
niggazer
niggazes
niggazing
niggazly
niggazs
nigger
niggered
niggerer
niggeres
niggering
niggerly
niggers
niggersed
niggerser
niggerses
niggersing
niggersly
niggerss
niggle
niggleed
niggleer
nigglees
niggleing
nigglely
niggles
niglet
nigleted
nigleter
nigletes
nigleting
nigletly
niglets
nimrod
nimroded
nimroder
nimrodes
nimroding
nimrodly
nimrods
ninny
ninnyed
ninnyer
ninnyes
ninnying
ninnyly
ninnys
nooky
nookyed
nookyer
nookyes
nookying
nookyly
nookys
nuccitelli
nuccitellied
nuccitellier
nuccitellies
nuccitelliing
nuccitellily
nuccitellis
nympho
nymphoed
nymphoer
nymphoes
nymphoing
nympholy
nymphos
opium
opiumed
opiumer
opiumes
opiuming
opiumly
opiums
orgies
orgiesed
orgieser
orgieses
orgiesing
orgiesly
orgiess
orgy
orgyed
orgyer
orgyes
orgying
orgyly
orgys
paddy
paddyed
paddyer
paddyes
paddying
paddyly
paddys
paki
pakied
pakier
pakies
pakiing
pakily
pakis
pantie
pantieed
pantieer
pantiees
pantieing
pantiely
panties
pantiesed
pantieser
pantieses
pantiesing
pantiesly
pantiess
panty
pantyed
pantyer
pantyes
pantying
pantyly
pantys
pastie
pastieed
pastieer
pastiees
pastieing
pastiely
pasties
pasty
pastyed
pastyer
pastyes
pastying
pastyly
pastys
pecker
peckered
peckerer
peckeres
peckering
peckerly
peckers
pedo
pedoed
pedoer
pedoes
pedoing
pedoly
pedophile
pedophileed
pedophileer
pedophilees
pedophileing
pedophilely
pedophiles
pedophilia
pedophiliac
pedophiliaced
pedophiliacer
pedophiliaces
pedophiliacing
pedophiliacly
pedophiliacs
pedophiliaed
pedophiliaer
pedophiliaes
pedophiliaing
pedophilialy
pedophilias
pedos
penial
penialed
penialer
peniales
penialing
penially
penials
penile
penileed
penileer
penilees
penileing
penilely
peniles
penis
penised
peniser
penises
penising
penisly
peniss
perversion
perversioned
perversioner
perversiones
perversioning
perversionly
perversions
peyote
peyoteed
peyoteer
peyotees
peyoteing
peyotely
peyotes
phuck
phucked
phucker
phuckes
phucking
phuckly
phucks
pillowbiter
pillowbitered
pillowbiterer
pillowbiteres
pillowbitering
pillowbiterly
pillowbiters
pimp
pimped
pimper
pimpes
pimping
pimply
pimps
pinko
pinkoed
pinkoer
pinkoes
pinkoing
pinkoly
pinkos
pissed
pisseded
pisseder
pissedes
pisseding
pissedly
pisseds
pisser
pisses
pissing
pissly
pissoff
pissoffed
pissoffer
pissoffes
pissoffing
pissoffly
pissoffs
pisss
polack
polacked
polacker
polackes
polacking
polackly
polacks
pollock
pollocked
pollocker
pollockes
pollocking
pollockly
pollocks
poon
pooned
pooner
poones
pooning
poonly
poons
poontang
poontanged
poontanger
poontanges
poontanging
poontangly
poontangs
porn
porned
porner
pornes
porning
pornly
porno
pornoed
pornoer
pornoes
pornography
pornographyed
pornographyer
pornographyes
pornographying
pornographyly
pornographys
pornoing
pornoly
pornos
porns
prick
pricked
pricker
prickes
pricking
prickly
pricks
prig
priged
priger
priges
priging
prigly
prigs
prostitute
prostituteed
prostituteer
prostitutees
prostituteing
prostitutely
prostitutes
prude
prudeed
prudeer
prudees
prudeing
prudely
prudes
punkass
punkassed
punkasser
punkasses
punkassing
punkassly
punkasss
punky
punkyed
punkyer
punkyes
punkying
punkyly
punkys
puss
pussed
pusser
pusses
pussies
pussiesed
pussieser
pussieses
pussiesing
pussiesly
pussiess
pussing
pussly
pusss
pussy
pussyed
pussyer
pussyes
pussying
pussyly
pussypounder
pussypoundered
pussypounderer
pussypounderes
pussypoundering
pussypounderly
pussypounders
pussys
puto
putoed
putoer
putoes
putoing
putoly
putos
queaf
queafed
queafer
queafes
queafing
queafly
queafs
queef
queefed
queefer
queefes
queefing
queefly
queefs
queer
queered
queerer
queeres
queering
queerly
queero
queeroed
queeroer
queeroes
queeroing
queeroly
queeros
queers
queersed
queerser
queerses
queersing
queersly
queerss
quicky
quickyed
quickyer
quickyes
quickying
quickyly
quickys
quim
quimed
quimer
quimes
quiming
quimly
quims
racy
racyed
racyer
racyes
racying
racyly
racys
rape
raped
rapeded
rapeder
rapedes
rapeding
rapedly
rapeds
rapeed
rapeer
rapees
rapeing
rapely
raper
rapered
raperer
raperes
rapering
raperly
rapers
rapes
rapist
rapisted
rapister
rapistes
rapisting
rapistly
rapists
raunch
raunched
rauncher
raunches
raunching
raunchly
raunchs
rectus
rectused
rectuser
rectuses
rectusing
rectusly
rectuss
reefer
reefered
reeferer
reeferes
reefering
reeferly
reefers
reetard
reetarded
reetarder
reetardes
reetarding
reetardly
reetards
reich
reiched
reicher
reiches
reiching
reichly
reichs
retard
retarded
retardeded
retardeder
retardedes
retardeding
retardedly
retardeds
retarder
retardes
retarding
retardly
retards
rimjob
rimjobed
rimjober
rimjobes
rimjobing
rimjobly
rimjobs
ritard
ritarded
ritarder
ritardes
ritarding
ritardly
ritards
rtard
rtarded
rtarder
rtardes
rtarding
rtardly
rtards
rum
rumed
rumer
rumes
ruming
rumly
rump
rumped
rumper
rumpes
rumping
rumply
rumprammer
rumprammered
rumprammerer
rumprammeres
rumprammering
rumprammerly
rumprammers
rumps
rums
ruski
ruskied
ruskier
ruskies
ruskiing
ruskily
ruskis
sadism
sadismed
sadismer
sadismes
sadisming
sadismly
sadisms
sadist
sadisted
sadister
sadistes
sadisting
sadistly
sadists
scag
scaged
scager
scages
scaging
scagly
scags
scantily
scantilyed
scantilyer
scantilyes
scantilying
scantilyly
scantilys
schlong
schlonged
schlonger
schlonges
schlonging
schlongly
schlongs
scrog
scroged
scroger
scroges
scroging
scrogly
scrogs
scrot
scrote
scroted
scroteed
scroteer
scrotees
scroteing
scrotely
scroter
scrotes
scroting
scrotly
scrots
scrotum
scrotumed
scrotumer
scrotumes
scrotuming
scrotumly
scrotums
scrud
scruded
scruder
scrudes
scruding
scrudly
scruds
scum
scumed
scumer
scumes
scuming
scumly
scums
seaman
seamaned
seamaner
seamanes
seamaning
seamanly
seamans
seamen
seamened
seamener
seamenes
seamening
seamenly
seamens
seduceed
seduceer
seducees
seduceing
seducely
seduces
semen
semened
semener
semenes
semening
semenly
semens
shamedame
shamedameed
shamedameer
shamedamees
shamedameing
shamedamely
shamedames
shit
shite
shiteater
shiteatered
shiteaterer
shiteateres
shiteatering
shiteaterly
shiteaters
shited
shiteed
shiteer
shitees
shiteing
shitely
shiter
shites
shitface
shitfaceed
shitfaceer
shitfacees
shitfaceing
shitfacely
shitfaces
shithead
shitheaded
shitheader
shitheades
shitheading
shitheadly
shitheads
shithole
shitholeed
shitholeer
shitholees
shitholeing
shitholely
shitholes
shithouse
shithouseed
shithouseer
shithousees
shithouseing
shithousely
shithouses
shiting
shitly
shits
shitsed
shitser
shitses
shitsing
shitsly
shitss
shitt
shitted
shitteded
shitteder
shittedes
shitteding
shittedly
shitteds
shitter
shittered
shitterer
shitteres
shittering
shitterly
shitters
shittes
shitting
shittly
shitts
shitty
shittyed
shittyer
shittyes
shittying
shittyly
shittys
shiz
shized
shizer
shizes
shizing
shizly
shizs
shooted
shooter
shootes
shooting
shootly
shoots
sissy
sissyed
sissyer
sissyes
sissying
sissyly
sissys
skag
skaged
skager
skages
skaging
skagly
skags
skank
skanked
skanker
skankes
skanking
skankly
skanks
slave
slaveed
slaveer
slavees
slaveing
slavely
slaves
sleaze
sleazeed
sleazeer
sleazees
sleazeing
sleazely
sleazes
sleazy
sleazyed
sleazyer
sleazyes
sleazying
sleazyly
sleazys
slut
slutdumper
slutdumpered
slutdumperer
slutdumperes
slutdumpering
slutdumperly
slutdumpers
sluted
sluter
slutes
sluting
slutkiss
slutkissed
slutkisser
slutkisses
slutkissing
slutkissly
slutkisss
slutly
sluts
slutsed
slutser
slutses
slutsing
slutsly
slutss
smegma
smegmaed
smegmaer
smegmaes
smegmaing
smegmaly
smegmas
smut
smuted
smuter
smutes
smuting
smutly
smuts
smutty
smuttyed
smuttyer
smuttyes
smuttying
smuttyly
smuttys
snatch
snatched
snatcher
snatches
snatching
snatchly
snatchs
sniper
snipered
sniperer
sniperes
snipering
sniperly
snipers
snort
snorted
snorter
snortes
snorting
snortly
snorts
snuff
snuffed
snuffer
snuffes
snuffing
snuffly
snuffs
sodom
sodomed
sodomer
sodomes
sodoming
sodomly
sodoms
spic
spiced
spicer
spices
spicing
spick
spicked
spicker
spickes
spicking
spickly
spicks
spicly
spics
spik
spoof
spoofed
spoofer
spoofes
spoofing
spoofly
spoofs
spooge
spoogeed
spoogeer
spoogees
spoogeing
spoogely
spooges
spunk
spunked
spunker
spunkes
spunking
spunkly
spunks
steamyed
steamyer
steamyes
steamying
steamyly
steamys
stfu
stfued
stfuer
stfues
stfuing
stfuly
stfus
stiffy
stiffyed
stiffyer
stiffyes
stiffying
stiffyly
stiffys
stoneded
stoneder
stonedes
stoneding
stonedly
stoneds
stupided
stupider
stupides
stupiding
stupidly
stupids
suckeded
suckeder
suckedes
suckeding
suckedly
suckeds
sucker
suckes
sucking
suckinged
suckinger
suckinges
suckinging
suckingly
suckings
suckly
sucks
sumofabiatch
sumofabiatched
sumofabiatcher
sumofabiatches
sumofabiatching
sumofabiatchly
sumofabiatchs
tard
tarded
tarder
tardes
tarding
tardly
tards
tawdry
tawdryed
tawdryer
tawdryes
tawdrying
tawdryly
tawdrys
teabagging
teabagginged
teabagginger
teabagginges
teabagginging
teabaggingly
teabaggings
terd
terded
terder
terdes
terding
terdly
terds
teste
testee
testeed
testeeed
testeeer
testeees
testeeing
testeely
testeer
testees
testeing
testely
testes
testesed
testeser
testeses
testesing
testesly
testess
testicle
testicleed
testicleer
testiclees
testicleing
testiclely
testicles
testis
testised
testiser
testises
testising
testisly
testiss
thrusted
thruster
thrustes
thrusting
thrustly
thrusts
thug
thuged
thuger
thuges
thuging
thugly
thugs
tinkle
tinkleed
tinkleer
tinklees
tinkleing
tinklely
tinkles
tit
tited
titer
tites
titfuck
titfucked
titfucker
titfuckes
titfucking
titfuckly
titfucks
titi
titied
titier
tities
titiing
titily
titing
titis
titly
tits
titsed
titser
titses
titsing
titsly
titss
tittiefucker
tittiefuckered
tittiefuckerer
tittiefuckeres
tittiefuckering
tittiefuckerly
tittiefuckers
titties
tittiesed
tittieser
tittieses
tittiesing
tittiesly
tittiess
titty
tittyed
tittyer
tittyes
tittyfuck
tittyfucked
tittyfucker
tittyfuckered
tittyfuckerer
tittyfuckeres
tittyfuckering
tittyfuckerly
tittyfuckers
tittyfuckes
tittyfucking
tittyfuckly
tittyfucks
tittying
tittyly
tittys
toke
tokeed
tokeer
tokees
tokeing
tokely
tokes
toots
tootsed
tootser
tootses
tootsing
tootsly
tootss
tramp
tramped
tramper
trampes
tramping
tramply
tramps
transsexualed
transsexualer
transsexuales
transsexualing
transsexually
transsexuals
trashy
trashyed
trashyer
trashyes
trashying
trashyly
trashys
tubgirl
tubgirled
tubgirler
tubgirles
tubgirling
tubgirlly
tubgirls
turd
turded
turder
turdes
turding
turdly
turds
tush
tushed
tusher
tushes
tushing
tushly
tushs
twat
twated
twater
twates
twating
twatly
twats
twatsed
twatser
twatses
twatsing
twatsly
twatss
undies
undiesed
undieser
undieses
undiesing
undiesly
undiess
unweded
unweder
unwedes
unweding
unwedly
unweds
uzi
uzied
uzier
uzies
uziing
uzily
uzis
vag
vaged
vager
vages
vaging
vagly
vags
valium
valiumed
valiumer
valiumes
valiuming
valiumly
valiums
venous
virgined
virginer
virgines
virgining
virginly
virgins
vixen
vixened
vixener
vixenes
vixening
vixenly
vixens
vodkaed
vodkaer
vodkaes
vodkaing
vodkaly
vodkas
voyeur
voyeured
voyeurer
voyeures
voyeuring
voyeurly
voyeurs
vulgar
vulgared
vulgarer
vulgares
vulgaring
vulgarly
vulgars
wang
wanged
wanger
wanges
wanging
wangly
wangs
wank
wanked
wanker
wankered
wankerer
wankeres
wankering
wankerly
wankers
wankes
wanking
wankly
wanks
wazoo
wazooed
wazooer
wazooes
wazooing
wazooly
wazoos
wedgie
wedgieed
wedgieer
wedgiees
wedgieing
wedgiely
wedgies
weeded
weeder
weedes
weeding
weedly
weeds
weenie
weenieed
weenieer
weeniees
weenieing
weeniely
weenies
weewee
weeweeed
weeweeer
weeweees
weeweeing
weeweely
weewees
weiner
weinered
weinerer
weineres
weinering
weinerly
weiners
weirdo
weirdoed
weirdoer
weirdoes
weirdoing
weirdoly
weirdos
wench
wenched
wencher
wenches
wenching
wenchly
wenchs
wetback
wetbacked
wetbacker
wetbackes
wetbacking
wetbackly
wetbacks
whitey
whiteyed
whiteyer
whiteyes
whiteying
whiteyly
whiteys
whiz
whized
whizer
whizes
whizing
whizly
whizs
whoralicious
whoralicioused
whoraliciouser
whoraliciouses
whoraliciousing
whoraliciously
whoraliciouss
whore
whorealicious
whorealicioused
whorealiciouser
whorealiciouses
whorealiciousing
whorealiciously
whorealiciouss
whored
whoreded
whoreder
whoredes
whoreding
whoredly
whoreds
whoreed
whoreer
whorees
whoreface
whorefaceed
whorefaceer
whorefacees
whorefaceing
whorefacely
whorefaces
whorehopper
whorehoppered
whorehopperer
whorehopperes
whorehoppering
whorehopperly
whorehoppers
whorehouse
whorehouseed
whorehouseer
whorehousees
whorehouseing
whorehousely
whorehouses
whoreing
whorely
whores
whoresed
whoreser
whoreses
whoresing
whoresly
whoress
whoring
whoringed
whoringer
whoringes
whoringing
whoringly
whorings
wigger
wiggered
wiggerer
wiggeres
wiggering
wiggerly
wiggers
woody
woodyed
woodyer
woodyes
woodying
woodyly
woodys
wop
woped
woper
wopes
woping
woply
wops
wtf
wtfed
wtfer
wtfes
wtfing
wtfly
wtfs
xxx
xxxed
xxxer
xxxes
xxxing
xxxly
xxxs
yeasty
yeastyed
yeastyer
yeastyes
yeastying
yeastyly
yeastys
yobbo
yobboed
yobboer
yobboes
yobboing
yobboly
yobbos
zoophile
zoophileed
zoophileer
zoophilees
zoophileing
zoophilely
zoophiles
anal
ass
ass lick
balls
ballsac
bisexual
bleach
causas
cheap
cost of miracles
cunt
display network stats
fart
fda and death
fda AND warn
fda AND warning
fda AND warns
feom
fuck
gfc
humira AND expensive
illegal
madvocate
masturbation
nuccitelli
overdose
porn
shit
snort
texarkana
Altmetric
DSM Affiliated
Display in offset block
Disqus Exclude
Best Practices
CE/CME
Education Center
Medical Education Library
Enable Disqus
Display Author and Disclosure Link
Publication Type
Clinical
Slot System
Top 25
Disable Sticky Ads
Disable Ad Block Mitigation
Featured Buckets Admin
Publication LayerRX Default ID
795
Non-Overridden Topics
Show Ads on this Publication's Homepage
Consolidated Pub
Show Article Page Numbers on TOC

Two free contraception apps for providers of family planning

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 11:14

Evidence-based research and guidelines regarding contraception are continually changing. Health care providers often have difficulty memorizing and staying up-to-date on all the important developments around family planning. Those who provide contraceptive counseling may not all use guidelines to inform their choices, and some may have misperceptions about patient eligibility for certain methods.1,2 Mobile health applications (apps) that present this information in an easily accessible fashion have the potential to improve family planning services.

In a search for contraception apps, Dr. Rachel Perry and colleagues identified two contraception apps that were evaluated highly: 1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (MEC) app and 2) the iContraception app.3

Two free contraception apps for clinician use. Both the CDC Contraception and iContraception apps are based on CDC MEC information and provide guidance on contraceptive initiation and maintenance.4 Notably, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) endorses the use of the CDC MEC.5

These two apps can aid physicians in prescribing appropriate and safe contraceptive methods and can help them tailor the extensive CDC MEC guidelines for an individual patient. Additionally, the iContraception app allows a user to input multiple clinical and demographic characteristics to determine an individual patient’s eligibility for a specific contraceptive method (that is, it incorporates a clinical decision tree).

The recommended contraception apps are listed in the TABLE and are detailed with a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).6 I hope that the apps described here will assist you in managing patients who need contraception counseling.

References
  1. Russo JA, Chen BA, Creinin MD. Primary care physician familiarity with US medical eligibility for contraceptive use. Fam Med. 2015;47:15-21. 
  2. Dehlendorf C, Levy K, Ruskin R, et al. Health care providers' knowledge about contraceptive evidence: a barrier to quality family planning care? Contraception. 2010;81:292-298. 
  3. Perry R, Lunde B, Chen KT. An evaluation of contraception mobile applications for providers of family planning services. Contraception. 2016;93:539-544. 
  4. Curtis KM, Tepper NK, Jatlaoui TC, et al. US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2016;65(3):1-103.  
  5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee opinion no. 505: understanding and using the US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:754-760. 
  6. Chyjek K, Farag S, Chen KT. Rating pregnancy wheel applications using the APPLICATIONS scoring system. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:1478-1483. 
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Chen is Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science and Medical Education, Vice-Chair of Ob-Gyn Education for the Mount Sinai Health System, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, New York. She is an OBG Management Contributing Editor. 

The author reports being an advisory board member and receiving royalties from UpToDate, Inc.

Issue
OBG Management - 31(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
29-30
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Chen is Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science and Medical Education, Vice-Chair of Ob-Gyn Education for the Mount Sinai Health System, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, New York. She is an OBG Management Contributing Editor. 

The author reports being an advisory board member and receiving royalties from UpToDate, Inc.

Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Chen is Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science and Medical Education, Vice-Chair of Ob-Gyn Education for the Mount Sinai Health System, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, New York. She is an OBG Management Contributing Editor. 

The author reports being an advisory board member and receiving royalties from UpToDate, Inc.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Evidence-based research and guidelines regarding contraception are continually changing. Health care providers often have difficulty memorizing and staying up-to-date on all the important developments around family planning. Those who provide contraceptive counseling may not all use guidelines to inform their choices, and some may have misperceptions about patient eligibility for certain methods.1,2 Mobile health applications (apps) that present this information in an easily accessible fashion have the potential to improve family planning services.

In a search for contraception apps, Dr. Rachel Perry and colleagues identified two contraception apps that were evaluated highly: 1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (MEC) app and 2) the iContraception app.3

Two free contraception apps for clinician use. Both the CDC Contraception and iContraception apps are based on CDC MEC information and provide guidance on contraceptive initiation and maintenance.4 Notably, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) endorses the use of the CDC MEC.5

These two apps can aid physicians in prescribing appropriate and safe contraceptive methods and can help them tailor the extensive CDC MEC guidelines for an individual patient. Additionally, the iContraception app allows a user to input multiple clinical and demographic characteristics to determine an individual patient’s eligibility for a specific contraceptive method (that is, it incorporates a clinical decision tree).

The recommended contraception apps are listed in the TABLE and are detailed with a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).6 I hope that the apps described here will assist you in managing patients who need contraception counseling.

Evidence-based research and guidelines regarding contraception are continually changing. Health care providers often have difficulty memorizing and staying up-to-date on all the important developments around family planning. Those who provide contraceptive counseling may not all use guidelines to inform their choices, and some may have misperceptions about patient eligibility for certain methods.1,2 Mobile health applications (apps) that present this information in an easily accessible fashion have the potential to improve family planning services.

In a search for contraception apps, Dr. Rachel Perry and colleagues identified two contraception apps that were evaluated highly: 1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (MEC) app and 2) the iContraception app.3

Two free contraception apps for clinician use. Both the CDC Contraception and iContraception apps are based on CDC MEC information and provide guidance on contraceptive initiation and maintenance.4 Notably, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) endorses the use of the CDC MEC.5

These two apps can aid physicians in prescribing appropriate and safe contraceptive methods and can help them tailor the extensive CDC MEC guidelines for an individual patient. Additionally, the iContraception app allows a user to input multiple clinical and demographic characteristics to determine an individual patient’s eligibility for a specific contraceptive method (that is, it incorporates a clinical decision tree).

The recommended contraception apps are listed in the TABLE and are detailed with a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).6 I hope that the apps described here will assist you in managing patients who need contraception counseling.

References
  1. Russo JA, Chen BA, Creinin MD. Primary care physician familiarity with US medical eligibility for contraceptive use. Fam Med. 2015;47:15-21. 
  2. Dehlendorf C, Levy K, Ruskin R, et al. Health care providers' knowledge about contraceptive evidence: a barrier to quality family planning care? Contraception. 2010;81:292-298. 
  3. Perry R, Lunde B, Chen KT. An evaluation of contraception mobile applications for providers of family planning services. Contraception. 2016;93:539-544. 
  4. Curtis KM, Tepper NK, Jatlaoui TC, et al. US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2016;65(3):1-103.  
  5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee opinion no. 505: understanding and using the US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:754-760. 
  6. Chyjek K, Farag S, Chen KT. Rating pregnancy wheel applications using the APPLICATIONS scoring system. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:1478-1483. 
References
  1. Russo JA, Chen BA, Creinin MD. Primary care physician familiarity with US medical eligibility for contraceptive use. Fam Med. 2015;47:15-21. 
  2. Dehlendorf C, Levy K, Ruskin R, et al. Health care providers' knowledge about contraceptive evidence: a barrier to quality family planning care? Contraception. 2010;81:292-298. 
  3. Perry R, Lunde B, Chen KT. An evaluation of contraception mobile applications for providers of family planning services. Contraception. 2016;93:539-544. 
  4. Curtis KM, Tepper NK, Jatlaoui TC, et al. US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2016;65(3):1-103.  
  5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee opinion no. 505: understanding and using the US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:754-760. 
  6. Chyjek K, Farag S, Chen KT. Rating pregnancy wheel applications using the APPLICATIONS scoring system. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:1478-1483. 
Issue
OBG Management - 31(3)
Issue
OBG Management - 31(3)
Page Number
29-30
Page Number
29-30
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Article PDF Media

Minilaparotomy: Minimally invasive approach to abdominal myomectomy

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 06/10/2019 - 16:05
Display Headline
Minilaparotomy: Minimally invasive approach to abdominal myomectomy

A minilaparotomy is loosely defined as a laparotomy measuring between 4 cm and 6 cm. For the appropriate surgical candidate, a minilaparotomy is a useful alternative to laparotomy or laparoscopy, especially for large pathology.1 Benefits of minilaparotomy include improved pain management and postoperative recovery, as well as improved cosmetic outcome, with comparable blood loss and operative time.2,3

Vidyard Video

 In this video, we illustrate the key surgical steps of a minilaparotomy for the removal of large fibroids. These steps include:

  1. strategic vertical skin incision
  2. use of a self-retaining retractor
  3. infiltrate myometrium with dilute vasopressin
  4. strategic hysterotomy
  5. use of tenaculum for upward traction
  6. 10# blade scalpels for the “lemon wedge” coring technique
  7. layered closure.

Minilaparotomy myomectomy can be an excellent minimally invasive alternative to a traditional “full laparotomy” for women with large fibroids.

We hope that you find this video beneficial to your clinical practice.

>> Arnold P. Advincula, MD
 

WATCH FOR THIS VIDEO COMING SOON:

Laparoscopic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy via minilaparotomy assistance for the massively enlarged adnexal mass

References
  1. Pelosi MA 2nd, Pelosi MA 3rd. Pelosi minilaparotomy hysterectomy: a non-endoscopic minimally invasive alternative to laparoscopy and laparotomy. Surg Technol Int. 2004;13:157-167.
  2. Fanafani F, Fagotti A, Longo R. Minilaparotomy in the management of benign gynecologic disease. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;119:232-236.
  3. Glasser MH. Minilaparotomy: a minimally invasive alternative for major gynecologic abdominal surgery. Perm J. 2005;9:41-45.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Seaman is Resident, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY.

Dr. Mattingly is Program Director, Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Novant Health Pelvic Health & Surgery, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Dr. Advincula is Levine Family Professor of Women’s Health; Vice-Chair, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology; Chief of Gynecology, Sloane Hospital for Women; and Medical Director, Mary & Michael Jaharis Simulation Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital. He serves on the OBG Management Board of Editors.

Dr. Advincula reports serving as a consultant to ConMed, CooperSurgical, Intuitive Surgical, and Titan Medical and receiving royalties from CooperSurgical. The other authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Issue
OBG Management - 31(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
52
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Seaman is Resident, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY.

Dr. Mattingly is Program Director, Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Novant Health Pelvic Health & Surgery, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Dr. Advincula is Levine Family Professor of Women’s Health; Vice-Chair, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology; Chief of Gynecology, Sloane Hospital for Women; and Medical Director, Mary & Michael Jaharis Simulation Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital. He serves on the OBG Management Board of Editors.

Dr. Advincula reports serving as a consultant to ConMed, CooperSurgical, Intuitive Surgical, and Titan Medical and receiving royalties from CooperSurgical. The other authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Seaman is Resident, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY.

Dr. Mattingly is Program Director, Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Novant Health Pelvic Health & Surgery, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Dr. Advincula is Levine Family Professor of Women’s Health; Vice-Chair, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology; Chief of Gynecology, Sloane Hospital for Women; and Medical Director, Mary & Michael Jaharis Simulation Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital. He serves on the OBG Management Board of Editors.

Dr. Advincula reports serving as a consultant to ConMed, CooperSurgical, Intuitive Surgical, and Titan Medical and receiving royalties from CooperSurgical. The other authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

A minilaparotomy is loosely defined as a laparotomy measuring between 4 cm and 6 cm. For the appropriate surgical candidate, a minilaparotomy is a useful alternative to laparotomy or laparoscopy, especially for large pathology.1 Benefits of minilaparotomy include improved pain management and postoperative recovery, as well as improved cosmetic outcome, with comparable blood loss and operative time.2,3

Vidyard Video

 In this video, we illustrate the key surgical steps of a minilaparotomy for the removal of large fibroids. These steps include:

  1. strategic vertical skin incision
  2. use of a self-retaining retractor
  3. infiltrate myometrium with dilute vasopressin
  4. strategic hysterotomy
  5. use of tenaculum for upward traction
  6. 10# blade scalpels for the “lemon wedge” coring technique
  7. layered closure.

Minilaparotomy myomectomy can be an excellent minimally invasive alternative to a traditional “full laparotomy” for women with large fibroids.

We hope that you find this video beneficial to your clinical practice.

>> Arnold P. Advincula, MD
 

WATCH FOR THIS VIDEO COMING SOON:

Laparoscopic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy via minilaparotomy assistance for the massively enlarged adnexal mass

A minilaparotomy is loosely defined as a laparotomy measuring between 4 cm and 6 cm. For the appropriate surgical candidate, a minilaparotomy is a useful alternative to laparotomy or laparoscopy, especially for large pathology.1 Benefits of minilaparotomy include improved pain management and postoperative recovery, as well as improved cosmetic outcome, with comparable blood loss and operative time.2,3

Vidyard Video

 In this video, we illustrate the key surgical steps of a minilaparotomy for the removal of large fibroids. These steps include:

  1. strategic vertical skin incision
  2. use of a self-retaining retractor
  3. infiltrate myometrium with dilute vasopressin
  4. strategic hysterotomy
  5. use of tenaculum for upward traction
  6. 10# blade scalpels for the “lemon wedge” coring technique
  7. layered closure.

Minilaparotomy myomectomy can be an excellent minimally invasive alternative to a traditional “full laparotomy” for women with large fibroids.

We hope that you find this video beneficial to your clinical practice.

>> Arnold P. Advincula, MD
 

WATCH FOR THIS VIDEO COMING SOON:

Laparoscopic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy via minilaparotomy assistance for the massively enlarged adnexal mass

References
  1. Pelosi MA 2nd, Pelosi MA 3rd. Pelosi minilaparotomy hysterectomy: a non-endoscopic minimally invasive alternative to laparoscopy and laparotomy. Surg Technol Int. 2004;13:157-167.
  2. Fanafani F, Fagotti A, Longo R. Minilaparotomy in the management of benign gynecologic disease. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;119:232-236.
  3. Glasser MH. Minilaparotomy: a minimally invasive alternative for major gynecologic abdominal surgery. Perm J. 2005;9:41-45.
References
  1. Pelosi MA 2nd, Pelosi MA 3rd. Pelosi minilaparotomy hysterectomy: a non-endoscopic minimally invasive alternative to laparoscopy and laparotomy. Surg Technol Int. 2004;13:157-167.
  2. Fanafani F, Fagotti A, Longo R. Minilaparotomy in the management of benign gynecologic disease. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;119:232-236.
  3. Glasser MH. Minilaparotomy: a minimally invasive alternative for major gynecologic abdominal surgery. Perm J. 2005;9:41-45.
Issue
OBG Management - 31(3)
Issue
OBG Management - 31(3)
Page Number
52
Page Number
52
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Minilaparotomy: Minimally invasive approach to abdominal myomectomy
Display Headline
Minilaparotomy: Minimally invasive approach to abdominal myomectomy
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Wed, 02/27/2019 - 14:30
Un-Gate On Date
Wed, 02/27/2019 - 14:30
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Wed, 02/27/2019 - 14:30
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Article PDF Media

Woman loses hands and feet after cystectomy

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 02/11/2019 - 10:00

 

Woman loses hands and feet after cystectomy: $109M award

On November 1, a 45-year-old woman underwent laparoscopic excision of a benign ovarian cyst performed by a minimally invasive gynecologic (MIG) surgeon. After surgery, the patient’s blood pressure (BP) declined. She was given fluids, but her BP remained low. The next day, she became incoherent and her BP could not be stabilized. Twenty-seven hours after surgery, the 5-cm umbilical incision opened while the patient was attempting to stand up from the commode. A large amount of bloody discharge drained.

At 11:00 pm that day, her BP was so low that it could not be measured, and septic shock was suspected. She was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU), but soon went into organ failure. ICU physicians suggested that she have an abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan but she had to be stabilized before transport; they administered vasopressors.

At 4:30 pm the next day, the surgeon called for a trauma surgery consult. The trauma surgeon immediately ordered exploratory surgery and cancelled the use of vasopressors. During surgery, he found a separation in her small intestine leading to the development of necrotizing fasciitis. He resected the injured intestine and areas affected by the bacteria, including abdominal muscles and wall.

The patient remained unconscious from the time of the exploratory operation until the end of January. She required additional surgeries to control the bacteria as well as amputation of both hands above the wrists and both feet above the ankles due to gangrene. Because she no longer had an abdominal wall, a skin sac was created to hold her intestines outside of her body. When a fistula developed, a colostomy was performed.

She went to a Maryland hospital for rehab, where she learned to walk with prosthetic feet and to use her prosthetic hands. Currently, she has constant abdominal pain, can walk a short distance, and uses a wheelchair. She requires 24/7 assistance for everyday tasks. She can no longer work and is on disability.

PATIENT’S CLAIM: The patient sued the university health system that employed the MIG surgeon. During the cystectomy, he almost completely transected her small intestine, but did not find the injury during surgery. This allowed bacteria to enter the abdominal cavity, causing sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis. The trauma surgeon referred to the injury as an enterotomy, not a tear.

During the procedure, the surgeon used ADEPT, a solution to prevent the formation of adhesions. The patient’s ObGyn expert concluded that ADEPT created an environment that allowed the necrotizing fasciitis to flourish.

The ICU physicians concluded that the patient was stable enough to be transported for a CT scan, but the surgeon repeatedly delayed the procedure and did not call for a surgical consult until 12 hours later. Had the CT scan or exploratory surgery occurred earlier, the diagnosis would have been discovered, and the bacteria would have been prevented from spreading. She would not have required extensive doses of vasopressors, which increase BP by cutting off blood circulation to the 4 extremities. In this case, use of vasopressors led to gangrene and the subsequent amputations.

Continue to: DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE...

 

 

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE: The defendants denied all allegations. The expert witness for the defense opined that the surgeon had only nicked the intestine and that the main injury was a tear that had occurred on its own. The defense also claimed that the surgeon did not call for a CT scan because it would not have shown the source of the patient’s condition.

VERDICT: After 2 trials ended with hung juries, a $109 million Florida verdict was returned against the university health system. Under Florida’s sovereign immunity statute, the patient must seek recovery of all but $100,000 of the award through the Florida legislature in a separate claims bill.

Child has hypoxic brain injury: $7.75M settlement

At 41 weeks’ gestation, a mother presented to the emergency department (ED) for delivery after an unremarkable pregnancy. During the last 90 minutes of labor, fetal heart-rate (FHR) monitoring showed nonreassuring findings. After a vaginal delivery, the infant was found to have a hypoxic brain injury.

PARENT’S CLAIM: Even though nonreassuring FHR monitoring findings occurred, the physicians did not offer cesarean delivery (CD). The pediatrician and ED physician were negligent in failing to provide proper neonatal resuscitation and in recognizing a problem with the infants’ intubation. The delay in delivery and poor resuscitation procedure caused the child’s injury.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE: All allegations were denied. There was no deviation from the standard of care.

VERDICT: A $7.75 million Massachusetts settlement was reached.

Kidney failed after hysterectomy

A 46-year-old woman underwent a hysterectomy performed by her ObGyn. Surgery went well but the patient continued to report symptoms. A year later, she underwent an oophorectomy. Two years later, the patient reported blood in her urine and underwent a computed tomography scan, which revealed an obstructed left ureter that had caused injury to the left kidney. Seven months later, the kidney was removed.

PATIENT’S CLAIM: Her kidney loss was a direct result of the ObGyn’s initial surgical procedure. He had placed several clips near the ureter and did not verify their position or protect the ureter. He also failed to address her reported symptoms in a timely manner.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE: The damage to the ureter is a known risk of hysterectomy and oophorectomy. The obstruction developed over time, not as an immediate result of the surgery.
 

VERDICT: A Kentucky defense verdict was returned.

History of shoulder dystocia, Erb's palsy: $1.2M settlement 

An obese mother was admitted to the hospital at 39 weeks’ gestation with signs of labor. She requested a CD and was advised that she had progressed too far for that to be an option, and that vaginal delivery would be safe. During the second stage of labor, shoulder dystocia was encountered. The ObGyn made several attempts to deliver using downward traction, but was unsuccessful. A second ObGyn swept the shoulder with an internal maneuver of his hand and delivered the baby. The child has a severe brachial plexus injury at multiple spinal levels resulting in Erb’s palsy.

PARENT’S CLAIM: A CD should have been performed. The first ObGyn failed to provide a CD and repeatedly applied excessive downward traction, causing the infant’s injury.

Continue to: PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE...

 

 

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE: Shoulder dystocia is unpredictable and an unpreventable obstetric emergency. The ObGyn used proper maneuvers to release the shoulder dystocia.

VERDICT: A $1.2 million Virginia settlement was reached.

Ureter injured during hysterectomy 

When a patient was found to have multiple, symptomatic fibroids and an enlarged uterus, her gynecologist suggested a total laparoscopic hysterectomy. During the procedure, when he inspected the pelvis and found multiple fibroids in and around the uterus, the gynecologist converted to a supracervical hysterectomy. Surgery was difficult because of a large myoma on the right broad ligament.

The patient tolerated surgery well and was released home the next day. At follow-up one week later, she had no signs or symptoms of ureter injury. Later that same evening, she experienced sharp flank pain and nausea. When she called the gynecologist, he sent her to the emergency department. A computed tomography scan showed extravasation of the right ureter. She underwent months of stent placements and replacements, nephrostomies, and ultimately ureteral reimplantation surgery.

PATIENT’S CLAIM: The gynecologist caused a thermal injury to her right ureter during the hysterectomy by misusing an electrocautery device. There was a delay in timely diagnosis postsurgery.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE: The gynecologist contended that he employed proper surgical technique, and that he reacted properly when the patient reported the pain.

VERDICT: A Virginia defense verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG MANAGEMENT from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements, & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

 

Article PDF
Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
45-46
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

 

Woman loses hands and feet after cystectomy: $109M award

On November 1, a 45-year-old woman underwent laparoscopic excision of a benign ovarian cyst performed by a minimally invasive gynecologic (MIG) surgeon. After surgery, the patient’s blood pressure (BP) declined. She was given fluids, but her BP remained low. The next day, she became incoherent and her BP could not be stabilized. Twenty-seven hours after surgery, the 5-cm umbilical incision opened while the patient was attempting to stand up from the commode. A large amount of bloody discharge drained.

At 11:00 pm that day, her BP was so low that it could not be measured, and septic shock was suspected. She was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU), but soon went into organ failure. ICU physicians suggested that she have an abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan but she had to be stabilized before transport; they administered vasopressors.

At 4:30 pm the next day, the surgeon called for a trauma surgery consult. The trauma surgeon immediately ordered exploratory surgery and cancelled the use of vasopressors. During surgery, he found a separation in her small intestine leading to the development of necrotizing fasciitis. He resected the injured intestine and areas affected by the bacteria, including abdominal muscles and wall.

The patient remained unconscious from the time of the exploratory operation until the end of January. She required additional surgeries to control the bacteria as well as amputation of both hands above the wrists and both feet above the ankles due to gangrene. Because she no longer had an abdominal wall, a skin sac was created to hold her intestines outside of her body. When a fistula developed, a colostomy was performed.

She went to a Maryland hospital for rehab, where she learned to walk with prosthetic feet and to use her prosthetic hands. Currently, she has constant abdominal pain, can walk a short distance, and uses a wheelchair. She requires 24/7 assistance for everyday tasks. She can no longer work and is on disability.

PATIENT’S CLAIM: The patient sued the university health system that employed the MIG surgeon. During the cystectomy, he almost completely transected her small intestine, but did not find the injury during surgery. This allowed bacteria to enter the abdominal cavity, causing sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis. The trauma surgeon referred to the injury as an enterotomy, not a tear.

During the procedure, the surgeon used ADEPT, a solution to prevent the formation of adhesions. The patient’s ObGyn expert concluded that ADEPT created an environment that allowed the necrotizing fasciitis to flourish.

The ICU physicians concluded that the patient was stable enough to be transported for a CT scan, but the surgeon repeatedly delayed the procedure and did not call for a surgical consult until 12 hours later. Had the CT scan or exploratory surgery occurred earlier, the diagnosis would have been discovered, and the bacteria would have been prevented from spreading. She would not have required extensive doses of vasopressors, which increase BP by cutting off blood circulation to the 4 extremities. In this case, use of vasopressors led to gangrene and the subsequent amputations.

Continue to: DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE...

 

 

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE: The defendants denied all allegations. The expert witness for the defense opined that the surgeon had only nicked the intestine and that the main injury was a tear that had occurred on its own. The defense also claimed that the surgeon did not call for a CT scan because it would not have shown the source of the patient’s condition.

VERDICT: After 2 trials ended with hung juries, a $109 million Florida verdict was returned against the university health system. Under Florida’s sovereign immunity statute, the patient must seek recovery of all but $100,000 of the award through the Florida legislature in a separate claims bill.

Child has hypoxic brain injury: $7.75M settlement

At 41 weeks’ gestation, a mother presented to the emergency department (ED) for delivery after an unremarkable pregnancy. During the last 90 minutes of labor, fetal heart-rate (FHR) monitoring showed nonreassuring findings. After a vaginal delivery, the infant was found to have a hypoxic brain injury.

PARENT’S CLAIM: Even though nonreassuring FHR monitoring findings occurred, the physicians did not offer cesarean delivery (CD). The pediatrician and ED physician were negligent in failing to provide proper neonatal resuscitation and in recognizing a problem with the infants’ intubation. The delay in delivery and poor resuscitation procedure caused the child’s injury.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE: All allegations were denied. There was no deviation from the standard of care.

VERDICT: A $7.75 million Massachusetts settlement was reached.

Kidney failed after hysterectomy

A 46-year-old woman underwent a hysterectomy performed by her ObGyn. Surgery went well but the patient continued to report symptoms. A year later, she underwent an oophorectomy. Two years later, the patient reported blood in her urine and underwent a computed tomography scan, which revealed an obstructed left ureter that had caused injury to the left kidney. Seven months later, the kidney was removed.

PATIENT’S CLAIM: Her kidney loss was a direct result of the ObGyn’s initial surgical procedure. He had placed several clips near the ureter and did not verify their position or protect the ureter. He also failed to address her reported symptoms in a timely manner.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE: The damage to the ureter is a known risk of hysterectomy and oophorectomy. The obstruction developed over time, not as an immediate result of the surgery.
 

VERDICT: A Kentucky defense verdict was returned.

History of shoulder dystocia, Erb's palsy: $1.2M settlement 

An obese mother was admitted to the hospital at 39 weeks’ gestation with signs of labor. She requested a CD and was advised that she had progressed too far for that to be an option, and that vaginal delivery would be safe. During the second stage of labor, shoulder dystocia was encountered. The ObGyn made several attempts to deliver using downward traction, but was unsuccessful. A second ObGyn swept the shoulder with an internal maneuver of his hand and delivered the baby. The child has a severe brachial plexus injury at multiple spinal levels resulting in Erb’s palsy.

PARENT’S CLAIM: A CD should have been performed. The first ObGyn failed to provide a CD and repeatedly applied excessive downward traction, causing the infant’s injury.

Continue to: PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE...

 

 

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE: Shoulder dystocia is unpredictable and an unpreventable obstetric emergency. The ObGyn used proper maneuvers to release the shoulder dystocia.

VERDICT: A $1.2 million Virginia settlement was reached.

Ureter injured during hysterectomy 

When a patient was found to have multiple, symptomatic fibroids and an enlarged uterus, her gynecologist suggested a total laparoscopic hysterectomy. During the procedure, when he inspected the pelvis and found multiple fibroids in and around the uterus, the gynecologist converted to a supracervical hysterectomy. Surgery was difficult because of a large myoma on the right broad ligament.

The patient tolerated surgery well and was released home the next day. At follow-up one week later, she had no signs or symptoms of ureter injury. Later that same evening, she experienced sharp flank pain and nausea. When she called the gynecologist, he sent her to the emergency department. A computed tomography scan showed extravasation of the right ureter. She underwent months of stent placements and replacements, nephrostomies, and ultimately ureteral reimplantation surgery.

PATIENT’S CLAIM: The gynecologist caused a thermal injury to her right ureter during the hysterectomy by misusing an electrocautery device. There was a delay in timely diagnosis postsurgery.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE: The gynecologist contended that he employed proper surgical technique, and that he reacted properly when the patient reported the pain.

VERDICT: A Virginia defense verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG MANAGEMENT from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements, & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

 

 

Woman loses hands and feet after cystectomy: $109M award

On November 1, a 45-year-old woman underwent laparoscopic excision of a benign ovarian cyst performed by a minimally invasive gynecologic (MIG) surgeon. After surgery, the patient’s blood pressure (BP) declined. She was given fluids, but her BP remained low. The next day, she became incoherent and her BP could not be stabilized. Twenty-seven hours after surgery, the 5-cm umbilical incision opened while the patient was attempting to stand up from the commode. A large amount of bloody discharge drained.

At 11:00 pm that day, her BP was so low that it could not be measured, and septic shock was suspected. She was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU), but soon went into organ failure. ICU physicians suggested that she have an abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan but she had to be stabilized before transport; they administered vasopressors.

At 4:30 pm the next day, the surgeon called for a trauma surgery consult. The trauma surgeon immediately ordered exploratory surgery and cancelled the use of vasopressors. During surgery, he found a separation in her small intestine leading to the development of necrotizing fasciitis. He resected the injured intestine and areas affected by the bacteria, including abdominal muscles and wall.

The patient remained unconscious from the time of the exploratory operation until the end of January. She required additional surgeries to control the bacteria as well as amputation of both hands above the wrists and both feet above the ankles due to gangrene. Because she no longer had an abdominal wall, a skin sac was created to hold her intestines outside of her body. When a fistula developed, a colostomy was performed.

She went to a Maryland hospital for rehab, where she learned to walk with prosthetic feet and to use her prosthetic hands. Currently, she has constant abdominal pain, can walk a short distance, and uses a wheelchair. She requires 24/7 assistance for everyday tasks. She can no longer work and is on disability.

PATIENT’S CLAIM: The patient sued the university health system that employed the MIG surgeon. During the cystectomy, he almost completely transected her small intestine, but did not find the injury during surgery. This allowed bacteria to enter the abdominal cavity, causing sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis. The trauma surgeon referred to the injury as an enterotomy, not a tear.

During the procedure, the surgeon used ADEPT, a solution to prevent the formation of adhesions. The patient’s ObGyn expert concluded that ADEPT created an environment that allowed the necrotizing fasciitis to flourish.

The ICU physicians concluded that the patient was stable enough to be transported for a CT scan, but the surgeon repeatedly delayed the procedure and did not call for a surgical consult until 12 hours later. Had the CT scan or exploratory surgery occurred earlier, the diagnosis would have been discovered, and the bacteria would have been prevented from spreading. She would not have required extensive doses of vasopressors, which increase BP by cutting off blood circulation to the 4 extremities. In this case, use of vasopressors led to gangrene and the subsequent amputations.

Continue to: DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE...

 

 

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE: The defendants denied all allegations. The expert witness for the defense opined that the surgeon had only nicked the intestine and that the main injury was a tear that had occurred on its own. The defense also claimed that the surgeon did not call for a CT scan because it would not have shown the source of the patient’s condition.

VERDICT: After 2 trials ended with hung juries, a $109 million Florida verdict was returned against the university health system. Under Florida’s sovereign immunity statute, the patient must seek recovery of all but $100,000 of the award through the Florida legislature in a separate claims bill.

Child has hypoxic brain injury: $7.75M settlement

At 41 weeks’ gestation, a mother presented to the emergency department (ED) for delivery after an unremarkable pregnancy. During the last 90 minutes of labor, fetal heart-rate (FHR) monitoring showed nonreassuring findings. After a vaginal delivery, the infant was found to have a hypoxic brain injury.

PARENT’S CLAIM: Even though nonreassuring FHR monitoring findings occurred, the physicians did not offer cesarean delivery (CD). The pediatrician and ED physician were negligent in failing to provide proper neonatal resuscitation and in recognizing a problem with the infants’ intubation. The delay in delivery and poor resuscitation procedure caused the child’s injury.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE: All allegations were denied. There was no deviation from the standard of care.

VERDICT: A $7.75 million Massachusetts settlement was reached.

Kidney failed after hysterectomy

A 46-year-old woman underwent a hysterectomy performed by her ObGyn. Surgery went well but the patient continued to report symptoms. A year later, she underwent an oophorectomy. Two years later, the patient reported blood in her urine and underwent a computed tomography scan, which revealed an obstructed left ureter that had caused injury to the left kidney. Seven months later, the kidney was removed.

PATIENT’S CLAIM: Her kidney loss was a direct result of the ObGyn’s initial surgical procedure. He had placed several clips near the ureter and did not verify their position or protect the ureter. He also failed to address her reported symptoms in a timely manner.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE: The damage to the ureter is a known risk of hysterectomy and oophorectomy. The obstruction developed over time, not as an immediate result of the surgery.
 

VERDICT: A Kentucky defense verdict was returned.

History of shoulder dystocia, Erb's palsy: $1.2M settlement 

An obese mother was admitted to the hospital at 39 weeks’ gestation with signs of labor. She requested a CD and was advised that she had progressed too far for that to be an option, and that vaginal delivery would be safe. During the second stage of labor, shoulder dystocia was encountered. The ObGyn made several attempts to deliver using downward traction, but was unsuccessful. A second ObGyn swept the shoulder with an internal maneuver of his hand and delivered the baby. The child has a severe brachial plexus injury at multiple spinal levels resulting in Erb’s palsy.

PARENT’S CLAIM: A CD should have been performed. The first ObGyn failed to provide a CD and repeatedly applied excessive downward traction, causing the infant’s injury.

Continue to: PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE...

 

 

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE: Shoulder dystocia is unpredictable and an unpreventable obstetric emergency. The ObGyn used proper maneuvers to release the shoulder dystocia.

VERDICT: A $1.2 million Virginia settlement was reached.

Ureter injured during hysterectomy 

When a patient was found to have multiple, symptomatic fibroids and an enlarged uterus, her gynecologist suggested a total laparoscopic hysterectomy. During the procedure, when he inspected the pelvis and found multiple fibroids in and around the uterus, the gynecologist converted to a supracervical hysterectomy. Surgery was difficult because of a large myoma on the right broad ligament.

The patient tolerated surgery well and was released home the next day. At follow-up one week later, she had no signs or symptoms of ureter injury. Later that same evening, she experienced sharp flank pain and nausea. When she called the gynecologist, he sent her to the emergency department. A computed tomography scan showed extravasation of the right ureter. She underwent months of stent placements and replacements, nephrostomies, and ultimately ureteral reimplantation surgery.

PATIENT’S CLAIM: The gynecologist caused a thermal injury to her right ureter during the hysterectomy by misusing an electrocautery device. There was a delay in timely diagnosis postsurgery.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE: The gynecologist contended that he employed proper surgical technique, and that he reacted properly when the patient reported the pain.

VERDICT: A Virginia defense verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG MANAGEMENT from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements, & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

 

Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Page Number
45-46
Page Number
45-46
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

A patient with severe adenomyosis requests uterine-sparing surgery

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 08/27/2020 - 14:58

CASE
A 28-year-old patient presents for evaluation and management of her chronic pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and menorrhagia. She previously tried ibuprofen with no pain relief. She also tried oral and long-acting reversible contraceptives but continued to be symptomatic. She underwent pelvic sonography, which demonstrated a large globular uterus with myometrial thickening and myometrial cysts with increased hypervascularity. Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging indicated a thickened junctional zone. Feeling she had exhausted medical manegement options with no significant improvement, she desired surgical treatment, but wanted to retain her future fertility. As a newlywed, she and her husband were planning on building a family so she desired to retain her uterus for potential future pregnancy.

How would you address this patient’s disruptive symptoms, while affirming her long-term plans by choosing the proper intervention?

Adenomyosis is characterized by endometrial-like glands and stroma deep within the myometrium of the uterus and generally is classified as diffuse or focal. This common, benign gynecologic condition is known to cause enlargement of the uterus secondary to stimulation of ectopic endometrial-like cells.1-3 Although the true incidence of adenomyosis is unknown because of the difficulty of making the diagnosis, prevalence has been variously reported at 6% to 70% among reproductive-aged women.4,5

In this review, we first examine the clinical presentation and diagnosis of adenomyosis. We then discuss clinical indications for, and surgical techniques of, adenomyomectomy, including our preferred uterine-sparing approach for focal disease or when the patient wants to preserve fertility: video laparoscopic resection with or without robotic assistance, aided by minilaparotomy when indicated.

Treatment evolved in a century and a half

Adenomyosis was first described more than 150 years ago; historically, hysterectomy was the mainstay of treatment.2,6 Conservative surgical treatment for adenomyosis has been reported since the early 1950s.6-8 Surgical treatment initially became more widespread following the introduction of wedge resection, which allowed for partial excision of adenomyotic nodules.9

More recent developments in diagnostic technologies and capabilities have allowed for the emergence of additional uterine-sparing and minimally invasive surgical treatment options for adenomyosis.3,10 Although the use of laparoscopic approaches is limited because a high level of technical skill is required to undertake these procedures, such approaches are becoming increasingly important as more and more patients seek fertility conservation.11-13

How does adenomyosis present?

Adenomyosis symptoms commonly consist of abnormal uterine bleeding and dysmenorrhea, affecting approximately 40% to 60% and 15% to 30% of patients with the condition, respectively.14 These symptoms are considered nonspecific because they are also associated with other uterine abnormalities.15 Although menorrhagia is not associated with extent of disease, dysmenorrhea is associated with both the number and depth of adenomyotic foci.14

Other symptoms reported with adenomyosis include chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, as well as infertility. Note, however, that a large percentage of patients are asymptomatic.16,17

On physical examination, patients commonly exhibit a diffusely enlarged, globular uterus. This finding is secondary to uniform hyperplasia and hypertrophy of the myometrium, caused by stimulation of ectopic endometrial cells.2 A subset of patients experience significant uterine tenderness.18 Other common findings associated with adenomyosis include uterine abnormalities, such as leiomyomata, endometriosis, and endometrial polyps.

Continue to: Two-pronged route to diagnosis and a differential...

 

 

Two-pronged route to diagnosis and a differential

Histology

Adenomyosis is definitively diagnosed based on histologic findings of endometrial-like tissue within the myometrium. Historically, histologic analysis was performed on specimens following hysterectomy but, more recently, has utilized specimens obtained from hysteroscopic and laparoscopic myometrial biopsies.19 Importantly, although hysteroscopic and laparoscopic biopsies are taken under direct visualization, there are no pathognomonic signs for adenomyosis; a diagnosis can therefore be missed if adenomyosis is not present at biopsied sites.1 The sensitivity of random biopsy at laparoscopy has been found to be as low as 2% to as high as 56%.20

Imaging

Imaging can be helpful in clinical decision making and to guide the differential diagnosis. Transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) is often the first mode of imaging used for the investigation of abnormal uterine bleeding or pelvic pain. Diagnosis by TVUS is difficult because the modality is operator dependent and standard diagnostic criteria are lacking.5

The most commonly reported ultrasonographic features of adenomyosis are21,22:

  • a globally enlarged uterus
  • asymmetry
  • myometrial thickening with heterogeneity
  • poorly defined foci of hyperechoic regions, surrounded by hypoechoic areas that correspond to smooth-muscle hyperplasia
  • myometrial cysts.

Doppler ultrasound examination in patients with adenomyosis reveals increased flow to the myometrium without evidence of large blood vessels.

3-dimensional (3-D) ultrasonography. Integration of 3-D ultrasonography has allowed for identification of the thicker junctional zone that suggests adenomyosis. In a systematic review of the accuracy of TVUS, investigators reported a pooled sensitivity and specificity for 2-dimensional ultrasonography of 83.8% and 63.9%, respectively, and a pooled sensitivity and specificity for 3-dimensional ultrasonography of 88.9% and 56.0%, respectively.22

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is also used in the evaluation of adenomyosis. Although MRI is considered a more accurate diagnostic modality because it is not operator dependent, expense often prohibits its use in the work-up of abnormal uterine bleeding and chronic pelvic pain.2,23

The most commonly reported MRI findings in adenomyosis include a globular or asymmetric uterus, heterogeneity of myometrial signal intensity, and thickening of the junctional zone24 (FIGURE 1). In a systematic review, researchers reported a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 77% and 89%, respectively, for the diagnosis of adenomyosis using MRI.25

Approaches to treatment

Medical management

No medical therapies or guidelines specific to the treatment of adenomyosis exist.9 Often, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are employed to combat cramping and pain associated with increased prostaglandin levels.26 A systematic review found that NSAIDs are significantly better at treating dysmenorrhea than placebo alone.26

Moreover, adenomyosis is an estrogen-dependent disease; consequently, many medical treatments are targeted at suppressing the hypothalamic–pituitary–ovarian axis and inducing endometrial atrophy. Medications commonly used (off-label) for this effect include combined or progestin-only oral contraceptive pills, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices, danazol, and aromatase inhibitors.

Use of a GnRH agonist, such as leuprolide, is limited to a short course (<6 months) because menopausal-like symptoms, such as hot flashes, vaginal atrophy, and loss of bone-mineral density, can develop.16 Symptoms of adenomyosis often return upon cessation of hormonal treatment.1

Novel therapies are under investigation, including GnRH antagonists, selective progesterone-receptor modulators, and antiplatelet therapy.27

Although there are few data showing the effectiveness of medical therapy on adenomyosis-specific outcomes, medications are particularly useful in patients who are poor surgical candidates or who may prefer not to undergo surgery. Furthermore, medical therapy has considerable use in conjunction with surgical intervention; a prospective observational study showed that women who underwent GnRH agonist treatment following surgery had significantly greater improvement of their dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia, compared with those who underwent surgery only.28 In addition, preoperative administration of a GnRH agonist or danazol several months prior to surgery has been shown to reduce uterine vascularity and, thus, blood loss at surgery.29,30

 

Key practice points in managing adenomyosis
  • Adenomyosis is common and benign, but remains underdiagnosed because of a nonspecific clinical presentation and lack of standardized diagnostic criteria.
  • Adenomyosis can cause significant associated morbidity: dysmenorrhea, heavy menstrual bleeding, chronic pelvic pain, and infertility.
  • High clinical suspicion warrants evaluation by imaging.
  • Medical management is largely aimed at ameliorating symptoms.
  • A patient who does not respond to medical treatment or does not desire pregnancy has a variety of surgical options; the extent of disease and the patient’s wish for uterine preservation guide the selection of surgical technique.
  • Hysterectomy is the definitive treatment but, in patients who want to avoid radical resection, techniques developed for laparotomy are available, to allow conservative resection using laparoscopy.
  • Ideally, surgery is performed using a combined laparoscopy and minilaparotomy approach, after appropriate imaging.

 

Continue to: Surgery

 

 

Surgery

The objective of surgical management is to ameliorate symptoms in a conservative manner, by excision or cytoreduction of adenomyotic lesions, while preserving, even improving, fertility.3,11,31 The choice of procedure depends, ultimately, on the location and extent of disease, the patient’s desire for uterine preservation and fertility, and surgical skill.3

Historically, hysterectomy was used to treat adenomyosis; for patients declining fertility preservation, hysterectomy remains the definitive treatment. Since the early 1950s, several techniques for laparotomic reduction have been developed. Surgeries that achieve partial reduction include:

Wedge resection of the uterine wall entails removal of the seromuscular layer at the identified location of adenomyotic tissue, with subsequent repair of the remaining muscular and serosal layers surrounding the wound.3,32 Because adenomyotic tissue can remain on either side of the incision in wedge resection, clinical improvement in symptoms of dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia are modest, and recurrence is possible.7

Modified reduction surgery. Modifications of reduction surgery include slicing adenomyotic tissue using microsurgery and partial excision.33

Transverse-H incision of the uterine wall involves a transverse incision on the uterine fundus, separating serosa and myometrium, followed by removal of diseased tissue using an electrosurgical scalpel or scissors. Tensionless suturing is used to close the myometrial layers in 1 or 2 layers to establish hemostasis and close the defect; serosal flaps are closed with subserosal interrupted sutures.34 Data show that, following surgery with this technique, 21.4% to 38.7% of patients who attempt conception achieve clinical pregnancy.7

Complete, conservative resection in cases of diffuse and focal adenomyosis is possible using the triple-flap method, in which total resection is achieved by removing diseased myometrium until healthy, soft tissue—with normal texture, color, and vascularity—is reached.2 Repair with this technique reduces the risk of uterine rupture by reconstructing the uterine wall using a muscle flap prepared by metroplasty.7 In a study of 64 women who underwent triple-flap resection, a clinical pregnancy rate of 74% and a live birth rate of 52% were reported.7

Minimally invasive approaches. Although several techniques have been developed for focal excision of adenomyosis by laparotomy,7 the trend has been toward minimally invasive surgery, which reduces estimated blood loss, decreases length of stay, and reduces adhesion formation—all without a statistically significant difference in long-term clinical outcomes, compared to other techniques.35-39 Furthermore, enhanced visualization of pelvic organs provided by laparoscopy is vital in the case of adenomyosis.3,31

How our group approaches surgical management. A challenge in laparoscopic surgery of adenomyosis is extraction of an extensive amount of diseased tissue. In 1994, our group described the use of simultaneous operative laparoscopy and minilaparotomy technique as an effective and safe alternative to laparotomy in the treatment of myomectomy6; the surgical principles of that approach are applied to adenomyomectomy. The technique involves treatment of pelvic pathology with laparoscopy, removal of tissue through the minilaparotomy incision, and repair of the uterine wall defect in layers.

 

Pathophysiology of adenomyosis

How adenomyosis originates is not fully understood. Several theories have been proposed, however (including, more prominently, the first 2 below):

Invasion theory. The endometrial basalis layer invaginates and invades the myometrium1,2 (FIGURE); the etiology of invagination remains unknown.

Reaction theory. Myometrial weakness or dysfunction, brought on by trauma from previous uterine surgery or pregnancy, could predispose uterine musculature to deep invasion.3

Metaplasia theory. Adenomyosis is a result of metaplasia of pluripotent Müllerian rests.

Müllerian remnant theory. Related to the Müllerian metaplasia theory, adenomyosis is formed de novo from 1) adult stem cells located in the endometrial basalis that is involved in the cyclic regeneration of the endometrium4-6 or 2) adult stem cells displaced from bone marrow.7,8

Once adenomyosis is established, it is thought to progress by epithelial–mesenchymal transition,2 a process by which epithelial cells become highly motile mesenchymal cells that are capable of migration and invasion, due to loss of cell–cell adhesion properties.9

References

  1. Struble J, Reid S, Bedaiwy MA. Adenomyosis: a clinical review of a challenging gynecologic condition. J Minim Invasive Gynecol.2016; 23:164-185.
  2. García-Solares J, Donnez J, Donnez O, et al. Pathogenesis of uterine adenomyosis: invagination or metaplasia? Fertil Steril.2018;109:371-379.
  3. Ferenczy A. Pathophysiology of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4:312-322.
  4. Gargett CE. Uterine stem cells: what is the evidence? Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13:87-101.
  5. Chan RW, Schwab KE, Gargett CE. Clonogenicity of human endometrial epithelial and stromal cells. Biol Reprod. 2004;70:1738-1750.
  6. Schwab KE, Chan RWS, Gargett CE. Putative stem cell activity of human endometrial epithelial and stromal cells during the menstrual cycle. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(Suppl 2):1124-1130.
  7. Sasson IE, Taylor HS. Stem cells and the pathogenesis of endometriosis. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1127:106-115.
  8. Du H, Taylor HS. Stem cells and female reproduction. Reprod Sci. 2009;16:126-139.
  9. Acloque H, Adams MS, Fishwick K, et al. Epithelial-mesenchymal transitions: the importance of changing cell state in development and disease. J Clin Invest. 2009;119:1438-1449.

Continue to: In 57 women who underwent…

 

 

In 57 women who underwent this procedure, the mean operative time was 127 minutes; average estimated blood loss was 267 mL.40 Overall, laparoscopy with minilaparotomy was found to be a less technically difficult technique for laparoscopic myomectomy; allowed better closure of the uterine defect; and might have required less time to perform.3

We therefore advocate video laparoscopic wedge resection with or without robotic assistance, aided by minilaparotomy when necessary for safe removal of larger adenomyomas, as the preferred uterine-sparing surgical approach for focal adenomyosis or when the patient wants to preserve fertility (FIGURE 2). We think that this technique allows focal adenomyosis to be treated by wedge resection of the diseased myometrium, with subsequent closure of the remaining myometrial defect using a barbed V-Loc (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) delayed absorbable suture in layers (FIGURE 3). Minilaparotomy can be utilized when indicated to aid removal of the resected myometrial specimen.


In our extensive experience, we have found that this technique provides significant relief of symptoms and improvements in fertility outcomes while minimizing surgical morbidity.

CASE Resolved

The patient underwent successful wedge resection of her adenomyosis by laparoscopy. She experienced nearly complete resolution of her symptoms of dysmenorrhea, menorrhagia, and pelvic pain. She retained good uterine integrity. Three years later, she and her husband became parents when she delivered their first child by cesarean delivery at full term. After she completed childbearing, she ultimately opted for minimally invasive hysterectomy.

The authors would like to acknowledge Mailinh Vu, MD, Fellow at Camran Nezhat Institute, for reviewing and editing this article.

References
  1. Garcia L, Isaacson K. Adenomyosis: review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18:428-437. 
  2. Nezhat C, Nezhat F, Nezhat C, eds. Nezhat's Video-Assisted and Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopy and Hysteroscopy. 4th ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2013. 
  3. Osada H. Uterine adenomyosis and adenomyoma: the surgical approach. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:406-417. 
  4. Azziz R. Adenomyosis: current perspectives. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1989;16:221-235. 
  5. Struble J, Reid S, Bedaiwy MA. Adenomyosis: A clinical review of a challenging gynecologic condition. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:164-185. 
  6. Rokitansky C. Ueber Uterusdrsen-Neubildung in Uterus- und Ovarial-Sarcomen. Gesellschaft der Ärzte in Wien. 1860;16:1-4. 
  7. Osada H. Uterine adenomyosis and adenomyoma: the surgical approach. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:406-417. 
  8. Van Praagh I. Conservative surgical treatment for adenomyosis uteri in young women: local excision and metroplasty. Can Med Assoc J. 1965;93:1174-1175. 
  9. Donnez J, Donnez O, Dolmans MM. Introduction: Uterine adenomyosis, another enigmatic disease of our time. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:369-370. 
  10. Nishida M, Takano K, Arai Y, et al. Conservative surgical management for diffuse uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:715-719. 
  11. Abbott JA. Adenomyosis and abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB-A)--Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;40:68-81. 
  12. Matalliotakis IM, Katsikis IK, Panidis DK. Adenomyosis: what is the impact on fertility? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17:261-264. 
  13. Devlieger R, D'Hooghe T, Timmerman D. Uterine adenomyosis in the infertility clinic. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9:139-147. 
  14. Levgur M, Abadi MA, Tucker A. Adenomyosis: symptoms, histology, and pregnancy terminations. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:688-691. 
  15. Weiss G, Maseelall P, Schott LL, et al. Adenomyosis a variant, not a disease? Evidence from hysterectomized menopausal women in the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN). Fertil Steril. 2009;91:201-206. 
  16. Huang F, Kung FT, Chang SY, et al. Effects of short-course buserelin therapy on adenomyosis. A report of two cases. J Reprod Med. 1999;44:741-744. 
  17. Benson RC, Sneeden VD. Adenomyosis: a reappraisal of symptomatology. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1958;76:1044-1061. 
  18. Shrestha A, Sedai LB. Understanding clinical features of adenomyosis: a case control study. Nepal Med Coll J. 2012;14:176-179. 
  19. Fernández C, Ricci P, Fernández E. Adenomyosis visualized during hysteroscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14:555-556. 
  20. Brosens JJ, Barker FG. The role of myometrial needle biopsies in the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 1995;63:1347-1349. 
  21. Van den Bosch T, Van Schoubroeck D. Ultrasound diagnosis of endometriosis and adenomyosis: state of the art. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:16-24.  
  22. Andres MP, Borrelli GM, Ribeiro J, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:257-264. 
  23. Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2427-2433. 
  24. Bragheto AM, Caserta N, Bahamondes L, et al. Effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in the treatment of adenomyosis diagnosed and monitored by magnetic resonance imaging. Contraception. 2007;76:195-199. 
  25. Champaneria R, Abedin P, Daniels J, et al. Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review comparing test accuracy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010; 89:1374-1384. 
  26. Marjoribanks J, Proctor M, Farquhar C, et al. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for dysmenorrhoea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD001751. 
  27. Vannuccini S, Luisi S, Tosti C, et al. Role of medical therapy in the management of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:398-405. 
  28. Wang PH, Liu WM, Fuh JL, et al. Comparison of surgery alone and combined surgical-medical treatment in the management of symptomatic uterine adenomyoma. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:876-885. 
  29. Wood C, Maher P, Woods R. Laparoscopic surgical techniques for endometriosis and adenomyosis. Diagn Ther Endosc. 2000;6:153-168. 
  30. Wang CJ, Yuen LT, Chang SD, et al. Use of laparoscopic cytoreductive surgery to treat infertile women with localized adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:462.e5-e8. 
  31. Nezhat C, Hajhosseini B, King LP. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic treatment of bowel, bladder, and ureteral endometriosis. JSLS. 2011;15:387-392. 
  32. Sun A, Luo M, Wang W, et al. Characteristics and efficacy of modified adenomyomectomy in the treatment of uterine adenomyoma. Chin Med J. 2011;124:1322-1326. 
  33. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Zanotti F, et al. Surgery: Fertility after conservative surgery for adenomyomas. Hum Reprod. 1993;8:1708-1710. 
  34. Fujishita A, Masuzaki H, Khan KN, et al. Modified reduction surgery for adenomyosis. A preliminary report of the transverse H incision technique. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2004;57:132-138. 
  35. Operative Laparoscopy Study Group. Postoperative adhesion development after operative laparoscopy: evaluation at early second-look procedures. Fertil Steril. 1991;55:700-704. 
  36. Luciano AA, Maier DB, Koch EI, et al. A comparative study of postoperative adhesions following laser surgery by laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the rabbit model. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74:220-224. 
  37. Lundorff P, Hahlin M, Källfelt B, et al. Adhesion formation after laparoscopic surgery in tubal pregnancy: a randomized trial versus laparotomy. Fertil Steril. 1991;55:911-915. 
  38. Kwack JY, Kwon YS. Laparoscopic surgery for focal adenomyosis. JSLS. 2017;21. pii:e2017.00014. 
  39. Podratz K. Degrees of Freedom: Advances in Gynecological and Obstetrical Surgery. Remembering Milestones and Achievements in Surgery: Inspiring Quality for a Hundred Years 1913-2012. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2012.  
  40. Nezhat C, Nezhat F, Bess O, et al. Laparoscopically assisted myomectomy: a report of a new technique in 57 cases. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud. 1994;39:39-44.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

 

Dr. C. Nezhat is Director of the Camran Nezhat Institute, Palo Alto, California, and Founder of Worldwide Endometriosis March.

Dr. Wood is Fellow, Camran Nezhat Institute.

Dr. Burns is Fellow, Camran Nezhat Institute.

Dr. A. Nezhat is Co-Director, Center for Special Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Palo Alto, California.

The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
28-30, 32-34, 36-37, 49
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

 

Dr. C. Nezhat is Director of the Camran Nezhat Institute, Palo Alto, California, and Founder of Worldwide Endometriosis March.

Dr. Wood is Fellow, Camran Nezhat Institute.

Dr. Burns is Fellow, Camran Nezhat Institute.

Dr. A. Nezhat is Co-Director, Center for Special Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Palo Alto, California.

The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

 

Dr. C. Nezhat is Director of the Camran Nezhat Institute, Palo Alto, California, and Founder of Worldwide Endometriosis March.

Dr. Wood is Fellow, Camran Nezhat Institute.

Dr. Burns is Fellow, Camran Nezhat Institute.

Dr. A. Nezhat is Co-Director, Center for Special Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Palo Alto, California.

The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

CASE
A 28-year-old patient presents for evaluation and management of her chronic pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and menorrhagia. She previously tried ibuprofen with no pain relief. She also tried oral and long-acting reversible contraceptives but continued to be symptomatic. She underwent pelvic sonography, which demonstrated a large globular uterus with myometrial thickening and myometrial cysts with increased hypervascularity. Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging indicated a thickened junctional zone. Feeling she had exhausted medical manegement options with no significant improvement, she desired surgical treatment, but wanted to retain her future fertility. As a newlywed, she and her husband were planning on building a family so she desired to retain her uterus for potential future pregnancy.

How would you address this patient’s disruptive symptoms, while affirming her long-term plans by choosing the proper intervention?

Adenomyosis is characterized by endometrial-like glands and stroma deep within the myometrium of the uterus and generally is classified as diffuse or focal. This common, benign gynecologic condition is known to cause enlargement of the uterus secondary to stimulation of ectopic endometrial-like cells.1-3 Although the true incidence of adenomyosis is unknown because of the difficulty of making the diagnosis, prevalence has been variously reported at 6% to 70% among reproductive-aged women.4,5

In this review, we first examine the clinical presentation and diagnosis of adenomyosis. We then discuss clinical indications for, and surgical techniques of, adenomyomectomy, including our preferred uterine-sparing approach for focal disease or when the patient wants to preserve fertility: video laparoscopic resection with or without robotic assistance, aided by minilaparotomy when indicated.

Treatment evolved in a century and a half

Adenomyosis was first described more than 150 years ago; historically, hysterectomy was the mainstay of treatment.2,6 Conservative surgical treatment for adenomyosis has been reported since the early 1950s.6-8 Surgical treatment initially became more widespread following the introduction of wedge resection, which allowed for partial excision of adenomyotic nodules.9

More recent developments in diagnostic technologies and capabilities have allowed for the emergence of additional uterine-sparing and minimally invasive surgical treatment options for adenomyosis.3,10 Although the use of laparoscopic approaches is limited because a high level of technical skill is required to undertake these procedures, such approaches are becoming increasingly important as more and more patients seek fertility conservation.11-13

How does adenomyosis present?

Adenomyosis symptoms commonly consist of abnormal uterine bleeding and dysmenorrhea, affecting approximately 40% to 60% and 15% to 30% of patients with the condition, respectively.14 These symptoms are considered nonspecific because they are also associated with other uterine abnormalities.15 Although menorrhagia is not associated with extent of disease, dysmenorrhea is associated with both the number and depth of adenomyotic foci.14

Other symptoms reported with adenomyosis include chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, as well as infertility. Note, however, that a large percentage of patients are asymptomatic.16,17

On physical examination, patients commonly exhibit a diffusely enlarged, globular uterus. This finding is secondary to uniform hyperplasia and hypertrophy of the myometrium, caused by stimulation of ectopic endometrial cells.2 A subset of patients experience significant uterine tenderness.18 Other common findings associated with adenomyosis include uterine abnormalities, such as leiomyomata, endometriosis, and endometrial polyps.

Continue to: Two-pronged route to diagnosis and a differential...

 

 

Two-pronged route to diagnosis and a differential

Histology

Adenomyosis is definitively diagnosed based on histologic findings of endometrial-like tissue within the myometrium. Historically, histologic analysis was performed on specimens following hysterectomy but, more recently, has utilized specimens obtained from hysteroscopic and laparoscopic myometrial biopsies.19 Importantly, although hysteroscopic and laparoscopic biopsies are taken under direct visualization, there are no pathognomonic signs for adenomyosis; a diagnosis can therefore be missed if adenomyosis is not present at biopsied sites.1 The sensitivity of random biopsy at laparoscopy has been found to be as low as 2% to as high as 56%.20

Imaging

Imaging can be helpful in clinical decision making and to guide the differential diagnosis. Transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) is often the first mode of imaging used for the investigation of abnormal uterine bleeding or pelvic pain. Diagnosis by TVUS is difficult because the modality is operator dependent and standard diagnostic criteria are lacking.5

The most commonly reported ultrasonographic features of adenomyosis are21,22:

  • a globally enlarged uterus
  • asymmetry
  • myometrial thickening with heterogeneity
  • poorly defined foci of hyperechoic regions, surrounded by hypoechoic areas that correspond to smooth-muscle hyperplasia
  • myometrial cysts.

Doppler ultrasound examination in patients with adenomyosis reveals increased flow to the myometrium without evidence of large blood vessels.

3-dimensional (3-D) ultrasonography. Integration of 3-D ultrasonography has allowed for identification of the thicker junctional zone that suggests adenomyosis. In a systematic review of the accuracy of TVUS, investigators reported a pooled sensitivity and specificity for 2-dimensional ultrasonography of 83.8% and 63.9%, respectively, and a pooled sensitivity and specificity for 3-dimensional ultrasonography of 88.9% and 56.0%, respectively.22

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is also used in the evaluation of adenomyosis. Although MRI is considered a more accurate diagnostic modality because it is not operator dependent, expense often prohibits its use in the work-up of abnormal uterine bleeding and chronic pelvic pain.2,23

The most commonly reported MRI findings in adenomyosis include a globular or asymmetric uterus, heterogeneity of myometrial signal intensity, and thickening of the junctional zone24 (FIGURE 1). In a systematic review, researchers reported a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 77% and 89%, respectively, for the diagnosis of adenomyosis using MRI.25

Approaches to treatment

Medical management

No medical therapies or guidelines specific to the treatment of adenomyosis exist.9 Often, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are employed to combat cramping and pain associated with increased prostaglandin levels.26 A systematic review found that NSAIDs are significantly better at treating dysmenorrhea than placebo alone.26

Moreover, adenomyosis is an estrogen-dependent disease; consequently, many medical treatments are targeted at suppressing the hypothalamic–pituitary–ovarian axis and inducing endometrial atrophy. Medications commonly used (off-label) for this effect include combined or progestin-only oral contraceptive pills, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices, danazol, and aromatase inhibitors.

Use of a GnRH agonist, such as leuprolide, is limited to a short course (<6 months) because menopausal-like symptoms, such as hot flashes, vaginal atrophy, and loss of bone-mineral density, can develop.16 Symptoms of adenomyosis often return upon cessation of hormonal treatment.1

Novel therapies are under investigation, including GnRH antagonists, selective progesterone-receptor modulators, and antiplatelet therapy.27

Although there are few data showing the effectiveness of medical therapy on adenomyosis-specific outcomes, medications are particularly useful in patients who are poor surgical candidates or who may prefer not to undergo surgery. Furthermore, medical therapy has considerable use in conjunction with surgical intervention; a prospective observational study showed that women who underwent GnRH agonist treatment following surgery had significantly greater improvement of their dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia, compared with those who underwent surgery only.28 In addition, preoperative administration of a GnRH agonist or danazol several months prior to surgery has been shown to reduce uterine vascularity and, thus, blood loss at surgery.29,30

 

Key practice points in managing adenomyosis
  • Adenomyosis is common and benign, but remains underdiagnosed because of a nonspecific clinical presentation and lack of standardized diagnostic criteria.
  • Adenomyosis can cause significant associated morbidity: dysmenorrhea, heavy menstrual bleeding, chronic pelvic pain, and infertility.
  • High clinical suspicion warrants evaluation by imaging.
  • Medical management is largely aimed at ameliorating symptoms.
  • A patient who does not respond to medical treatment or does not desire pregnancy has a variety of surgical options; the extent of disease and the patient’s wish for uterine preservation guide the selection of surgical technique.
  • Hysterectomy is the definitive treatment but, in patients who want to avoid radical resection, techniques developed for laparotomy are available, to allow conservative resection using laparoscopy.
  • Ideally, surgery is performed using a combined laparoscopy and minilaparotomy approach, after appropriate imaging.

 

Continue to: Surgery

 

 

Surgery

The objective of surgical management is to ameliorate symptoms in a conservative manner, by excision or cytoreduction of adenomyotic lesions, while preserving, even improving, fertility.3,11,31 The choice of procedure depends, ultimately, on the location and extent of disease, the patient’s desire for uterine preservation and fertility, and surgical skill.3

Historically, hysterectomy was used to treat adenomyosis; for patients declining fertility preservation, hysterectomy remains the definitive treatment. Since the early 1950s, several techniques for laparotomic reduction have been developed. Surgeries that achieve partial reduction include:

Wedge resection of the uterine wall entails removal of the seromuscular layer at the identified location of adenomyotic tissue, with subsequent repair of the remaining muscular and serosal layers surrounding the wound.3,32 Because adenomyotic tissue can remain on either side of the incision in wedge resection, clinical improvement in symptoms of dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia are modest, and recurrence is possible.7

Modified reduction surgery. Modifications of reduction surgery include slicing adenomyotic tissue using microsurgery and partial excision.33

Transverse-H incision of the uterine wall involves a transverse incision on the uterine fundus, separating serosa and myometrium, followed by removal of diseased tissue using an electrosurgical scalpel or scissors. Tensionless suturing is used to close the myometrial layers in 1 or 2 layers to establish hemostasis and close the defect; serosal flaps are closed with subserosal interrupted sutures.34 Data show that, following surgery with this technique, 21.4% to 38.7% of patients who attempt conception achieve clinical pregnancy.7

Complete, conservative resection in cases of diffuse and focal adenomyosis is possible using the triple-flap method, in which total resection is achieved by removing diseased myometrium until healthy, soft tissue—with normal texture, color, and vascularity—is reached.2 Repair with this technique reduces the risk of uterine rupture by reconstructing the uterine wall using a muscle flap prepared by metroplasty.7 In a study of 64 women who underwent triple-flap resection, a clinical pregnancy rate of 74% and a live birth rate of 52% were reported.7

Minimally invasive approaches. Although several techniques have been developed for focal excision of adenomyosis by laparotomy,7 the trend has been toward minimally invasive surgery, which reduces estimated blood loss, decreases length of stay, and reduces adhesion formation—all without a statistically significant difference in long-term clinical outcomes, compared to other techniques.35-39 Furthermore, enhanced visualization of pelvic organs provided by laparoscopy is vital in the case of adenomyosis.3,31

How our group approaches surgical management. A challenge in laparoscopic surgery of adenomyosis is extraction of an extensive amount of diseased tissue. In 1994, our group described the use of simultaneous operative laparoscopy and minilaparotomy technique as an effective and safe alternative to laparotomy in the treatment of myomectomy6; the surgical principles of that approach are applied to adenomyomectomy. The technique involves treatment of pelvic pathology with laparoscopy, removal of tissue through the minilaparotomy incision, and repair of the uterine wall defect in layers.

 

Pathophysiology of adenomyosis

How adenomyosis originates is not fully understood. Several theories have been proposed, however (including, more prominently, the first 2 below):

Invasion theory. The endometrial basalis layer invaginates and invades the myometrium1,2 (FIGURE); the etiology of invagination remains unknown.

Reaction theory. Myometrial weakness or dysfunction, brought on by trauma from previous uterine surgery or pregnancy, could predispose uterine musculature to deep invasion.3

Metaplasia theory. Adenomyosis is a result of metaplasia of pluripotent Müllerian rests.

Müllerian remnant theory. Related to the Müllerian metaplasia theory, adenomyosis is formed de novo from 1) adult stem cells located in the endometrial basalis that is involved in the cyclic regeneration of the endometrium4-6 or 2) adult stem cells displaced from bone marrow.7,8

Once adenomyosis is established, it is thought to progress by epithelial–mesenchymal transition,2 a process by which epithelial cells become highly motile mesenchymal cells that are capable of migration and invasion, due to loss of cell–cell adhesion properties.9

References

  1. Struble J, Reid S, Bedaiwy MA. Adenomyosis: a clinical review of a challenging gynecologic condition. J Minim Invasive Gynecol.2016; 23:164-185.
  2. García-Solares J, Donnez J, Donnez O, et al. Pathogenesis of uterine adenomyosis: invagination or metaplasia? Fertil Steril.2018;109:371-379.
  3. Ferenczy A. Pathophysiology of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4:312-322.
  4. Gargett CE. Uterine stem cells: what is the evidence? Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13:87-101.
  5. Chan RW, Schwab KE, Gargett CE. Clonogenicity of human endometrial epithelial and stromal cells. Biol Reprod. 2004;70:1738-1750.
  6. Schwab KE, Chan RWS, Gargett CE. Putative stem cell activity of human endometrial epithelial and stromal cells during the menstrual cycle. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(Suppl 2):1124-1130.
  7. Sasson IE, Taylor HS. Stem cells and the pathogenesis of endometriosis. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1127:106-115.
  8. Du H, Taylor HS. Stem cells and female reproduction. Reprod Sci. 2009;16:126-139.
  9. Acloque H, Adams MS, Fishwick K, et al. Epithelial-mesenchymal transitions: the importance of changing cell state in development and disease. J Clin Invest. 2009;119:1438-1449.

Continue to: In 57 women who underwent…

 

 

In 57 women who underwent this procedure, the mean operative time was 127 minutes; average estimated blood loss was 267 mL.40 Overall, laparoscopy with minilaparotomy was found to be a less technically difficult technique for laparoscopic myomectomy; allowed better closure of the uterine defect; and might have required less time to perform.3

We therefore advocate video laparoscopic wedge resection with or without robotic assistance, aided by minilaparotomy when necessary for safe removal of larger adenomyomas, as the preferred uterine-sparing surgical approach for focal adenomyosis or when the patient wants to preserve fertility (FIGURE 2). We think that this technique allows focal adenomyosis to be treated by wedge resection of the diseased myometrium, with subsequent closure of the remaining myometrial defect using a barbed V-Loc (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) delayed absorbable suture in layers (FIGURE 3). Minilaparotomy can be utilized when indicated to aid removal of the resected myometrial specimen.


In our extensive experience, we have found that this technique provides significant relief of symptoms and improvements in fertility outcomes while minimizing surgical morbidity.

CASE Resolved

The patient underwent successful wedge resection of her adenomyosis by laparoscopy. She experienced nearly complete resolution of her symptoms of dysmenorrhea, menorrhagia, and pelvic pain. She retained good uterine integrity. Three years later, she and her husband became parents when she delivered their first child by cesarean delivery at full term. After she completed childbearing, she ultimately opted for minimally invasive hysterectomy.

The authors would like to acknowledge Mailinh Vu, MD, Fellow at Camran Nezhat Institute, for reviewing and editing this article.

CASE
A 28-year-old patient presents for evaluation and management of her chronic pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and menorrhagia. She previously tried ibuprofen with no pain relief. She also tried oral and long-acting reversible contraceptives but continued to be symptomatic. She underwent pelvic sonography, which demonstrated a large globular uterus with myometrial thickening and myometrial cysts with increased hypervascularity. Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging indicated a thickened junctional zone. Feeling she had exhausted medical manegement options with no significant improvement, she desired surgical treatment, but wanted to retain her future fertility. As a newlywed, she and her husband were planning on building a family so she desired to retain her uterus for potential future pregnancy.

How would you address this patient’s disruptive symptoms, while affirming her long-term plans by choosing the proper intervention?

Adenomyosis is characterized by endometrial-like glands and stroma deep within the myometrium of the uterus and generally is classified as diffuse or focal. This common, benign gynecologic condition is known to cause enlargement of the uterus secondary to stimulation of ectopic endometrial-like cells.1-3 Although the true incidence of adenomyosis is unknown because of the difficulty of making the diagnosis, prevalence has been variously reported at 6% to 70% among reproductive-aged women.4,5

In this review, we first examine the clinical presentation and diagnosis of adenomyosis. We then discuss clinical indications for, and surgical techniques of, adenomyomectomy, including our preferred uterine-sparing approach for focal disease or when the patient wants to preserve fertility: video laparoscopic resection with or without robotic assistance, aided by minilaparotomy when indicated.

Treatment evolved in a century and a half

Adenomyosis was first described more than 150 years ago; historically, hysterectomy was the mainstay of treatment.2,6 Conservative surgical treatment for adenomyosis has been reported since the early 1950s.6-8 Surgical treatment initially became more widespread following the introduction of wedge resection, which allowed for partial excision of adenomyotic nodules.9

More recent developments in diagnostic technologies and capabilities have allowed for the emergence of additional uterine-sparing and minimally invasive surgical treatment options for adenomyosis.3,10 Although the use of laparoscopic approaches is limited because a high level of technical skill is required to undertake these procedures, such approaches are becoming increasingly important as more and more patients seek fertility conservation.11-13

How does adenomyosis present?

Adenomyosis symptoms commonly consist of abnormal uterine bleeding and dysmenorrhea, affecting approximately 40% to 60% and 15% to 30% of patients with the condition, respectively.14 These symptoms are considered nonspecific because they are also associated with other uterine abnormalities.15 Although menorrhagia is not associated with extent of disease, dysmenorrhea is associated with both the number and depth of adenomyotic foci.14

Other symptoms reported with adenomyosis include chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, as well as infertility. Note, however, that a large percentage of patients are asymptomatic.16,17

On physical examination, patients commonly exhibit a diffusely enlarged, globular uterus. This finding is secondary to uniform hyperplasia and hypertrophy of the myometrium, caused by stimulation of ectopic endometrial cells.2 A subset of patients experience significant uterine tenderness.18 Other common findings associated with adenomyosis include uterine abnormalities, such as leiomyomata, endometriosis, and endometrial polyps.

Continue to: Two-pronged route to diagnosis and a differential...

 

 

Two-pronged route to diagnosis and a differential

Histology

Adenomyosis is definitively diagnosed based on histologic findings of endometrial-like tissue within the myometrium. Historically, histologic analysis was performed on specimens following hysterectomy but, more recently, has utilized specimens obtained from hysteroscopic and laparoscopic myometrial biopsies.19 Importantly, although hysteroscopic and laparoscopic biopsies are taken under direct visualization, there are no pathognomonic signs for adenomyosis; a diagnosis can therefore be missed if adenomyosis is not present at biopsied sites.1 The sensitivity of random biopsy at laparoscopy has been found to be as low as 2% to as high as 56%.20

Imaging

Imaging can be helpful in clinical decision making and to guide the differential diagnosis. Transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) is often the first mode of imaging used for the investigation of abnormal uterine bleeding or pelvic pain. Diagnosis by TVUS is difficult because the modality is operator dependent and standard diagnostic criteria are lacking.5

The most commonly reported ultrasonographic features of adenomyosis are21,22:

  • a globally enlarged uterus
  • asymmetry
  • myometrial thickening with heterogeneity
  • poorly defined foci of hyperechoic regions, surrounded by hypoechoic areas that correspond to smooth-muscle hyperplasia
  • myometrial cysts.

Doppler ultrasound examination in patients with adenomyosis reveals increased flow to the myometrium without evidence of large blood vessels.

3-dimensional (3-D) ultrasonography. Integration of 3-D ultrasonography has allowed for identification of the thicker junctional zone that suggests adenomyosis. In a systematic review of the accuracy of TVUS, investigators reported a pooled sensitivity and specificity for 2-dimensional ultrasonography of 83.8% and 63.9%, respectively, and a pooled sensitivity and specificity for 3-dimensional ultrasonography of 88.9% and 56.0%, respectively.22

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is also used in the evaluation of adenomyosis. Although MRI is considered a more accurate diagnostic modality because it is not operator dependent, expense often prohibits its use in the work-up of abnormal uterine bleeding and chronic pelvic pain.2,23

The most commonly reported MRI findings in adenomyosis include a globular or asymmetric uterus, heterogeneity of myometrial signal intensity, and thickening of the junctional zone24 (FIGURE 1). In a systematic review, researchers reported a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 77% and 89%, respectively, for the diagnosis of adenomyosis using MRI.25

Approaches to treatment

Medical management

No medical therapies or guidelines specific to the treatment of adenomyosis exist.9 Often, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are employed to combat cramping and pain associated with increased prostaglandin levels.26 A systematic review found that NSAIDs are significantly better at treating dysmenorrhea than placebo alone.26

Moreover, adenomyosis is an estrogen-dependent disease; consequently, many medical treatments are targeted at suppressing the hypothalamic–pituitary–ovarian axis and inducing endometrial atrophy. Medications commonly used (off-label) for this effect include combined or progestin-only oral contraceptive pills, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices, danazol, and aromatase inhibitors.

Use of a GnRH agonist, such as leuprolide, is limited to a short course (<6 months) because menopausal-like symptoms, such as hot flashes, vaginal atrophy, and loss of bone-mineral density, can develop.16 Symptoms of adenomyosis often return upon cessation of hormonal treatment.1

Novel therapies are under investigation, including GnRH antagonists, selective progesterone-receptor modulators, and antiplatelet therapy.27

Although there are few data showing the effectiveness of medical therapy on adenomyosis-specific outcomes, medications are particularly useful in patients who are poor surgical candidates or who may prefer not to undergo surgery. Furthermore, medical therapy has considerable use in conjunction with surgical intervention; a prospective observational study showed that women who underwent GnRH agonist treatment following surgery had significantly greater improvement of their dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia, compared with those who underwent surgery only.28 In addition, preoperative administration of a GnRH agonist or danazol several months prior to surgery has been shown to reduce uterine vascularity and, thus, blood loss at surgery.29,30

 

Key practice points in managing adenomyosis
  • Adenomyosis is common and benign, but remains underdiagnosed because of a nonspecific clinical presentation and lack of standardized diagnostic criteria.
  • Adenomyosis can cause significant associated morbidity: dysmenorrhea, heavy menstrual bleeding, chronic pelvic pain, and infertility.
  • High clinical suspicion warrants evaluation by imaging.
  • Medical management is largely aimed at ameliorating symptoms.
  • A patient who does not respond to medical treatment or does not desire pregnancy has a variety of surgical options; the extent of disease and the patient’s wish for uterine preservation guide the selection of surgical technique.
  • Hysterectomy is the definitive treatment but, in patients who want to avoid radical resection, techniques developed for laparotomy are available, to allow conservative resection using laparoscopy.
  • Ideally, surgery is performed using a combined laparoscopy and minilaparotomy approach, after appropriate imaging.

 

Continue to: Surgery

 

 

Surgery

The objective of surgical management is to ameliorate symptoms in a conservative manner, by excision or cytoreduction of adenomyotic lesions, while preserving, even improving, fertility.3,11,31 The choice of procedure depends, ultimately, on the location and extent of disease, the patient’s desire for uterine preservation and fertility, and surgical skill.3

Historically, hysterectomy was used to treat adenomyosis; for patients declining fertility preservation, hysterectomy remains the definitive treatment. Since the early 1950s, several techniques for laparotomic reduction have been developed. Surgeries that achieve partial reduction include:

Wedge resection of the uterine wall entails removal of the seromuscular layer at the identified location of adenomyotic tissue, with subsequent repair of the remaining muscular and serosal layers surrounding the wound.3,32 Because adenomyotic tissue can remain on either side of the incision in wedge resection, clinical improvement in symptoms of dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia are modest, and recurrence is possible.7

Modified reduction surgery. Modifications of reduction surgery include slicing adenomyotic tissue using microsurgery and partial excision.33

Transverse-H incision of the uterine wall involves a transverse incision on the uterine fundus, separating serosa and myometrium, followed by removal of diseased tissue using an electrosurgical scalpel or scissors. Tensionless suturing is used to close the myometrial layers in 1 or 2 layers to establish hemostasis and close the defect; serosal flaps are closed with subserosal interrupted sutures.34 Data show that, following surgery with this technique, 21.4% to 38.7% of patients who attempt conception achieve clinical pregnancy.7

Complete, conservative resection in cases of diffuse and focal adenomyosis is possible using the triple-flap method, in which total resection is achieved by removing diseased myometrium until healthy, soft tissue—with normal texture, color, and vascularity—is reached.2 Repair with this technique reduces the risk of uterine rupture by reconstructing the uterine wall using a muscle flap prepared by metroplasty.7 In a study of 64 women who underwent triple-flap resection, a clinical pregnancy rate of 74% and a live birth rate of 52% were reported.7

Minimally invasive approaches. Although several techniques have been developed for focal excision of adenomyosis by laparotomy,7 the trend has been toward minimally invasive surgery, which reduces estimated blood loss, decreases length of stay, and reduces adhesion formation—all without a statistically significant difference in long-term clinical outcomes, compared to other techniques.35-39 Furthermore, enhanced visualization of pelvic organs provided by laparoscopy is vital in the case of adenomyosis.3,31

How our group approaches surgical management. A challenge in laparoscopic surgery of adenomyosis is extraction of an extensive amount of diseased tissue. In 1994, our group described the use of simultaneous operative laparoscopy and minilaparotomy technique as an effective and safe alternative to laparotomy in the treatment of myomectomy6; the surgical principles of that approach are applied to adenomyomectomy. The technique involves treatment of pelvic pathology with laparoscopy, removal of tissue through the minilaparotomy incision, and repair of the uterine wall defect in layers.

 

Pathophysiology of adenomyosis

How adenomyosis originates is not fully understood. Several theories have been proposed, however (including, more prominently, the first 2 below):

Invasion theory. The endometrial basalis layer invaginates and invades the myometrium1,2 (FIGURE); the etiology of invagination remains unknown.

Reaction theory. Myometrial weakness or dysfunction, brought on by trauma from previous uterine surgery or pregnancy, could predispose uterine musculature to deep invasion.3

Metaplasia theory. Adenomyosis is a result of metaplasia of pluripotent Müllerian rests.

Müllerian remnant theory. Related to the Müllerian metaplasia theory, adenomyosis is formed de novo from 1) adult stem cells located in the endometrial basalis that is involved in the cyclic regeneration of the endometrium4-6 or 2) adult stem cells displaced from bone marrow.7,8

Once adenomyosis is established, it is thought to progress by epithelial–mesenchymal transition,2 a process by which epithelial cells become highly motile mesenchymal cells that are capable of migration and invasion, due to loss of cell–cell adhesion properties.9

References

  1. Struble J, Reid S, Bedaiwy MA. Adenomyosis: a clinical review of a challenging gynecologic condition. J Minim Invasive Gynecol.2016; 23:164-185.
  2. García-Solares J, Donnez J, Donnez O, et al. Pathogenesis of uterine adenomyosis: invagination or metaplasia? Fertil Steril.2018;109:371-379.
  3. Ferenczy A. Pathophysiology of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4:312-322.
  4. Gargett CE. Uterine stem cells: what is the evidence? Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13:87-101.
  5. Chan RW, Schwab KE, Gargett CE. Clonogenicity of human endometrial epithelial and stromal cells. Biol Reprod. 2004;70:1738-1750.
  6. Schwab KE, Chan RWS, Gargett CE. Putative stem cell activity of human endometrial epithelial and stromal cells during the menstrual cycle. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(Suppl 2):1124-1130.
  7. Sasson IE, Taylor HS. Stem cells and the pathogenesis of endometriosis. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1127:106-115.
  8. Du H, Taylor HS. Stem cells and female reproduction. Reprod Sci. 2009;16:126-139.
  9. Acloque H, Adams MS, Fishwick K, et al. Epithelial-mesenchymal transitions: the importance of changing cell state in development and disease. J Clin Invest. 2009;119:1438-1449.

Continue to: In 57 women who underwent…

 

 

In 57 women who underwent this procedure, the mean operative time was 127 minutes; average estimated blood loss was 267 mL.40 Overall, laparoscopy with minilaparotomy was found to be a less technically difficult technique for laparoscopic myomectomy; allowed better closure of the uterine defect; and might have required less time to perform.3

We therefore advocate video laparoscopic wedge resection with or without robotic assistance, aided by minilaparotomy when necessary for safe removal of larger adenomyomas, as the preferred uterine-sparing surgical approach for focal adenomyosis or when the patient wants to preserve fertility (FIGURE 2). We think that this technique allows focal adenomyosis to be treated by wedge resection of the diseased myometrium, with subsequent closure of the remaining myometrial defect using a barbed V-Loc (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) delayed absorbable suture in layers (FIGURE 3). Minilaparotomy can be utilized when indicated to aid removal of the resected myometrial specimen.


In our extensive experience, we have found that this technique provides significant relief of symptoms and improvements in fertility outcomes while minimizing surgical morbidity.

CASE Resolved

The patient underwent successful wedge resection of her adenomyosis by laparoscopy. She experienced nearly complete resolution of her symptoms of dysmenorrhea, menorrhagia, and pelvic pain. She retained good uterine integrity. Three years later, she and her husband became parents when she delivered their first child by cesarean delivery at full term. After she completed childbearing, she ultimately opted for minimally invasive hysterectomy.

The authors would like to acknowledge Mailinh Vu, MD, Fellow at Camran Nezhat Institute, for reviewing and editing this article.

References
  1. Garcia L, Isaacson K. Adenomyosis: review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18:428-437. 
  2. Nezhat C, Nezhat F, Nezhat C, eds. Nezhat's Video-Assisted and Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopy and Hysteroscopy. 4th ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2013. 
  3. Osada H. Uterine adenomyosis and adenomyoma: the surgical approach. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:406-417. 
  4. Azziz R. Adenomyosis: current perspectives. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1989;16:221-235. 
  5. Struble J, Reid S, Bedaiwy MA. Adenomyosis: A clinical review of a challenging gynecologic condition. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:164-185. 
  6. Rokitansky C. Ueber Uterusdrsen-Neubildung in Uterus- und Ovarial-Sarcomen. Gesellschaft der Ärzte in Wien. 1860;16:1-4. 
  7. Osada H. Uterine adenomyosis and adenomyoma: the surgical approach. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:406-417. 
  8. Van Praagh I. Conservative surgical treatment for adenomyosis uteri in young women: local excision and metroplasty. Can Med Assoc J. 1965;93:1174-1175. 
  9. Donnez J, Donnez O, Dolmans MM. Introduction: Uterine adenomyosis, another enigmatic disease of our time. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:369-370. 
  10. Nishida M, Takano K, Arai Y, et al. Conservative surgical management for diffuse uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:715-719. 
  11. Abbott JA. Adenomyosis and abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB-A)--Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;40:68-81. 
  12. Matalliotakis IM, Katsikis IK, Panidis DK. Adenomyosis: what is the impact on fertility? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17:261-264. 
  13. Devlieger R, D'Hooghe T, Timmerman D. Uterine adenomyosis in the infertility clinic. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9:139-147. 
  14. Levgur M, Abadi MA, Tucker A. Adenomyosis: symptoms, histology, and pregnancy terminations. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:688-691. 
  15. Weiss G, Maseelall P, Schott LL, et al. Adenomyosis a variant, not a disease? Evidence from hysterectomized menopausal women in the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN). Fertil Steril. 2009;91:201-206. 
  16. Huang F, Kung FT, Chang SY, et al. Effects of short-course buserelin therapy on adenomyosis. A report of two cases. J Reprod Med. 1999;44:741-744. 
  17. Benson RC, Sneeden VD. Adenomyosis: a reappraisal of symptomatology. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1958;76:1044-1061. 
  18. Shrestha A, Sedai LB. Understanding clinical features of adenomyosis: a case control study. Nepal Med Coll J. 2012;14:176-179. 
  19. Fernández C, Ricci P, Fernández E. Adenomyosis visualized during hysteroscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14:555-556. 
  20. Brosens JJ, Barker FG. The role of myometrial needle biopsies in the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 1995;63:1347-1349. 
  21. Van den Bosch T, Van Schoubroeck D. Ultrasound diagnosis of endometriosis and adenomyosis: state of the art. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:16-24.  
  22. Andres MP, Borrelli GM, Ribeiro J, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:257-264. 
  23. Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2427-2433. 
  24. Bragheto AM, Caserta N, Bahamondes L, et al. Effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in the treatment of adenomyosis diagnosed and monitored by magnetic resonance imaging. Contraception. 2007;76:195-199. 
  25. Champaneria R, Abedin P, Daniels J, et al. Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review comparing test accuracy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010; 89:1374-1384. 
  26. Marjoribanks J, Proctor M, Farquhar C, et al. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for dysmenorrhoea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD001751. 
  27. Vannuccini S, Luisi S, Tosti C, et al. Role of medical therapy in the management of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:398-405. 
  28. Wang PH, Liu WM, Fuh JL, et al. Comparison of surgery alone and combined surgical-medical treatment in the management of symptomatic uterine adenomyoma. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:876-885. 
  29. Wood C, Maher P, Woods R. Laparoscopic surgical techniques for endometriosis and adenomyosis. Diagn Ther Endosc. 2000;6:153-168. 
  30. Wang CJ, Yuen LT, Chang SD, et al. Use of laparoscopic cytoreductive surgery to treat infertile women with localized adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:462.e5-e8. 
  31. Nezhat C, Hajhosseini B, King LP. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic treatment of bowel, bladder, and ureteral endometriosis. JSLS. 2011;15:387-392. 
  32. Sun A, Luo M, Wang W, et al. Characteristics and efficacy of modified adenomyomectomy in the treatment of uterine adenomyoma. Chin Med J. 2011;124:1322-1326. 
  33. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Zanotti F, et al. Surgery: Fertility after conservative surgery for adenomyomas. Hum Reprod. 1993;8:1708-1710. 
  34. Fujishita A, Masuzaki H, Khan KN, et al. Modified reduction surgery for adenomyosis. A preliminary report of the transverse H incision technique. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2004;57:132-138. 
  35. Operative Laparoscopy Study Group. Postoperative adhesion development after operative laparoscopy: evaluation at early second-look procedures. Fertil Steril. 1991;55:700-704. 
  36. Luciano AA, Maier DB, Koch EI, et al. A comparative study of postoperative adhesions following laser surgery by laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the rabbit model. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74:220-224. 
  37. Lundorff P, Hahlin M, Källfelt B, et al. Adhesion formation after laparoscopic surgery in tubal pregnancy: a randomized trial versus laparotomy. Fertil Steril. 1991;55:911-915. 
  38. Kwack JY, Kwon YS. Laparoscopic surgery for focal adenomyosis. JSLS. 2017;21. pii:e2017.00014. 
  39. Podratz K. Degrees of Freedom: Advances in Gynecological and Obstetrical Surgery. Remembering Milestones and Achievements in Surgery: Inspiring Quality for a Hundred Years 1913-2012. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2012.  
  40. Nezhat C, Nezhat F, Bess O, et al. Laparoscopically assisted myomectomy: a report of a new technique in 57 cases. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud. 1994;39:39-44.
References
  1. Garcia L, Isaacson K. Adenomyosis: review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18:428-437. 
  2. Nezhat C, Nezhat F, Nezhat C, eds. Nezhat's Video-Assisted and Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopy and Hysteroscopy. 4th ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2013. 
  3. Osada H. Uterine adenomyosis and adenomyoma: the surgical approach. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:406-417. 
  4. Azziz R. Adenomyosis: current perspectives. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1989;16:221-235. 
  5. Struble J, Reid S, Bedaiwy MA. Adenomyosis: A clinical review of a challenging gynecologic condition. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:164-185. 
  6. Rokitansky C. Ueber Uterusdrsen-Neubildung in Uterus- und Ovarial-Sarcomen. Gesellschaft der Ärzte in Wien. 1860;16:1-4. 
  7. Osada H. Uterine adenomyosis and adenomyoma: the surgical approach. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:406-417. 
  8. Van Praagh I. Conservative surgical treatment for adenomyosis uteri in young women: local excision and metroplasty. Can Med Assoc J. 1965;93:1174-1175. 
  9. Donnez J, Donnez O, Dolmans MM. Introduction: Uterine adenomyosis, another enigmatic disease of our time. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:369-370. 
  10. Nishida M, Takano K, Arai Y, et al. Conservative surgical management for diffuse uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:715-719. 
  11. Abbott JA. Adenomyosis and abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB-A)--Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;40:68-81. 
  12. Matalliotakis IM, Katsikis IK, Panidis DK. Adenomyosis: what is the impact on fertility? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17:261-264. 
  13. Devlieger R, D'Hooghe T, Timmerman D. Uterine adenomyosis in the infertility clinic. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9:139-147. 
  14. Levgur M, Abadi MA, Tucker A. Adenomyosis: symptoms, histology, and pregnancy terminations. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:688-691. 
  15. Weiss G, Maseelall P, Schott LL, et al. Adenomyosis a variant, not a disease? Evidence from hysterectomized menopausal women in the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN). Fertil Steril. 2009;91:201-206. 
  16. Huang F, Kung FT, Chang SY, et al. Effects of short-course buserelin therapy on adenomyosis. A report of two cases. J Reprod Med. 1999;44:741-744. 
  17. Benson RC, Sneeden VD. Adenomyosis: a reappraisal of symptomatology. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1958;76:1044-1061. 
  18. Shrestha A, Sedai LB. Understanding clinical features of adenomyosis: a case control study. Nepal Med Coll J. 2012;14:176-179. 
  19. Fernández C, Ricci P, Fernández E. Adenomyosis visualized during hysteroscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14:555-556. 
  20. Brosens JJ, Barker FG. The role of myometrial needle biopsies in the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 1995;63:1347-1349. 
  21. Van den Bosch T, Van Schoubroeck D. Ultrasound diagnosis of endometriosis and adenomyosis: state of the art. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:16-24.  
  22. Andres MP, Borrelli GM, Ribeiro J, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:257-264. 
  23. Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2427-2433. 
  24. Bragheto AM, Caserta N, Bahamondes L, et al. Effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in the treatment of adenomyosis diagnosed and monitored by magnetic resonance imaging. Contraception. 2007;76:195-199. 
  25. Champaneria R, Abedin P, Daniels J, et al. Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review comparing test accuracy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010; 89:1374-1384. 
  26. Marjoribanks J, Proctor M, Farquhar C, et al. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for dysmenorrhoea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD001751. 
  27. Vannuccini S, Luisi S, Tosti C, et al. Role of medical therapy in the management of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:398-405. 
  28. Wang PH, Liu WM, Fuh JL, et al. Comparison of surgery alone and combined surgical-medical treatment in the management of symptomatic uterine adenomyoma. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:876-885. 
  29. Wood C, Maher P, Woods R. Laparoscopic surgical techniques for endometriosis and adenomyosis. Diagn Ther Endosc. 2000;6:153-168. 
  30. Wang CJ, Yuen LT, Chang SD, et al. Use of laparoscopic cytoreductive surgery to treat infertile women with localized adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:462.e5-e8. 
  31. Nezhat C, Hajhosseini B, King LP. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic treatment of bowel, bladder, and ureteral endometriosis. JSLS. 2011;15:387-392. 
  32. Sun A, Luo M, Wang W, et al. Characteristics and efficacy of modified adenomyomectomy in the treatment of uterine adenomyoma. Chin Med J. 2011;124:1322-1326. 
  33. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Zanotti F, et al. Surgery: Fertility after conservative surgery for adenomyomas. Hum Reprod. 1993;8:1708-1710. 
  34. Fujishita A, Masuzaki H, Khan KN, et al. Modified reduction surgery for adenomyosis. A preliminary report of the transverse H incision technique. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2004;57:132-138. 
  35. Operative Laparoscopy Study Group. Postoperative adhesion development after operative laparoscopy: evaluation at early second-look procedures. Fertil Steril. 1991;55:700-704. 
  36. Luciano AA, Maier DB, Koch EI, et al. A comparative study of postoperative adhesions following laser surgery by laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the rabbit model. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74:220-224. 
  37. Lundorff P, Hahlin M, Källfelt B, et al. Adhesion formation after laparoscopic surgery in tubal pregnancy: a randomized trial versus laparotomy. Fertil Steril. 1991;55:911-915. 
  38. Kwack JY, Kwon YS. Laparoscopic surgery for focal adenomyosis. JSLS. 2017;21. pii:e2017.00014. 
  39. Podratz K. Degrees of Freedom: Advances in Gynecological and Obstetrical Surgery. Remembering Milestones and Achievements in Surgery: Inspiring Quality for a Hundred Years 1913-2012. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2012.  
  40. Nezhat C, Nezhat F, Bess O, et al. Laparoscopically assisted myomectomy: a report of a new technique in 57 cases. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud. 1994;39:39-44.
Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Page Number
28-30, 32-34, 36-37, 49
Page Number
28-30, 32-34, 36-37, 49
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Citation Override
OBG Manag. 2019 February;31(2):28-30, 32-34, 36-37, 49. Article updated March 15, 2019.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Article PDF Media

Product Update: Bijuva; Liletta; Aegea Vapor System; Natural Cycles

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 02/19/2019 - 08:57

TREATMENT FOR VASOMOTOR SYMPTOMS

BIJUVA™ has been US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved as the first oral treatment for moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms due to menopause in women with a uterus. BIJUVA offers a combination of bioidentical estradiol to reduce moderate-to-severe hot flashes and bioidentical progesterone to reduce the risk for endometrial hyperplasia.

TherapeuticsMD says that BIJUVA will be available Spring 2019 and is a proven treatment option for women who are experiencing bothersome symptoms of menopause, with clinical trial data demonstrating a statistically significant reduction in both the frequency and severity of moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms. The manufacturer also says that BIJUVA is developed to be identical in molecular structure to the hormones already produced by the body and is designed to help women restore what is lost during menopause.

BIJUVA estradiol and progesterone combination (1 mg/100 mg) will be available in capsule form.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT:https://bijuva.com/discover/

LILETTA USE EXTENDED

The FDA has approved LILETTA® (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) 52 mg for 5-year use. This approval is based on efficacy and safety data from ACCESS IUS, the largest ongoing intrauterine device (IUD) Phase 3 clinical trial in the United States. Previously, LILETTA was indicated for use up to 4 years.

LILETTA continues to be greater than 99% effective in preventing pregnancy in a broad range of women, regardless of age, race, body mass index, or parity, according to Allergan and Medicines360. The extended duration and proven efficacy across a diverse population enables more women in the United States to obtain effective birth control, as the IUD is now available for a low cost at public health clinics.

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

Continue to: ENDOMETRIAL ABLATION TECHNOLOGY

 

 

ENDOMETRIAL ABLATION TECHNOLOGY

AEGEA Medical introduces the AEGEA Vapor SystemTM, an innovative solution for endometrial ablation to treat menorrhagia.

The system uses Adaptive Vapor Ablation and is the first endometrial ablation system specifically designed for use in the doctor’s office, allowing minimal anesthesia/analgesia and rapid recovery, says AEGEA Medical.

AEGEA Medical describes the AEGEA Vapor System as a fully automated safety monitoring and vapor delivery system that uses a slender, flexible Vapor Probe with SmartSealTM technology and the Integrity ProTM safety feature, for an added level of confidence. The 4-minute procedure time includes 2 minutes of vapor treatment and can be performed in patients with a wider range of uterine anatomies than indicated for use with currently available treatments, says AEGEA Medical.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://aegeamedical.com/

NATURAL CYCLES

The FDA has cleared Natural Cycles as the first digital method of birth control in the United States. Delivered in the form of an app, Natural Cycles is a fertility awareness–based contraceptive that uses a sophisticated algorithm to accurately and conveniently determine a woman’s daily fertility based on basal body temperature.

That data builds into a personalized fertility indicator that informs her when she needs to use protection to minimize the chance of conception. The app also can be used to help plan a pregnancy when the time is right, according to Natural Cycles.

A clinical study showed that the efficacy of a contraceptive mobile application is higher than usually reported for traditional fertility awareness–based methods. The application may contribute to reducing the unmet need for contraception, says Natural Cycles.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.naturalcycles.com/en/hcp

Article PDF
Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
48
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

TREATMENT FOR VASOMOTOR SYMPTOMS

BIJUVA™ has been US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved as the first oral treatment for moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms due to menopause in women with a uterus. BIJUVA offers a combination of bioidentical estradiol to reduce moderate-to-severe hot flashes and bioidentical progesterone to reduce the risk for endometrial hyperplasia.

TherapeuticsMD says that BIJUVA will be available Spring 2019 and is a proven treatment option for women who are experiencing bothersome symptoms of menopause, with clinical trial data demonstrating a statistically significant reduction in both the frequency and severity of moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms. The manufacturer also says that BIJUVA is developed to be identical in molecular structure to the hormones already produced by the body and is designed to help women restore what is lost during menopause.

BIJUVA estradiol and progesterone combination (1 mg/100 mg) will be available in capsule form.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT:https://bijuva.com/discover/

LILETTA USE EXTENDED

The FDA has approved LILETTA® (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) 52 mg for 5-year use. This approval is based on efficacy and safety data from ACCESS IUS, the largest ongoing intrauterine device (IUD) Phase 3 clinical trial in the United States. Previously, LILETTA was indicated for use up to 4 years.

LILETTA continues to be greater than 99% effective in preventing pregnancy in a broad range of women, regardless of age, race, body mass index, or parity, according to Allergan and Medicines360. The extended duration and proven efficacy across a diverse population enables more women in the United States to obtain effective birth control, as the IUD is now available for a low cost at public health clinics.

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

Continue to: ENDOMETRIAL ABLATION TECHNOLOGY

 

 

ENDOMETRIAL ABLATION TECHNOLOGY

AEGEA Medical introduces the AEGEA Vapor SystemTM, an innovative solution for endometrial ablation to treat menorrhagia.

The system uses Adaptive Vapor Ablation and is the first endometrial ablation system specifically designed for use in the doctor’s office, allowing minimal anesthesia/analgesia and rapid recovery, says AEGEA Medical.

AEGEA Medical describes the AEGEA Vapor System as a fully automated safety monitoring and vapor delivery system that uses a slender, flexible Vapor Probe with SmartSealTM technology and the Integrity ProTM safety feature, for an added level of confidence. The 4-minute procedure time includes 2 minutes of vapor treatment and can be performed in patients with a wider range of uterine anatomies than indicated for use with currently available treatments, says AEGEA Medical.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://aegeamedical.com/

NATURAL CYCLES

The FDA has cleared Natural Cycles as the first digital method of birth control in the United States. Delivered in the form of an app, Natural Cycles is a fertility awareness–based contraceptive that uses a sophisticated algorithm to accurately and conveniently determine a woman’s daily fertility based on basal body temperature.

That data builds into a personalized fertility indicator that informs her when she needs to use protection to minimize the chance of conception. The app also can be used to help plan a pregnancy when the time is right, according to Natural Cycles.

A clinical study showed that the efficacy of a contraceptive mobile application is higher than usually reported for traditional fertility awareness–based methods. The application may contribute to reducing the unmet need for contraception, says Natural Cycles.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.naturalcycles.com/en/hcp

TREATMENT FOR VASOMOTOR SYMPTOMS

BIJUVA™ has been US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved as the first oral treatment for moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms due to menopause in women with a uterus. BIJUVA offers a combination of bioidentical estradiol to reduce moderate-to-severe hot flashes and bioidentical progesterone to reduce the risk for endometrial hyperplasia.

TherapeuticsMD says that BIJUVA will be available Spring 2019 and is a proven treatment option for women who are experiencing bothersome symptoms of menopause, with clinical trial data demonstrating a statistically significant reduction in both the frequency and severity of moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms. The manufacturer also says that BIJUVA is developed to be identical in molecular structure to the hormones already produced by the body and is designed to help women restore what is lost during menopause.

BIJUVA estradiol and progesterone combination (1 mg/100 mg) will be available in capsule form.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT:https://bijuva.com/discover/

LILETTA USE EXTENDED

The FDA has approved LILETTA® (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) 52 mg for 5-year use. This approval is based on efficacy and safety data from ACCESS IUS, the largest ongoing intrauterine device (IUD) Phase 3 clinical trial in the United States. Previously, LILETTA was indicated for use up to 4 years.

LILETTA continues to be greater than 99% effective in preventing pregnancy in a broad range of women, regardless of age, race, body mass index, or parity, according to Allergan and Medicines360. The extended duration and proven efficacy across a diverse population enables more women in the United States to obtain effective birth control, as the IUD is now available for a low cost at public health clinics.

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

Continue to: ENDOMETRIAL ABLATION TECHNOLOGY

 

 

ENDOMETRIAL ABLATION TECHNOLOGY

AEGEA Medical introduces the AEGEA Vapor SystemTM, an innovative solution for endometrial ablation to treat menorrhagia.

The system uses Adaptive Vapor Ablation and is the first endometrial ablation system specifically designed for use in the doctor’s office, allowing minimal anesthesia/analgesia and rapid recovery, says AEGEA Medical.

AEGEA Medical describes the AEGEA Vapor System as a fully automated safety monitoring and vapor delivery system that uses a slender, flexible Vapor Probe with SmartSealTM technology and the Integrity ProTM safety feature, for an added level of confidence. The 4-minute procedure time includes 2 minutes of vapor treatment and can be performed in patients with a wider range of uterine anatomies than indicated for use with currently available treatments, says AEGEA Medical.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://aegeamedical.com/

NATURAL CYCLES

The FDA has cleared Natural Cycles as the first digital method of birth control in the United States. Delivered in the form of an app, Natural Cycles is a fertility awareness–based contraceptive that uses a sophisticated algorithm to accurately and conveniently determine a woman’s daily fertility based on basal body temperature.

That data builds into a personalized fertility indicator that informs her when she needs to use protection to minimize the chance of conception. The app also can be used to help plan a pregnancy when the time is right, according to Natural Cycles.

A clinical study showed that the efficacy of a contraceptive mobile application is higher than usually reported for traditional fertility awareness–based methods. The application may contribute to reducing the unmet need for contraception, says Natural Cycles.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.naturalcycles.com/en/hcp

Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Page Number
48
Page Number
48
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Is vaginal estrogen used for GSM associated with a higher risk of CVD or cancer?

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 02/25/2019 - 10:44

Expert Commentary

Bhupathiraju SN, Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, et al. Vaginal estrogen use and chronic disease risk in the Nurses’ Health Study. Menopause. December 17, 2018. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001284.

GSM, a chronic and often progressive condition, occurs in almost 50% of postmenopausal women and has been shown to impair sexual function and quality of life.1 Symptoms include vaginal dryness, vulvar or vaginal itching, dyspareunia, urinary urgency or frequency, and increased urinary tract infections. Although lubricants or vaginal moisturizers may be sufficient to treat GSM, targeted hormonal therapy may be needed to improve the symptoms and resolve the underlying cause, due to vaginal hormone loss.

Despite lack of any observational or clinical trial evidence for chronic health disease risks related to low-dose vaginal estrogen use, there remains an US Food and Drug Administration boxed warning on the package label for low-dose vaginal estrogen related to risks of heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, pdementia, and breast cancer. The objective of the investigation by Bhupathiraju and colleagues was to evaluate associations between vaginal estrogen use and health outcomes, including CVD (myocardial infarction, stroke, and pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis), cancer (total invasive, breast, endometrial, ovarian, and colorectal), and hip fracture.

Details of the study

The prospective analysis included 896 postmenopausal current users of vaginal estrogen in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS; 1982­­–2012), compared with 52,901 nonusers. Eighteen years of follow-up was evaluated. Users of systemic hormone therapy were excluded from the analysis. For the NHS, self-reported data were collected every 2 years on questionnaires for vaginal estrogen use and health outcomes. Investigators used medical records to confirm health outcomes.

After adjusting for covariates, no significant differences in risks were found for CVD, cancer, and hip fracture between users and nonusers of vaginal estrogen, regardless of hysterectomy status.

Key findings

After adjusting for multiple variables (including age, race, physical activity, age at menopause, hysterectomy, aspirin use, parental history of cancer, etc), health outcomes for CVDs, all cancers, and hip fracture were:

  • myocardial infarction: hazard ratio (HR), 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–1.13)
  • stroke: HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.56–1.29)
  • pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis: HR, 1.06 (95% CI, 0.58–1.93)
  • hip fracture: HR, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.60–1.38)
  • all cancers: HR, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.89–1.25).

Continue to: Health outcomes for specific invasive cancers

 

 

Health outcomes for specific invasive cancers (risk for endometrial cancer included only women with an intact uterus) were:

  • invasive breast cancer: HR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.78–1.47)
  • ovarian cancer: HR, 1.17 (95% CI, 0.52–2.65)
  • endometrial cancer: HR, 1.62 (95% CI, 0.88–2.97)
  • colorectal cancer: HR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.45–1.34).

Study strengths and weaknesses

A causal relationship cannot be proven as the study was observational. However, a strength included the 18 years of follow-up. Women used vaginal estrogen for an average of 3 years, which provided longer-term safety data than available 12-month clinical trial data. Data were collected through self-report on questionnaires every 2 years, which is a drawback; however, participants were registered nurses, who have been shown to provide reliable health-related information. Comparisons between therapies were not possible as data were not collected about type or dosage of vaginal estrogen. Available therapies during the NHS included vaginal estrogen tablets, creams, and an estradiol ring, with higher doses available during earlier parts of the study than the lower doses commonly prescribed in current day.

Overall

The findings from this long-term follow-up of the NHS provide support for the safety of vaginal estrogen for treatment of GSM. No statistically significant increased health risks were found for users of vaginal estrogen, similar to earlier reported findings from the large Women’s Health Initiative.2 Low-dose vaginal estrogen is recommended for treatment of GSM by The North American Menopause Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Endocrine Society.

Absorption of low-dose vaginal estrogen preparations appears minimal, and they are effective and generally safe for the treatment of GSM for women at any age. Progesterone is not recommended with low-dose vaginal estrogen therapies, based primarily on randomized clinical trial safety data of 12 months.3 Postmenopausal bleeding, however, needs to be thoroughly evaluated. For women with breast cancer, include the oncologist in decision making about the use of low-dose vaginal estrogen.

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE

Despite the boxed warning on vaginal estrogen, the findings from this study support the safety of vaginal estrogen use for effective relief of GSM in women with and without a uterus.

JOANN V. PINKERTON, MD, NCMP

 

References
  1. Gandhi J, Chen A, Dagur G, et al. Genitourinary syndrome of menopause: an overview of clinical manifestations, pathophysiology, etiology, evaluation, and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;251:704-711.  
  2. Crandall CJ, Hovey KM, Andrews CA, et al. Breast cancer, endometrial cancer, and cardiovascular events in participants who used vaginal estrogen in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study. Menopause. 2018;25:11-20.  
  3. The NAMS 2017 Hormone Therapy Position Statement Advisory Panel. The 2017 hormone therapy position statement of The North American Menopause Society. Menopause. 2017;24:728-753. 
     
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, NCMP is Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Virginia Health System, and Executive Director, The North American Menopause Society. Dr. Pinkerton serves on the OBG Management Board of Editors.

The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
51, 52
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, NCMP is Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Virginia Health System, and Executive Director, The North American Menopause Society. Dr. Pinkerton serves on the OBG Management Board of Editors.

The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, NCMP is Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Virginia Health System, and Executive Director, The North American Menopause Society. Dr. Pinkerton serves on the OBG Management Board of Editors.

The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Expert Commentary

Bhupathiraju SN, Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, et al. Vaginal estrogen use and chronic disease risk in the Nurses’ Health Study. Menopause. December 17, 2018. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001284.

GSM, a chronic and often progressive condition, occurs in almost 50% of postmenopausal women and has been shown to impair sexual function and quality of life.1 Symptoms include vaginal dryness, vulvar or vaginal itching, dyspareunia, urinary urgency or frequency, and increased urinary tract infections. Although lubricants or vaginal moisturizers may be sufficient to treat GSM, targeted hormonal therapy may be needed to improve the symptoms and resolve the underlying cause, due to vaginal hormone loss.

Despite lack of any observational or clinical trial evidence for chronic health disease risks related to low-dose vaginal estrogen use, there remains an US Food and Drug Administration boxed warning on the package label for low-dose vaginal estrogen related to risks of heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, pdementia, and breast cancer. The objective of the investigation by Bhupathiraju and colleagues was to evaluate associations between vaginal estrogen use and health outcomes, including CVD (myocardial infarction, stroke, and pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis), cancer (total invasive, breast, endometrial, ovarian, and colorectal), and hip fracture.

Details of the study

The prospective analysis included 896 postmenopausal current users of vaginal estrogen in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS; 1982­­–2012), compared with 52,901 nonusers. Eighteen years of follow-up was evaluated. Users of systemic hormone therapy were excluded from the analysis. For the NHS, self-reported data were collected every 2 years on questionnaires for vaginal estrogen use and health outcomes. Investigators used medical records to confirm health outcomes.

After adjusting for covariates, no significant differences in risks were found for CVD, cancer, and hip fracture between users and nonusers of vaginal estrogen, regardless of hysterectomy status.

Key findings

After adjusting for multiple variables (including age, race, physical activity, age at menopause, hysterectomy, aspirin use, parental history of cancer, etc), health outcomes for CVDs, all cancers, and hip fracture were:

  • myocardial infarction: hazard ratio (HR), 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–1.13)
  • stroke: HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.56–1.29)
  • pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis: HR, 1.06 (95% CI, 0.58–1.93)
  • hip fracture: HR, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.60–1.38)
  • all cancers: HR, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.89–1.25).

Continue to: Health outcomes for specific invasive cancers

 

 

Health outcomes for specific invasive cancers (risk for endometrial cancer included only women with an intact uterus) were:

  • invasive breast cancer: HR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.78–1.47)
  • ovarian cancer: HR, 1.17 (95% CI, 0.52–2.65)
  • endometrial cancer: HR, 1.62 (95% CI, 0.88–2.97)
  • colorectal cancer: HR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.45–1.34).

Study strengths and weaknesses

A causal relationship cannot be proven as the study was observational. However, a strength included the 18 years of follow-up. Women used vaginal estrogen for an average of 3 years, which provided longer-term safety data than available 12-month clinical trial data. Data were collected through self-report on questionnaires every 2 years, which is a drawback; however, participants were registered nurses, who have been shown to provide reliable health-related information. Comparisons between therapies were not possible as data were not collected about type or dosage of vaginal estrogen. Available therapies during the NHS included vaginal estrogen tablets, creams, and an estradiol ring, with higher doses available during earlier parts of the study than the lower doses commonly prescribed in current day.

Overall

The findings from this long-term follow-up of the NHS provide support for the safety of vaginal estrogen for treatment of GSM. No statistically significant increased health risks were found for users of vaginal estrogen, similar to earlier reported findings from the large Women’s Health Initiative.2 Low-dose vaginal estrogen is recommended for treatment of GSM by The North American Menopause Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Endocrine Society.

Absorption of low-dose vaginal estrogen preparations appears minimal, and they are effective and generally safe for the treatment of GSM for women at any age. Progesterone is not recommended with low-dose vaginal estrogen therapies, based primarily on randomized clinical trial safety data of 12 months.3 Postmenopausal bleeding, however, needs to be thoroughly evaluated. For women with breast cancer, include the oncologist in decision making about the use of low-dose vaginal estrogen.

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE

Despite the boxed warning on vaginal estrogen, the findings from this study support the safety of vaginal estrogen use for effective relief of GSM in women with and without a uterus.

JOANN V. PINKERTON, MD, NCMP

 

Expert Commentary

Bhupathiraju SN, Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, et al. Vaginal estrogen use and chronic disease risk in the Nurses’ Health Study. Menopause. December 17, 2018. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001284.

GSM, a chronic and often progressive condition, occurs in almost 50% of postmenopausal women and has been shown to impair sexual function and quality of life.1 Symptoms include vaginal dryness, vulvar or vaginal itching, dyspareunia, urinary urgency or frequency, and increased urinary tract infections. Although lubricants or vaginal moisturizers may be sufficient to treat GSM, targeted hormonal therapy may be needed to improve the symptoms and resolve the underlying cause, due to vaginal hormone loss.

Despite lack of any observational or clinical trial evidence for chronic health disease risks related to low-dose vaginal estrogen use, there remains an US Food and Drug Administration boxed warning on the package label for low-dose vaginal estrogen related to risks of heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, pdementia, and breast cancer. The objective of the investigation by Bhupathiraju and colleagues was to evaluate associations between vaginal estrogen use and health outcomes, including CVD (myocardial infarction, stroke, and pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis), cancer (total invasive, breast, endometrial, ovarian, and colorectal), and hip fracture.

Details of the study

The prospective analysis included 896 postmenopausal current users of vaginal estrogen in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS; 1982­­–2012), compared with 52,901 nonusers. Eighteen years of follow-up was evaluated. Users of systemic hormone therapy were excluded from the analysis. For the NHS, self-reported data were collected every 2 years on questionnaires for vaginal estrogen use and health outcomes. Investigators used medical records to confirm health outcomes.

After adjusting for covariates, no significant differences in risks were found for CVD, cancer, and hip fracture between users and nonusers of vaginal estrogen, regardless of hysterectomy status.

Key findings

After adjusting for multiple variables (including age, race, physical activity, age at menopause, hysterectomy, aspirin use, parental history of cancer, etc), health outcomes for CVDs, all cancers, and hip fracture were:

  • myocardial infarction: hazard ratio (HR), 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–1.13)
  • stroke: HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.56–1.29)
  • pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis: HR, 1.06 (95% CI, 0.58–1.93)
  • hip fracture: HR, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.60–1.38)
  • all cancers: HR, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.89–1.25).

Continue to: Health outcomes for specific invasive cancers

 

 

Health outcomes for specific invasive cancers (risk for endometrial cancer included only women with an intact uterus) were:

  • invasive breast cancer: HR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.78–1.47)
  • ovarian cancer: HR, 1.17 (95% CI, 0.52–2.65)
  • endometrial cancer: HR, 1.62 (95% CI, 0.88–2.97)
  • colorectal cancer: HR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.45–1.34).

Study strengths and weaknesses

A causal relationship cannot be proven as the study was observational. However, a strength included the 18 years of follow-up. Women used vaginal estrogen for an average of 3 years, which provided longer-term safety data than available 12-month clinical trial data. Data were collected through self-report on questionnaires every 2 years, which is a drawback; however, participants were registered nurses, who have been shown to provide reliable health-related information. Comparisons between therapies were not possible as data were not collected about type or dosage of vaginal estrogen. Available therapies during the NHS included vaginal estrogen tablets, creams, and an estradiol ring, with higher doses available during earlier parts of the study than the lower doses commonly prescribed in current day.

Overall

The findings from this long-term follow-up of the NHS provide support for the safety of vaginal estrogen for treatment of GSM. No statistically significant increased health risks were found for users of vaginal estrogen, similar to earlier reported findings from the large Women’s Health Initiative.2 Low-dose vaginal estrogen is recommended for treatment of GSM by The North American Menopause Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Endocrine Society.

Absorption of low-dose vaginal estrogen preparations appears minimal, and they are effective and generally safe for the treatment of GSM for women at any age. Progesterone is not recommended with low-dose vaginal estrogen therapies, based primarily on randomized clinical trial safety data of 12 months.3 Postmenopausal bleeding, however, needs to be thoroughly evaluated. For women with breast cancer, include the oncologist in decision making about the use of low-dose vaginal estrogen.

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE

Despite the boxed warning on vaginal estrogen, the findings from this study support the safety of vaginal estrogen use for effective relief of GSM in women with and without a uterus.

JOANN V. PINKERTON, MD, NCMP

 

References
  1. Gandhi J, Chen A, Dagur G, et al. Genitourinary syndrome of menopause: an overview of clinical manifestations, pathophysiology, etiology, evaluation, and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;251:704-711.  
  2. Crandall CJ, Hovey KM, Andrews CA, et al. Breast cancer, endometrial cancer, and cardiovascular events in participants who used vaginal estrogen in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study. Menopause. 2018;25:11-20.  
  3. The NAMS 2017 Hormone Therapy Position Statement Advisory Panel. The 2017 hormone therapy position statement of The North American Menopause Society. Menopause. 2017;24:728-753. 
     
References
  1. Gandhi J, Chen A, Dagur G, et al. Genitourinary syndrome of menopause: an overview of clinical manifestations, pathophysiology, etiology, evaluation, and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;251:704-711.  
  2. Crandall CJ, Hovey KM, Andrews CA, et al. Breast cancer, endometrial cancer, and cardiovascular events in participants who used vaginal estrogen in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study. Menopause. 2018;25:11-20.  
  3. The NAMS 2017 Hormone Therapy Position Statement Advisory Panel. The 2017 hormone therapy position statement of The North American Menopause Society. Menopause. 2017;24:728-753. 
     
Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Page Number
51, 52
Page Number
51, 52
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Article PDF Media

2019 Update on fertility

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 02/13/2019 - 16:40

Professional societies, global organizations, and advocacy groups are continually working toward the goal of having the costs of infertility care covered by insurance carriers. Paramount to that effort is obtaining recognition of infertility as a burdensome disease. In this Update, we summarize national and international initiatives and societal trends that are helping to move us closer to that goal, and we encourage ObGyns to lead advocacy efforts. 

Next, we detail several notable new features available in the annual report of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), an online interactive document that can be used to assist clinicians and patients in treatment decisions. 

We also tackle the complexities of embryo selection for in vitro fertilization (IVF) and describe a potentially promising aneuploidy screening test, and explore its limitations. 

Advances in recognizing infertility as a disease that merits insurance coverage 

Article 16 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."While few people value anything more than their family, the inability to have one because of infertility has long been in the shadows. Infertility is surrounded by myth, poorly understood by the public, rarely discussed in polite company, badly managed by physicians, and rarely covered by insurance. The current inadequacy of infertility insurance coverage denies the basic human right to found a family and perpetuates gender inequalities. 

Major reproductive medicine organizations globally have endorsed the definition of infertility as a disease that "generates disability as an impairment of function" (TABLE 1).2 Fortunately, medical, societal, and judicial changes have resulted in progress for the 6.1 million women (and equivalent number of men) affected by infertility in the United States.3  

Professional group advocacy efforts, and judicial rulings 

The World Health Organization (WHO) has addressed infertility over the past several decades, with the organization's standards on semen analysis being the most recognized outcome. Progress has been limited, however, regarding global or national policy that recognizes the importance of infertility as a medical and public health problem. 

In 2009, the glossary published by the WHO with the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) defined infertility as a disease.4 This recognition is important because it aids policy making, insurance coverage, and/or other payments for services. 

The WHO also has begun the process of developing new infertility guidelines. Recently, the WHO held a summit on safety and access to fertility care, which was attended by many representatives of nation-state governments and international experts. It is hoped that a document from those proceedings will reinforce the public health importance of infertility and support the need to promote equality in access to safe fertility care. WHO initiatives matter because they apply to nation-states. 

In the United States, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) for many years has recognized infertility as a disease. Only in 2017, however, did delegates at the American Medical Association's annual meeting vote to support the WHO's designation of infertility as a disease.

Continue to: Judicial views 

 

 

Judicial views. In 1998, the US Supreme Court held that infertility is a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court subsequently held, however, that a person is not considered disabled under the act if the disability can be overcome by mitigating or corrective measures. In 2000, a lower court held that, while infertility is a disability, an employer's health plan that excludes treatment for it is not discriminatory under the ADA if it applies to all employees. 

Societal recognition. Interestingly, improved technology for oocyte cryopreservation has resulted in greater recognition of reproductive issues and the disparity in reproductive health societal norms and rights between men and women. 

Media stories and gender issues in employment, especially in such high-profile industries as technology and finance, have highlighted long-standing inequities, many of which concern reproductive issues. These issues have been further disseminated by the #metoo movement. Some employers are beginning to respond by recognizing their employees' reproductive needs and providing improved benefits for reproductive care. 

ObGyns must continue to lead advocacy 

Not all has been progress. Personhood bills in several states threaten basic reproductive rights of women and men. The ASRM and Resolve (the National Infertility Association) have taken leading roles in opposing these legislative initiatives and supporting reproductive rights.5 

Advocacy efforts through events and trends have resulted in gradually improving the recognition of the burden of infertility, inadequate insurance coverage, and continuing gender inequalities in reproduction. Today, patients, professionals, and national and international organizations are coalescing around demands for recognition, access to care, and gender and diversity equality. While much remains to be done, progress is being made in society, government, the workplace, and the health care system. 

ObGyns and other women's health care providers can help continue the progress toward equality in reproductive rights, including access to infertility care, by discussing insurance inequities with patients, informing insurance companies that infertility is a disease, and encouraging patients to challenge inadequate and unequal insurance coverage of needed reproductive health care.

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
The time is now for ObGyns and other women’s health care providers to advocate for insurance coverage of infertility care. When our patients have inadequate coverage, we should encourage them to take action by contacting their insurance company and their employers to explain the reasons and argue for better coverage. Also, contact RESOLVE for additional information.

Latest SART report offers new features to aid in treatment decision making 

Knowledge of the prognosis and its various treatment options is an important aspect of infertility treatment. The SART recently updated its annual Clinic Summary Report (CSR), which includes valuable new features for patients and physicians considering assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment.6 

SART compiles complex data and reports outcomes 

The SART has been reporting IVF outcomes and other ART outcomes since 1988. The society's annual report is widely read by consumers, patients, physicians, and policy makers, and it has many important uses. However, the report is complicated and difficult to interpret for many reasons. For example, treatments are complex and varied (especially with application of new cryopreservation technology), and there are variations among clinics with respect to patient selection, protocols used, philosophy of practice, and numerous other variables.

Continue to: Because of this...

 

 

Because of this, the SART states, "The SART Clinic Summary Report (CSR) allows patients to view national and individual clinic IVF success rates. The data presented in this report should not be used for comparing clinics. Clinics may have differences in patient selection and treatment approaches which may artificially inflate or lower pregnancy rates relative to another clinic. Please discuss this with your doctor."

Nevertheless, the CSR is extremely useful because it reports outcomes, which can lead to more informed patients and physicians and thus better access to safe and effective use of ART. The SART has redesigned the CSR to make it more useful. 

Redesigned CSR focuses on outcomes important to patients 

In recent years, new technologies have increased dramatically the use of embryo cryopreservation, genetic testing, and single embryo transfer (SET). The new CSR format is more patient focused and identifies more directly the treatment burden: ovarian stimulation, egg retrieval, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), cryopreservation, frozen embryo transfer, and multiple cycles. It also focuses on the important patient outcomes, including live birth of a healthy child, multiple pregnancy, number of cycles, and chances of success per patient over time (including both fresh and frozen embryo transfers). 

Notable changes 

A major change in the CSR is that there is a preliminary report for a given year and then a final report the following year. This helps to more accurately report cycles that have been "delayed" because of egg retrieval and embryo freezing performed in the reported year but then transferred in the following reporting year. 

Cycle counting. A cycle is counted when a woman has started medications for an ART procedure or, in a "natural" cycle when no medications are used, the first day of menses of the ART cycle. If several cycles are performed to bank eggs or embryos, each will be counted in the denominator when calculating the pregnancy rate. This more accurately reflects the patient treatment burden and costs. A cycle cancelled before egg retrieval is still counted as a cycle. 

Defining success. Success is characterized as delivery of a child, since this is the outcome patients desire. Singleton deliveries are emphasized, since twin and higher-order multiple pregnancies have a higher risk of prematurity, morbidity, mortality, and cost. The percentages of triplet, twin, and singleton births contributing to the live birth rate are provided for each cycle group, as is prematurity (TABLE 2).6 

The end point of a treatment cycle can vary. The new CSR captures the success rate following one or more egg retrievals and the first embryo transfer (primary outcome), the success of subsequent cycles using frozen eggs or embryos not transferred in the first embryo transfer, and the combined contribution of the primary and subsequent cycles to the cumulative live birth rate for a patient both in the preliminary report and the final report for any given year. The live birth rate per patient also is reported and includes the outcomes for patients who are new to an infertility center and starting their first cycle for retrieval of their own eggs during the reporting year. 

Continue to: Outcomes and prognostic factors...

 

 

Outcomes and prognostic factors. Outcomes are reported by multiple factors, including patient age and source of the eggs. These are important prognostic factors; separating the data allows you to obtain a better idea of both national and individual clinic experience by these factors. 

The CSR also contains filters for infertility diagnosis, stimulation type, and other treatment details (FIGURE).6 The filter is a useful feature because multiple types of treatment can be included or excluded. The outcome of different treatment interventions can then be estimated based on outcomes from the entire sample of US patients with similar characteristics and interventions. This powerful tool can help patients and physicians choose the best treatment based on prognosis. 

Personalized prognosis. An important new feature is the SART Patient Predictor (https://www.sartcorsonline.com/predictor/patient), a model that permits an individual patient to obtain a more personalized prognosis. While the SART predictor uses only basic patient information, such as age, body mass index, and diagnosis, its estimate is based on the entire US sample of reported ART experience and therefore can help patients in decision making. Furthermore, the predictor calculates percentages for the outcome of one transfer of 2 embryos, and 2 transfers of a single embryo, to demonstrate the advantages of SET that result in a higher live birth rate but a significantly lower multiple pregnancy rate. 

Summing up 

The SART's new CSR is extremely useful to patients and to any physician who cares for infertility patients. It can help users both understand the expected results from different ART treatments and enable better physician-patient communication and decision making. 
 

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
The updated annual SART Clinic Summary Report is an exceptionally valuable and easy-to-use online tool for you and your infertility patients.

Embryo selection techniques refined with use of newer technologies 

Since the introduction of IVF in 1978, the final cumulative live birth rates per cycle initiated  for oocyte retrieval after all resulting embryos have been trasferred continue to rise, currently standing at 54% for women younger than age 35 in the United States.7 A number of achievements have contributed to this remarkable success, namely, improvements in IVF laboratory and embryo culture systems, advances in cryopreservation technology, availability of highly effective gonadotropins and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues, improved ultrasound technology, and the introduction of soft catheters for atraumatic embryo transfers. 

Treatment now focuses on improved embryo selection 

Now that excellent success rates have been attained, the focus of optimizing efforts in fertility treatment has shifted to improving safety by reducing the rates of multiple pregnancy through elective single embryo transfer (eSET), reducing the rates of miscarriage, and shortening the time to live birth. Methods to improve embryo selection lie at the forefront of these initiatives. These vary and include extended culture to blastocyst stage, standard morphologic evaluation as well as morphokinetic assessment of embryonic development via time-lapse imaging, and more recently the reintroduction of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), formerly known as preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). 

Chromosomal abnormalities of the embryo, or embryo aneuploidies, are the most common cause of treatment failure following embryo transfer in IVF. The proportion of embryos affected with aneuploidies significantly increases with advancing maternal age: 40% to 50% of blastocysts in women younger than age 35 and about 90% of blastocysts in women older than age 42.8 The premise with PGT-A is to identify these aneuploid embryos and increase the chances of success per embryo transfer by transferring euploid embryos. 

Continue to: That concept was initially applied...

 

 

That concept was initially applied to cleavage-stage embryos through the use of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technology to interrogate a maximum of 5 to 9 chromosomes in a single cell (single blastomere); however, although initial results from observational studies were encouraging, subsequent randomized controlled studies unexpectedly showed a reduction in pregnancy rates.9 This was attributed to several factors, including biopsy-related damage to the cleavage-stage embryo, inability of FISH technology to assess aneuploidies of more than 5 to 9 chromosomes, mosaicism, and technical limitations associated with single-cell analysis. 

Second-generation PGT-A testing has promise, and limitations 

The newer PGT-A tests the embryos at the blastocyst stage by using biopsy samples from the trophectoderm (which will form the future placenta); this is expected to spare the inner cell mass ([ICM] which will give rise to the embryo proper) from biopsy-related injury. 

On the genetics side, newer technologies, such as array comparative genomic hybridization, single nucleotide polymorphism arrays, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and next-generation sequencing, offer the opportunity to assess all 24 chromosomes in a single biopsy specimen. Although a detailed discussion of these testing platforms is beyond the scope of this Update, certain points are worth mentioning. All these technologies require some form of genetic material amplification (most commonly whole genome amplification or multiplex polymerase chain reaction) to increase the relatively scant amount of DNA obtained from a sample of 4 to 6 cells. These amplification techniques have limitations that can subsequently impact the validity of the test results. 

Furthermore, there is no consistency in depth of coverage for various parts of the genome, and subchromosomal (segmental) copy number variations below 3 to 5 Mb may not be detected. The threshold used in bioinformatics algorithms employed to interpret the raw data is subject to several biases and is not consistent among laboratories. As a result, the same sample assessed in different laboratories can potentially yield different results. 

In addition to these technical limitations, mosaicism can pose another biologic limitation, as the biopsied trophectoderm cells may not accurately represent the chromosomal makeup of the ICM. Also, an embryo may be able to undergo self-correction during subsequent stages of development, and therefore even a documented trophectoderm abnormality at the blastocyst stage may not necessarily preclude that embryo from developing into a healthy baby. 

Standardization is needed. Despite widespread promotion of PGT-A, well-designed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have not yet consistently shown its benefits in improving pregnancy rates or reducing miscarriage rates. Although the initial small RCTs in a selected group of good prognosis patients suggested a beneficial effect in ongoing pregnancy rates per transfer, the largest multicenter RCT to date did not show any improvement in pregnancy rates or reduction in miscarriage rates.10 In that study, a post hoc subgroup analysis suggested a possible beneficial effect in women aged 35 to 40. However, those results must be validated and reproduced with randomization at the start of stimulation, with the primary outcome being the live birth rate per initiated cycle, instead of per transfer, before PGT-A can be adopted universally in clinical practice. 

Continue to: With all the above considerations...

 

 

With all the above considerations, the ASRM has appropriately concluded that "the value of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) as a screening test for IVF patients has yet to be determined."11 

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
Standardization of clinical and laboratory protocols and additional studies to assess the effects of PGT-A on live birth rates per initiated cycles are recommended before this new technology is widely adopted in routine clinical practice. In our practice, we routinely offer and perform extended culture to blastocyst stage and standard morphologic assessment. After a thorough counseling on the current status of PGT-A, about 15% to 20% of our patients opt to undergo PGT-A.
References
  1. United Nations website. General Assembly resolution 217A: Declaration of human rights. December 10, 1948. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declara tion-human-rights/. Accessed January 11, 2019. 
  2. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, et al. The international glossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:393-406. 
  3. US Department of Health and Human Services Office on Women's Health website. Infertility. https://www.womenshealth.gov/a-z-topics/infertility. Accessed January 24, 2019. 
  4. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, et al; International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology, World Health Organization. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1520-1524. 
  5. RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association website. Opposing personhood: Resolve fights to keep fertility medical treatments legal in the US. https://resolve.org/get-involved/advocate-for-access/our-issues/opposing-personhood/. Accessed January 11, 2019. 
  6. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology website. National summary report. 2016 Preliminary national data. https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?reportingYear=2016 . Accessed January 12, 2019. 
  7. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology website. National summary report 2015. https://www.sartcorsonline,com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx ?reportingYear=2015. Accessed January 12, 2019. 
  8. Harton GL, Munne S, Surrey M, et al; PGD Practitioners Group. Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1695-1703. 
  9. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:9-17 
  10. Munne S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, et al. Global multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing single embryo transfer with embryo selected by preimplantation genetic screening using next-generation sequencing versus morphologic assessment [abstract O-43]. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(suppl):e19. 
  11. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:429-436.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

G. David Adamson, MD 
Dr. Adamson is Founder and CEO of Advanced Reproductive Care, Inc (ARC Fertility); Clinical Professor, ACF, at Stanford University School of Medicine; and Associate Clinical Professor at the University of California, San Francisco. He is also Director of Equal3 Fertility, APC in Cupertino, California. 


Max Ezzati, MD 
Dr. Ezzati is a Board-certified reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) specialist and the Medical Director of Department of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at Palo Alto Medical Foundation Fertility Physicians of Northern California. 

Dr. Adamson reports being a consultant to Abbott, AbbVie, Ferring, Guerbet, Hernest, and Merck, and that he has equity in ARC Fertility. Dr. Ezzati reports no financial relationships relevant to this article. 
 

Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
18-24
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

G. David Adamson, MD 
Dr. Adamson is Founder and CEO of Advanced Reproductive Care, Inc (ARC Fertility); Clinical Professor, ACF, at Stanford University School of Medicine; and Associate Clinical Professor at the University of California, San Francisco. He is also Director of Equal3 Fertility, APC in Cupertino, California. 


Max Ezzati, MD 
Dr. Ezzati is a Board-certified reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) specialist and the Medical Director of Department of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at Palo Alto Medical Foundation Fertility Physicians of Northern California. 

Dr. Adamson reports being a consultant to Abbott, AbbVie, Ferring, Guerbet, Hernest, and Merck, and that he has equity in ARC Fertility. Dr. Ezzati reports no financial relationships relevant to this article. 
 

Author and Disclosure Information

G. David Adamson, MD 
Dr. Adamson is Founder and CEO of Advanced Reproductive Care, Inc (ARC Fertility); Clinical Professor, ACF, at Stanford University School of Medicine; and Associate Clinical Professor at the University of California, San Francisco. He is also Director of Equal3 Fertility, APC in Cupertino, California. 


Max Ezzati, MD 
Dr. Ezzati is a Board-certified reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) specialist and the Medical Director of Department of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at Palo Alto Medical Foundation Fertility Physicians of Northern California. 

Dr. Adamson reports being a consultant to Abbott, AbbVie, Ferring, Guerbet, Hernest, and Merck, and that he has equity in ARC Fertility. Dr. Ezzati reports no financial relationships relevant to this article. 
 

Article PDF
Article PDF

Professional societies, global organizations, and advocacy groups are continually working toward the goal of having the costs of infertility care covered by insurance carriers. Paramount to that effort is obtaining recognition of infertility as a burdensome disease. In this Update, we summarize national and international initiatives and societal trends that are helping to move us closer to that goal, and we encourage ObGyns to lead advocacy efforts. 

Next, we detail several notable new features available in the annual report of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), an online interactive document that can be used to assist clinicians and patients in treatment decisions. 

We also tackle the complexities of embryo selection for in vitro fertilization (IVF) and describe a potentially promising aneuploidy screening test, and explore its limitations. 

Advances in recognizing infertility as a disease that merits insurance coverage 

Article 16 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."While few people value anything more than their family, the inability to have one because of infertility has long been in the shadows. Infertility is surrounded by myth, poorly understood by the public, rarely discussed in polite company, badly managed by physicians, and rarely covered by insurance. The current inadequacy of infertility insurance coverage denies the basic human right to found a family and perpetuates gender inequalities. 

Major reproductive medicine organizations globally have endorsed the definition of infertility as a disease that "generates disability as an impairment of function" (TABLE 1).2 Fortunately, medical, societal, and judicial changes have resulted in progress for the 6.1 million women (and equivalent number of men) affected by infertility in the United States.3  

Professional group advocacy efforts, and judicial rulings 

The World Health Organization (WHO) has addressed infertility over the past several decades, with the organization's standards on semen analysis being the most recognized outcome. Progress has been limited, however, regarding global or national policy that recognizes the importance of infertility as a medical and public health problem. 

In 2009, the glossary published by the WHO with the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) defined infertility as a disease.4 This recognition is important because it aids policy making, insurance coverage, and/or other payments for services. 

The WHO also has begun the process of developing new infertility guidelines. Recently, the WHO held a summit on safety and access to fertility care, which was attended by many representatives of nation-state governments and international experts. It is hoped that a document from those proceedings will reinforce the public health importance of infertility and support the need to promote equality in access to safe fertility care. WHO initiatives matter because they apply to nation-states. 

In the United States, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) for many years has recognized infertility as a disease. Only in 2017, however, did delegates at the American Medical Association's annual meeting vote to support the WHO's designation of infertility as a disease.

Continue to: Judicial views 

 

 

Judicial views. In 1998, the US Supreme Court held that infertility is a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court subsequently held, however, that a person is not considered disabled under the act if the disability can be overcome by mitigating or corrective measures. In 2000, a lower court held that, while infertility is a disability, an employer's health plan that excludes treatment for it is not discriminatory under the ADA if it applies to all employees. 

Societal recognition. Interestingly, improved technology for oocyte cryopreservation has resulted in greater recognition of reproductive issues and the disparity in reproductive health societal norms and rights between men and women. 

Media stories and gender issues in employment, especially in such high-profile industries as technology and finance, have highlighted long-standing inequities, many of which concern reproductive issues. These issues have been further disseminated by the #metoo movement. Some employers are beginning to respond by recognizing their employees' reproductive needs and providing improved benefits for reproductive care. 

ObGyns must continue to lead advocacy 

Not all has been progress. Personhood bills in several states threaten basic reproductive rights of women and men. The ASRM and Resolve (the National Infertility Association) have taken leading roles in opposing these legislative initiatives and supporting reproductive rights.5 

Advocacy efforts through events and trends have resulted in gradually improving the recognition of the burden of infertility, inadequate insurance coverage, and continuing gender inequalities in reproduction. Today, patients, professionals, and national and international organizations are coalescing around demands for recognition, access to care, and gender and diversity equality. While much remains to be done, progress is being made in society, government, the workplace, and the health care system. 

ObGyns and other women's health care providers can help continue the progress toward equality in reproductive rights, including access to infertility care, by discussing insurance inequities with patients, informing insurance companies that infertility is a disease, and encouraging patients to challenge inadequate and unequal insurance coverage of needed reproductive health care.

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
The time is now for ObGyns and other women’s health care providers to advocate for insurance coverage of infertility care. When our patients have inadequate coverage, we should encourage them to take action by contacting their insurance company and their employers to explain the reasons and argue for better coverage. Also, contact RESOLVE for additional information.

Latest SART report offers new features to aid in treatment decision making 

Knowledge of the prognosis and its various treatment options is an important aspect of infertility treatment. The SART recently updated its annual Clinic Summary Report (CSR), which includes valuable new features for patients and physicians considering assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment.6 

SART compiles complex data and reports outcomes 

The SART has been reporting IVF outcomes and other ART outcomes since 1988. The society's annual report is widely read by consumers, patients, physicians, and policy makers, and it has many important uses. However, the report is complicated and difficult to interpret for many reasons. For example, treatments are complex and varied (especially with application of new cryopreservation technology), and there are variations among clinics with respect to patient selection, protocols used, philosophy of practice, and numerous other variables.

Continue to: Because of this...

 

 

Because of this, the SART states, "The SART Clinic Summary Report (CSR) allows patients to view national and individual clinic IVF success rates. The data presented in this report should not be used for comparing clinics. Clinics may have differences in patient selection and treatment approaches which may artificially inflate or lower pregnancy rates relative to another clinic. Please discuss this with your doctor."

Nevertheless, the CSR is extremely useful because it reports outcomes, which can lead to more informed patients and physicians and thus better access to safe and effective use of ART. The SART has redesigned the CSR to make it more useful. 

Redesigned CSR focuses on outcomes important to patients 

In recent years, new technologies have increased dramatically the use of embryo cryopreservation, genetic testing, and single embryo transfer (SET). The new CSR format is more patient focused and identifies more directly the treatment burden: ovarian stimulation, egg retrieval, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), cryopreservation, frozen embryo transfer, and multiple cycles. It also focuses on the important patient outcomes, including live birth of a healthy child, multiple pregnancy, number of cycles, and chances of success per patient over time (including both fresh and frozen embryo transfers). 

Notable changes 

A major change in the CSR is that there is a preliminary report for a given year and then a final report the following year. This helps to more accurately report cycles that have been "delayed" because of egg retrieval and embryo freezing performed in the reported year but then transferred in the following reporting year. 

Cycle counting. A cycle is counted when a woman has started medications for an ART procedure or, in a "natural" cycle when no medications are used, the first day of menses of the ART cycle. If several cycles are performed to bank eggs or embryos, each will be counted in the denominator when calculating the pregnancy rate. This more accurately reflects the patient treatment burden and costs. A cycle cancelled before egg retrieval is still counted as a cycle. 

Defining success. Success is characterized as delivery of a child, since this is the outcome patients desire. Singleton deliveries are emphasized, since twin and higher-order multiple pregnancies have a higher risk of prematurity, morbidity, mortality, and cost. The percentages of triplet, twin, and singleton births contributing to the live birth rate are provided for each cycle group, as is prematurity (TABLE 2).6 

The end point of a treatment cycle can vary. The new CSR captures the success rate following one or more egg retrievals and the first embryo transfer (primary outcome), the success of subsequent cycles using frozen eggs or embryos not transferred in the first embryo transfer, and the combined contribution of the primary and subsequent cycles to the cumulative live birth rate for a patient both in the preliminary report and the final report for any given year. The live birth rate per patient also is reported and includes the outcomes for patients who are new to an infertility center and starting their first cycle for retrieval of their own eggs during the reporting year. 

Continue to: Outcomes and prognostic factors...

 

 

Outcomes and prognostic factors. Outcomes are reported by multiple factors, including patient age and source of the eggs. These are important prognostic factors; separating the data allows you to obtain a better idea of both national and individual clinic experience by these factors. 

The CSR also contains filters for infertility diagnosis, stimulation type, and other treatment details (FIGURE).6 The filter is a useful feature because multiple types of treatment can be included or excluded. The outcome of different treatment interventions can then be estimated based on outcomes from the entire sample of US patients with similar characteristics and interventions. This powerful tool can help patients and physicians choose the best treatment based on prognosis. 

Personalized prognosis. An important new feature is the SART Patient Predictor (https://www.sartcorsonline.com/predictor/patient), a model that permits an individual patient to obtain a more personalized prognosis. While the SART predictor uses only basic patient information, such as age, body mass index, and diagnosis, its estimate is based on the entire US sample of reported ART experience and therefore can help patients in decision making. Furthermore, the predictor calculates percentages for the outcome of one transfer of 2 embryos, and 2 transfers of a single embryo, to demonstrate the advantages of SET that result in a higher live birth rate but a significantly lower multiple pregnancy rate. 

Summing up 

The SART's new CSR is extremely useful to patients and to any physician who cares for infertility patients. It can help users both understand the expected results from different ART treatments and enable better physician-patient communication and decision making. 
 

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
The updated annual SART Clinic Summary Report is an exceptionally valuable and easy-to-use online tool for you and your infertility patients.

Embryo selection techniques refined with use of newer technologies 

Since the introduction of IVF in 1978, the final cumulative live birth rates per cycle initiated  for oocyte retrieval after all resulting embryos have been trasferred continue to rise, currently standing at 54% for women younger than age 35 in the United States.7 A number of achievements have contributed to this remarkable success, namely, improvements in IVF laboratory and embryo culture systems, advances in cryopreservation technology, availability of highly effective gonadotropins and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues, improved ultrasound technology, and the introduction of soft catheters for atraumatic embryo transfers. 

Treatment now focuses on improved embryo selection 

Now that excellent success rates have been attained, the focus of optimizing efforts in fertility treatment has shifted to improving safety by reducing the rates of multiple pregnancy through elective single embryo transfer (eSET), reducing the rates of miscarriage, and shortening the time to live birth. Methods to improve embryo selection lie at the forefront of these initiatives. These vary and include extended culture to blastocyst stage, standard morphologic evaluation as well as morphokinetic assessment of embryonic development via time-lapse imaging, and more recently the reintroduction of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), formerly known as preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). 

Chromosomal abnormalities of the embryo, or embryo aneuploidies, are the most common cause of treatment failure following embryo transfer in IVF. The proportion of embryos affected with aneuploidies significantly increases with advancing maternal age: 40% to 50% of blastocysts in women younger than age 35 and about 90% of blastocysts in women older than age 42.8 The premise with PGT-A is to identify these aneuploid embryos and increase the chances of success per embryo transfer by transferring euploid embryos. 

Continue to: That concept was initially applied...

 

 

That concept was initially applied to cleavage-stage embryos through the use of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technology to interrogate a maximum of 5 to 9 chromosomes in a single cell (single blastomere); however, although initial results from observational studies were encouraging, subsequent randomized controlled studies unexpectedly showed a reduction in pregnancy rates.9 This was attributed to several factors, including biopsy-related damage to the cleavage-stage embryo, inability of FISH technology to assess aneuploidies of more than 5 to 9 chromosomes, mosaicism, and technical limitations associated with single-cell analysis. 

Second-generation PGT-A testing has promise, and limitations 

The newer PGT-A tests the embryos at the blastocyst stage by using biopsy samples from the trophectoderm (which will form the future placenta); this is expected to spare the inner cell mass ([ICM] which will give rise to the embryo proper) from biopsy-related injury. 

On the genetics side, newer technologies, such as array comparative genomic hybridization, single nucleotide polymorphism arrays, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and next-generation sequencing, offer the opportunity to assess all 24 chromosomes in a single biopsy specimen. Although a detailed discussion of these testing platforms is beyond the scope of this Update, certain points are worth mentioning. All these technologies require some form of genetic material amplification (most commonly whole genome amplification or multiplex polymerase chain reaction) to increase the relatively scant amount of DNA obtained from a sample of 4 to 6 cells. These amplification techniques have limitations that can subsequently impact the validity of the test results. 

Furthermore, there is no consistency in depth of coverage for various parts of the genome, and subchromosomal (segmental) copy number variations below 3 to 5 Mb may not be detected. The threshold used in bioinformatics algorithms employed to interpret the raw data is subject to several biases and is not consistent among laboratories. As a result, the same sample assessed in different laboratories can potentially yield different results. 

In addition to these technical limitations, mosaicism can pose another biologic limitation, as the biopsied trophectoderm cells may not accurately represent the chromosomal makeup of the ICM. Also, an embryo may be able to undergo self-correction during subsequent stages of development, and therefore even a documented trophectoderm abnormality at the blastocyst stage may not necessarily preclude that embryo from developing into a healthy baby. 

Standardization is needed. Despite widespread promotion of PGT-A, well-designed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have not yet consistently shown its benefits in improving pregnancy rates or reducing miscarriage rates. Although the initial small RCTs in a selected group of good prognosis patients suggested a beneficial effect in ongoing pregnancy rates per transfer, the largest multicenter RCT to date did not show any improvement in pregnancy rates or reduction in miscarriage rates.10 In that study, a post hoc subgroup analysis suggested a possible beneficial effect in women aged 35 to 40. However, those results must be validated and reproduced with randomization at the start of stimulation, with the primary outcome being the live birth rate per initiated cycle, instead of per transfer, before PGT-A can be adopted universally in clinical practice. 

Continue to: With all the above considerations...

 

 

With all the above considerations, the ASRM has appropriately concluded that "the value of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) as a screening test for IVF patients has yet to be determined."11 

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
Standardization of clinical and laboratory protocols and additional studies to assess the effects of PGT-A on live birth rates per initiated cycles are recommended before this new technology is widely adopted in routine clinical practice. In our practice, we routinely offer and perform extended culture to blastocyst stage and standard morphologic assessment. After a thorough counseling on the current status of PGT-A, about 15% to 20% of our patients opt to undergo PGT-A.

Professional societies, global organizations, and advocacy groups are continually working toward the goal of having the costs of infertility care covered by insurance carriers. Paramount to that effort is obtaining recognition of infertility as a burdensome disease. In this Update, we summarize national and international initiatives and societal trends that are helping to move us closer to that goal, and we encourage ObGyns to lead advocacy efforts. 

Next, we detail several notable new features available in the annual report of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), an online interactive document that can be used to assist clinicians and patients in treatment decisions. 

We also tackle the complexities of embryo selection for in vitro fertilization (IVF) and describe a potentially promising aneuploidy screening test, and explore its limitations. 

Advances in recognizing infertility as a disease that merits insurance coverage 

Article 16 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."While few people value anything more than their family, the inability to have one because of infertility has long been in the shadows. Infertility is surrounded by myth, poorly understood by the public, rarely discussed in polite company, badly managed by physicians, and rarely covered by insurance. The current inadequacy of infertility insurance coverage denies the basic human right to found a family and perpetuates gender inequalities. 

Major reproductive medicine organizations globally have endorsed the definition of infertility as a disease that "generates disability as an impairment of function" (TABLE 1).2 Fortunately, medical, societal, and judicial changes have resulted in progress for the 6.1 million women (and equivalent number of men) affected by infertility in the United States.3  

Professional group advocacy efforts, and judicial rulings 

The World Health Organization (WHO) has addressed infertility over the past several decades, with the organization's standards on semen analysis being the most recognized outcome. Progress has been limited, however, regarding global or national policy that recognizes the importance of infertility as a medical and public health problem. 

In 2009, the glossary published by the WHO with the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) defined infertility as a disease.4 This recognition is important because it aids policy making, insurance coverage, and/or other payments for services. 

The WHO also has begun the process of developing new infertility guidelines. Recently, the WHO held a summit on safety and access to fertility care, which was attended by many representatives of nation-state governments and international experts. It is hoped that a document from those proceedings will reinforce the public health importance of infertility and support the need to promote equality in access to safe fertility care. WHO initiatives matter because they apply to nation-states. 

In the United States, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) for many years has recognized infertility as a disease. Only in 2017, however, did delegates at the American Medical Association's annual meeting vote to support the WHO's designation of infertility as a disease.

Continue to: Judicial views 

 

 

Judicial views. In 1998, the US Supreme Court held that infertility is a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court subsequently held, however, that a person is not considered disabled under the act if the disability can be overcome by mitigating or corrective measures. In 2000, a lower court held that, while infertility is a disability, an employer's health plan that excludes treatment for it is not discriminatory under the ADA if it applies to all employees. 

Societal recognition. Interestingly, improved technology for oocyte cryopreservation has resulted in greater recognition of reproductive issues and the disparity in reproductive health societal norms and rights between men and women. 

Media stories and gender issues in employment, especially in such high-profile industries as technology and finance, have highlighted long-standing inequities, many of which concern reproductive issues. These issues have been further disseminated by the #metoo movement. Some employers are beginning to respond by recognizing their employees' reproductive needs and providing improved benefits for reproductive care. 

ObGyns must continue to lead advocacy 

Not all has been progress. Personhood bills in several states threaten basic reproductive rights of women and men. The ASRM and Resolve (the National Infertility Association) have taken leading roles in opposing these legislative initiatives and supporting reproductive rights.5 

Advocacy efforts through events and trends have resulted in gradually improving the recognition of the burden of infertility, inadequate insurance coverage, and continuing gender inequalities in reproduction. Today, patients, professionals, and national and international organizations are coalescing around demands for recognition, access to care, and gender and diversity equality. While much remains to be done, progress is being made in society, government, the workplace, and the health care system. 

ObGyns and other women's health care providers can help continue the progress toward equality in reproductive rights, including access to infertility care, by discussing insurance inequities with patients, informing insurance companies that infertility is a disease, and encouraging patients to challenge inadequate and unequal insurance coverage of needed reproductive health care.

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
The time is now for ObGyns and other women’s health care providers to advocate for insurance coverage of infertility care. When our patients have inadequate coverage, we should encourage them to take action by contacting their insurance company and their employers to explain the reasons and argue for better coverage. Also, contact RESOLVE for additional information.

Latest SART report offers new features to aid in treatment decision making 

Knowledge of the prognosis and its various treatment options is an important aspect of infertility treatment. The SART recently updated its annual Clinic Summary Report (CSR), which includes valuable new features for patients and physicians considering assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment.6 

SART compiles complex data and reports outcomes 

The SART has been reporting IVF outcomes and other ART outcomes since 1988. The society's annual report is widely read by consumers, patients, physicians, and policy makers, and it has many important uses. However, the report is complicated and difficult to interpret for many reasons. For example, treatments are complex and varied (especially with application of new cryopreservation technology), and there are variations among clinics with respect to patient selection, protocols used, philosophy of practice, and numerous other variables.

Continue to: Because of this...

 

 

Because of this, the SART states, "The SART Clinic Summary Report (CSR) allows patients to view national and individual clinic IVF success rates. The data presented in this report should not be used for comparing clinics. Clinics may have differences in patient selection and treatment approaches which may artificially inflate or lower pregnancy rates relative to another clinic. Please discuss this with your doctor."

Nevertheless, the CSR is extremely useful because it reports outcomes, which can lead to more informed patients and physicians and thus better access to safe and effective use of ART. The SART has redesigned the CSR to make it more useful. 

Redesigned CSR focuses on outcomes important to patients 

In recent years, new technologies have increased dramatically the use of embryo cryopreservation, genetic testing, and single embryo transfer (SET). The new CSR format is more patient focused and identifies more directly the treatment burden: ovarian stimulation, egg retrieval, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), cryopreservation, frozen embryo transfer, and multiple cycles. It also focuses on the important patient outcomes, including live birth of a healthy child, multiple pregnancy, number of cycles, and chances of success per patient over time (including both fresh and frozen embryo transfers). 

Notable changes 

A major change in the CSR is that there is a preliminary report for a given year and then a final report the following year. This helps to more accurately report cycles that have been "delayed" because of egg retrieval and embryo freezing performed in the reported year but then transferred in the following reporting year. 

Cycle counting. A cycle is counted when a woman has started medications for an ART procedure or, in a "natural" cycle when no medications are used, the first day of menses of the ART cycle. If several cycles are performed to bank eggs or embryos, each will be counted in the denominator when calculating the pregnancy rate. This more accurately reflects the patient treatment burden and costs. A cycle cancelled before egg retrieval is still counted as a cycle. 

Defining success. Success is characterized as delivery of a child, since this is the outcome patients desire. Singleton deliveries are emphasized, since twin and higher-order multiple pregnancies have a higher risk of prematurity, morbidity, mortality, and cost. The percentages of triplet, twin, and singleton births contributing to the live birth rate are provided for each cycle group, as is prematurity (TABLE 2).6 

The end point of a treatment cycle can vary. The new CSR captures the success rate following one or more egg retrievals and the first embryo transfer (primary outcome), the success of subsequent cycles using frozen eggs or embryos not transferred in the first embryo transfer, and the combined contribution of the primary and subsequent cycles to the cumulative live birth rate for a patient both in the preliminary report and the final report for any given year. The live birth rate per patient also is reported and includes the outcomes for patients who are new to an infertility center and starting their first cycle for retrieval of their own eggs during the reporting year. 

Continue to: Outcomes and prognostic factors...

 

 

Outcomes and prognostic factors. Outcomes are reported by multiple factors, including patient age and source of the eggs. These are important prognostic factors; separating the data allows you to obtain a better idea of both national and individual clinic experience by these factors. 

The CSR also contains filters for infertility diagnosis, stimulation type, and other treatment details (FIGURE).6 The filter is a useful feature because multiple types of treatment can be included or excluded. The outcome of different treatment interventions can then be estimated based on outcomes from the entire sample of US patients with similar characteristics and interventions. This powerful tool can help patients and physicians choose the best treatment based on prognosis. 

Personalized prognosis. An important new feature is the SART Patient Predictor (https://www.sartcorsonline.com/predictor/patient), a model that permits an individual patient to obtain a more personalized prognosis. While the SART predictor uses only basic patient information, such as age, body mass index, and diagnosis, its estimate is based on the entire US sample of reported ART experience and therefore can help patients in decision making. Furthermore, the predictor calculates percentages for the outcome of one transfer of 2 embryos, and 2 transfers of a single embryo, to demonstrate the advantages of SET that result in a higher live birth rate but a significantly lower multiple pregnancy rate. 

Summing up 

The SART's new CSR is extremely useful to patients and to any physician who cares for infertility patients. It can help users both understand the expected results from different ART treatments and enable better physician-patient communication and decision making. 
 

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
The updated annual SART Clinic Summary Report is an exceptionally valuable and easy-to-use online tool for you and your infertility patients.

Embryo selection techniques refined with use of newer technologies 

Since the introduction of IVF in 1978, the final cumulative live birth rates per cycle initiated  for oocyte retrieval after all resulting embryos have been trasferred continue to rise, currently standing at 54% for women younger than age 35 in the United States.7 A number of achievements have contributed to this remarkable success, namely, improvements in IVF laboratory and embryo culture systems, advances in cryopreservation technology, availability of highly effective gonadotropins and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues, improved ultrasound technology, and the introduction of soft catheters for atraumatic embryo transfers. 

Treatment now focuses on improved embryo selection 

Now that excellent success rates have been attained, the focus of optimizing efforts in fertility treatment has shifted to improving safety by reducing the rates of multiple pregnancy through elective single embryo transfer (eSET), reducing the rates of miscarriage, and shortening the time to live birth. Methods to improve embryo selection lie at the forefront of these initiatives. These vary and include extended culture to blastocyst stage, standard morphologic evaluation as well as morphokinetic assessment of embryonic development via time-lapse imaging, and more recently the reintroduction of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), formerly known as preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). 

Chromosomal abnormalities of the embryo, or embryo aneuploidies, are the most common cause of treatment failure following embryo transfer in IVF. The proportion of embryos affected with aneuploidies significantly increases with advancing maternal age: 40% to 50% of blastocysts in women younger than age 35 and about 90% of blastocysts in women older than age 42.8 The premise with PGT-A is to identify these aneuploid embryos and increase the chances of success per embryo transfer by transferring euploid embryos. 

Continue to: That concept was initially applied...

 

 

That concept was initially applied to cleavage-stage embryos through the use of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technology to interrogate a maximum of 5 to 9 chromosomes in a single cell (single blastomere); however, although initial results from observational studies were encouraging, subsequent randomized controlled studies unexpectedly showed a reduction in pregnancy rates.9 This was attributed to several factors, including biopsy-related damage to the cleavage-stage embryo, inability of FISH technology to assess aneuploidies of more than 5 to 9 chromosomes, mosaicism, and technical limitations associated with single-cell analysis. 

Second-generation PGT-A testing has promise, and limitations 

The newer PGT-A tests the embryos at the blastocyst stage by using biopsy samples from the trophectoderm (which will form the future placenta); this is expected to spare the inner cell mass ([ICM] which will give rise to the embryo proper) from biopsy-related injury. 

On the genetics side, newer technologies, such as array comparative genomic hybridization, single nucleotide polymorphism arrays, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and next-generation sequencing, offer the opportunity to assess all 24 chromosomes in a single biopsy specimen. Although a detailed discussion of these testing platforms is beyond the scope of this Update, certain points are worth mentioning. All these technologies require some form of genetic material amplification (most commonly whole genome amplification or multiplex polymerase chain reaction) to increase the relatively scant amount of DNA obtained from a sample of 4 to 6 cells. These amplification techniques have limitations that can subsequently impact the validity of the test results. 

Furthermore, there is no consistency in depth of coverage for various parts of the genome, and subchromosomal (segmental) copy number variations below 3 to 5 Mb may not be detected. The threshold used in bioinformatics algorithms employed to interpret the raw data is subject to several biases and is not consistent among laboratories. As a result, the same sample assessed in different laboratories can potentially yield different results. 

In addition to these technical limitations, mosaicism can pose another biologic limitation, as the biopsied trophectoderm cells may not accurately represent the chromosomal makeup of the ICM. Also, an embryo may be able to undergo self-correction during subsequent stages of development, and therefore even a documented trophectoderm abnormality at the blastocyst stage may not necessarily preclude that embryo from developing into a healthy baby. 

Standardization is needed. Despite widespread promotion of PGT-A, well-designed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have not yet consistently shown its benefits in improving pregnancy rates or reducing miscarriage rates. Although the initial small RCTs in a selected group of good prognosis patients suggested a beneficial effect in ongoing pregnancy rates per transfer, the largest multicenter RCT to date did not show any improvement in pregnancy rates or reduction in miscarriage rates.10 In that study, a post hoc subgroup analysis suggested a possible beneficial effect in women aged 35 to 40. However, those results must be validated and reproduced with randomization at the start of stimulation, with the primary outcome being the live birth rate per initiated cycle, instead of per transfer, before PGT-A can be adopted universally in clinical practice. 

Continue to: With all the above considerations...

 

 

With all the above considerations, the ASRM has appropriately concluded that "the value of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) as a screening test for IVF patients has yet to be determined."11 

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
Standardization of clinical and laboratory protocols and additional studies to assess the effects of PGT-A on live birth rates per initiated cycles are recommended before this new technology is widely adopted in routine clinical practice. In our practice, we routinely offer and perform extended culture to blastocyst stage and standard morphologic assessment. After a thorough counseling on the current status of PGT-A, about 15% to 20% of our patients opt to undergo PGT-A.
References
  1. United Nations website. General Assembly resolution 217A: Declaration of human rights. December 10, 1948. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declara tion-human-rights/. Accessed January 11, 2019. 
  2. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, et al. The international glossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:393-406. 
  3. US Department of Health and Human Services Office on Women's Health website. Infertility. https://www.womenshealth.gov/a-z-topics/infertility. Accessed January 24, 2019. 
  4. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, et al; International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology, World Health Organization. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1520-1524. 
  5. RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association website. Opposing personhood: Resolve fights to keep fertility medical treatments legal in the US. https://resolve.org/get-involved/advocate-for-access/our-issues/opposing-personhood/. Accessed January 11, 2019. 
  6. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology website. National summary report. 2016 Preliminary national data. https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?reportingYear=2016 . Accessed January 12, 2019. 
  7. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology website. National summary report 2015. https://www.sartcorsonline,com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx ?reportingYear=2015. Accessed January 12, 2019. 
  8. Harton GL, Munne S, Surrey M, et al; PGD Practitioners Group. Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1695-1703. 
  9. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:9-17 
  10. Munne S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, et al. Global multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing single embryo transfer with embryo selected by preimplantation genetic screening using next-generation sequencing versus morphologic assessment [abstract O-43]. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(suppl):e19. 
  11. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:429-436.
References
  1. United Nations website. General Assembly resolution 217A: Declaration of human rights. December 10, 1948. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declara tion-human-rights/. Accessed January 11, 2019. 
  2. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, et al. The international glossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:393-406. 
  3. US Department of Health and Human Services Office on Women's Health website. Infertility. https://www.womenshealth.gov/a-z-topics/infertility. Accessed January 24, 2019. 
  4. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, et al; International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology, World Health Organization. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1520-1524. 
  5. RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association website. Opposing personhood: Resolve fights to keep fertility medical treatments legal in the US. https://resolve.org/get-involved/advocate-for-access/our-issues/opposing-personhood/. Accessed January 11, 2019. 
  6. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology website. National summary report. 2016 Preliminary national data. https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?reportingYear=2016 . Accessed January 12, 2019. 
  7. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology website. National summary report 2015. https://www.sartcorsonline,com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx ?reportingYear=2015. Accessed January 12, 2019. 
  8. Harton GL, Munne S, Surrey M, et al; PGD Practitioners Group. Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1695-1703. 
  9. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:9-17 
  10. Munne S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, et al. Global multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing single embryo transfer with embryo selected by preimplantation genetic screening using next-generation sequencing versus morphologic assessment [abstract O-43]. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(suppl):e19. 
  11. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:429-436.
Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Page Number
18-24
Page Number
18-24
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
Clinical Review
Gate On Date
Tue, 02/05/2019 - 15:30
Un-Gate On Date
Tue, 02/05/2019 - 15:30
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Tue, 02/05/2019 - 15:30
Article PDF Media

Uterine aspiration: From OR to office

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 02/11/2019 - 11:35

CASE Patient with early pregnancy failure opts for surgical management

A 36-year-old woman (G3P2) at 9 weeks from her last menstrual period presents for an initial obstetric examination. On transvaginal ultrasound, her ObGyn notes an embryo measuring 9 weeks without cardiac activity. The ObGyn informs her of the early pregnancy failure diagnosis and offers bereavement support, and then reviews the available options: expectant management with follow-up in 2 weeks, medical management with mifepristone and misoprostol, and surgical management with a dilation and curettage (D&C). The patient is interested in expedited treatment and thus selects D&C, and the staff books the next available operating room (OR) slot for her the subsequent week. Over the weekend, the patient calls to report heavy bleeding and passage of clots, and the ObGyn’s practice partner takes her to the OR for a D&C for incomplete abortion.

Early pregnancy failure occurs in about 1 in 5 pregnancies. Treatment options include expectant, medical, or surgical management. Surgical management is classically offered in the OR via D&C. With the advent of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) using a 60-mL handheld syringe aspirator, office-based treatment of pregnancy failure has become more widely available.

In this article we make the case for why, in appropriate clinical situations, office-based uterine aspiration, compared with uterine aspiration in the OR, should be the standard for surgical management of early pregnancy failure, for these reasons:

1. equivalent safety profile

2. reduced costs, and 

3. patient-centered characteristics.

1 Office-based procedures are safe

Suction curettage is one of the most common surgical procedures for a woman to undergo during her lifetime, and it has an excellent safety profile. Authors of a recent systematic review found that major surgical complications, including transfusion and uterine perforation requiring repair, occurred in less than 0.1% of all uterine aspiration procedures.1 Importantly, this complication rate did not differ by inpatient or outpatient site of procedure.

Anesthesia-related complications at the time of aspiration also are extremely rare, and they are less likely to occur in the office setting than in surgical centers or hospital-based clinics (<0.2% and <0.5%, respectively).1 This may be a result of the types of anesthesia offered at varying locations, given that local analgesia or moderate sedation is likely used in office-based procedures while deep sedation or general anesthesia may be employed at other practice locations.

Studies specifically designed to determine the safety of suction aspiration by practice location have yielded similar results. Researchers who conducted a systematic review comparing the safety of procedures done at ambulatory surgical centers with office-based procedures found no difference in safety between procedures performed in these 2 settings.2 These findings were confirmed by results from a large retrospective cohort study that reviewed more than 50,000 aspiration procedures performed in ambulatory surgical centers versus private offices.3 In that study, only 0.32% of women had any major adverse event, and there were no statistically significant differences in complication rates between settings.3

Complication rates based on procedure type are similar for MVA and electric suction aspiration. Early studies revealed no difference in the need for reaspiration or other complications for MVA compared with electric suction.4 This was later confirmed by a systematic review that found no significant differences in safety by type of suction overall, and a possible trend toward fewer uterine perforations with MVA.5 When procedures were assessed by gestational age, additional trends toward the safety of MVA emerged. For example, in procedures performed at less than 50 days’ gestational age, estimated blood loss and severe pain occurred less commonly during procedures performed using MVA.5

Continue to: 2 Office-based procedures are less expensive

 

 

2 Office-based procedures are less expensive

There has been a trend in recent decades to obtain cost savings by moving appropriately selected gynecologic procedures from the operative suite to the outpatient setting. Because of MVA’s minimal up-front and ongoing costs, office-based suction aspiration is one of the most cost-effective procedures performed in the outpatient setting.

Dalton and colleagues, for example, demonstrated that in women diagnosed with early pregnancy failure, suction curettage is 50% less expensive when performed in the office as compared to in the operating suite.6 Likewise, in a cohort of patients who presented to the emergency department with an incomplete abortion, Blumenthal and colleagues showed a 41% procedural cost reduction by offering D&C in the outpatient setting instead of the OR.7 Waiting times and mean procedure times also were reduced by nearly half.

Recent studies have broadened cost analyses beyond the comparison of inpatient versus outpatient procedures. A multicenter trial of women with first-trimester pregnancy failure compared the costs of medication management with those of surgical procedures; as expected, the cost of D&C in the OR was significantly more expensive than medication management.8 However, MVA in the office was less expensive than medication management, due largely to the increased cost of managing medication failures.

In addition, a recent, well-designed decision model study demonstrated that offering women with early pregnancy failure a greater array of management options decreases costs.9 The study compared the costs when women were offered the most common options, expectant management or uterine evacuation in the OR, versus the costs when additional options were also offered. When options were expanded to include medication management and MVA in the office, costs decreased by nearly 20% overall.9

3 Office-based procedures are more patient centered

The benefits of surgical management of an early pregnancy failure include very high success rates (98%) and convenient timing. Among women who elect surgical management, a desire to expedite the process in a predictable fashion is a common factor in their decision.10,11 It is unsurprising then that 68% of patients will select an office-based procedure if they do not perceive that the clinician has a setting preference.6

When surgical management is performed in the OR, scheduling delays are common. Such delays can be clinically important: Women progressing to a miscarriage while awaiting surgical treatment may be at risk for urgent, unplanned interval procedures for incomplete abortion, and they may be dissatisfied with the inability to access the desired management. While women are highly satisfied after treatment for early pregnancy failure in general,6 OR treatment can cause dissatisfaction because patients miss more work days or need assistance at home.12 In a cross-sectional study, patients who elected office-based aspiration reported less delay to treatment (less than 2 hours) compared with women who elected OR procedures (more than 12 hours), and shorter time to procedure initiation was a satisfier.13

Women also note fear of the hospital setting and general anesthesia, and they tend to see hospital-based services as more invasive.11 Clinicians can offer anesthesia in the outpatient setting with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications and a paracervical block, oral sedation with an anxiolytic, or in some cases intravenous (IV) sedation with conscious sedation.

Continue to: Our process for office-based uterine aspiration

 

 

Our process for office-based uterine aspiration

We follow the step-by-step process outlined below for performing office-based uterine aspiration. Clinicians should review their clinic’s protocols prior to implementing such a plan.

Review the patient history and pregnancy dating. Patients with serious medical conditions, such as history of postabortion hemorrhage or a bleeding disorder, may not be appropriate candidates for an office-based procedure. We perform bedside ultrasonography to confirm pregnancy dating and diagnosis of pregnancy failure.

Review consent for the procedure and sedation. Risks of office-based uterine aspiration are the same as those for D&C: bleeding, uterine perforation, and failure to fully evacuate the uterus. Benefits include rapid, safe evacuation of the pregnancy. Alternative treatments include expectant or medical management.

For pain management, we start by discussing expectations with the patient. Providing general anesthesia in the outpatient setting is not safe; many women are satisfied, however, with local anesthesia with or without sedation.

Local anesthesia may be given using a paracervical block with 2 mL of 1% lidocaine at the tenaculum site followed by 18 mL divided between the 4 and 8 o’clock positions. In our practice, we are trained providers of conscious sedation, so additionally we offer IV fentanyl 100 μg and IV midazolam 2 mg given prior to the procedure.

Provide antibiotic prophylaxis. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Family Planning recommend doxycycline 200 mg orally as a preoperative prophylaxis for office-based uterine aspiration.14,15 Metronidazole is an acceptable alternative for patients who have medication allergies.

Prepare the surgical field. To complete this procedure, you will need the following equipment:

  • one MVA kit that includes an aspirator, curettes, and dilators (FIGURE)
  • 20 mL 1% lidocaine, divided into two 10-mL syringes with a 22-gauge 3.5-inch spinal needle
  • speculum
  • cervical antiseptic prep
  • single-tooth tenaculum
  • ring forceps.

Perform the MVA procedure. A full description of how to perform the MVA procedure using the Ipas MVA Plus Aspirator device is available online at http://provideaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/4Performing-MVA-Us ing-the-Ipas-MVA-Plus.pdf.

A good option for many women

A D&C in the OR remains an appropriate option for patients who are clinically unstable due to heavy vaginal bleeding. With highly sensitive home urine pregnancy tests, pregnancies often are diagnosed before clinically apparent miscarriage. In fact, many such patients are diagnosed with pregnancy failure in the office, as was our patient in the case scenario. For such women, office-based management of early pregnancy failure is preferred because it is safe, cost-effective, and patient centered.


The “Break This Practice Habit” series is spearheaded by Dr. Lauren Demosthenes, who makes overarching high value cost decisions in her role as Medical Director of High Value Care and Innovation, Department of ObGyn at Greenville Health System in Greenville, South Carolina. Watch for quarterly case presentations of low value, low evidence practices that should be questioned in current day, followed by reasons why that practice should be abandoned. If you would like to contribute to this series, please submit your query to Dr. Demosthenes at [email protected].

 

References
  1. White K, Carroll E, Grossman D. Complications from first-trimester aspiration abortion: a systematic review of the literature. Contraception. 2015;92:422-438.
  2. Berglas NF, Battistelli MF, Nicholson WK, et al. The effect of facility characteristics on patient safety, patient experience, and service availability for procedures in non-hospital affiliated outpatient settings: a systematic review. PloS One. 2018;13:e0190975.
  3. Roberts SC, Upadhyay UD, Liu G, et al. Association of facility type with procedural-related morbidities and adverse events among patients undergoing induced abortions. JAMA. 2018;319:2497-2506.
  4. Goldberg AB, Dean G, Kang MS, et al. Manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for early first-trimester abortion: a controlled study of complication rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:101-107.
  5. Wen J, Cai QY, Deng F, et al. Manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for first-trimester abortion: a systematic review. BJOG. 2008;115:5-13.
  6. Dalton VK, Harris L, Weisman CS, et al. Patient preferences, satisfaction, and resource use in office evacuation of early pregnancy failure. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:103-110.
  7. Blumenthal PD, Remsburg RE. A time and cost analysis of the management of incomplete abortion with manual vacuum aspiration. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1994;45:261-267.
  8. Rausch M, Lorch S, Chung K, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of surgical versus medical management of early pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:355-360.
  9. Dalton VK, Liang A, Hutton DW, et al. Beyond usual care: the economic consequences of expanding treatment options in early pregnancy loss. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:177.e1-6.
  10. Schreiber CA, Chavez V, Whittaker PG, et al. Treatment decisions at the time of miscarriage diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:1347-1356.
  11. Smith LF, Frost J, Levitas R, et al. Women’s experiences of three early miscarriage management options: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2006;56:198-205.
  12. Edwards S, Tureck R, Fredrick M, et al. Patient acceptability of manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for early pregnancy loss. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007;16:1429-1436.
  13. Dodge LE, Hofler LG, Hacker MR, et al. Patient satisfaction and wait times following outpatient manual vacuum aspiration compared to electric vacuum aspiration in the operating room: a cross-sectional study. Contracept Reprod Med. 2017;2:18.
  14. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 195: Prevention of infection after gynecologic procedures. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e172-e189.
  15. Achilles SL, Reeves MF; Society of Family Planning. Prevention of infection after induced abortion. Contraception. 2011;837:295–309.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Thaxton is Assistant Professor, Department of
Women’s Health, University of Texas at Austin.


Dr. Tristan is Assistant Professor and Residency
Program Director, Department of Women’s
Health, University of Texas at Austin.

The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this
article.

Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
38, 40, 42, 44
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Thaxton is Assistant Professor, Department of
Women’s Health, University of Texas at Austin.


Dr. Tristan is Assistant Professor and Residency
Program Director, Department of Women’s
Health, University of Texas at Austin.

The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this
article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Thaxton is Assistant Professor, Department of
Women’s Health, University of Texas at Austin.


Dr. Tristan is Assistant Professor and Residency
Program Director, Department of Women’s
Health, University of Texas at Austin.

The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this
article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

CASE Patient with early pregnancy failure opts for surgical management

A 36-year-old woman (G3P2) at 9 weeks from her last menstrual period presents for an initial obstetric examination. On transvaginal ultrasound, her ObGyn notes an embryo measuring 9 weeks without cardiac activity. The ObGyn informs her of the early pregnancy failure diagnosis and offers bereavement support, and then reviews the available options: expectant management with follow-up in 2 weeks, medical management with mifepristone and misoprostol, and surgical management with a dilation and curettage (D&C). The patient is interested in expedited treatment and thus selects D&C, and the staff books the next available operating room (OR) slot for her the subsequent week. Over the weekend, the patient calls to report heavy bleeding and passage of clots, and the ObGyn’s practice partner takes her to the OR for a D&C for incomplete abortion.

Early pregnancy failure occurs in about 1 in 5 pregnancies. Treatment options include expectant, medical, or surgical management. Surgical management is classically offered in the OR via D&C. With the advent of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) using a 60-mL handheld syringe aspirator, office-based treatment of pregnancy failure has become more widely available.

In this article we make the case for why, in appropriate clinical situations, office-based uterine aspiration, compared with uterine aspiration in the OR, should be the standard for surgical management of early pregnancy failure, for these reasons:

1. equivalent safety profile

2. reduced costs, and 

3. patient-centered characteristics.

1 Office-based procedures are safe

Suction curettage is one of the most common surgical procedures for a woman to undergo during her lifetime, and it has an excellent safety profile. Authors of a recent systematic review found that major surgical complications, including transfusion and uterine perforation requiring repair, occurred in less than 0.1% of all uterine aspiration procedures.1 Importantly, this complication rate did not differ by inpatient or outpatient site of procedure.

Anesthesia-related complications at the time of aspiration also are extremely rare, and they are less likely to occur in the office setting than in surgical centers or hospital-based clinics (<0.2% and <0.5%, respectively).1 This may be a result of the types of anesthesia offered at varying locations, given that local analgesia or moderate sedation is likely used in office-based procedures while deep sedation or general anesthesia may be employed at other practice locations.

Studies specifically designed to determine the safety of suction aspiration by practice location have yielded similar results. Researchers who conducted a systematic review comparing the safety of procedures done at ambulatory surgical centers with office-based procedures found no difference in safety between procedures performed in these 2 settings.2 These findings were confirmed by results from a large retrospective cohort study that reviewed more than 50,000 aspiration procedures performed in ambulatory surgical centers versus private offices.3 In that study, only 0.32% of women had any major adverse event, and there were no statistically significant differences in complication rates between settings.3

Complication rates based on procedure type are similar for MVA and electric suction aspiration. Early studies revealed no difference in the need for reaspiration or other complications for MVA compared with electric suction.4 This was later confirmed by a systematic review that found no significant differences in safety by type of suction overall, and a possible trend toward fewer uterine perforations with MVA.5 When procedures were assessed by gestational age, additional trends toward the safety of MVA emerged. For example, in procedures performed at less than 50 days’ gestational age, estimated blood loss and severe pain occurred less commonly during procedures performed using MVA.5

Continue to: 2 Office-based procedures are less expensive

 

 

2 Office-based procedures are less expensive

There has been a trend in recent decades to obtain cost savings by moving appropriately selected gynecologic procedures from the operative suite to the outpatient setting. Because of MVA’s minimal up-front and ongoing costs, office-based suction aspiration is one of the most cost-effective procedures performed in the outpatient setting.

Dalton and colleagues, for example, demonstrated that in women diagnosed with early pregnancy failure, suction curettage is 50% less expensive when performed in the office as compared to in the operating suite.6 Likewise, in a cohort of patients who presented to the emergency department with an incomplete abortion, Blumenthal and colleagues showed a 41% procedural cost reduction by offering D&C in the outpatient setting instead of the OR.7 Waiting times and mean procedure times also were reduced by nearly half.

Recent studies have broadened cost analyses beyond the comparison of inpatient versus outpatient procedures. A multicenter trial of women with first-trimester pregnancy failure compared the costs of medication management with those of surgical procedures; as expected, the cost of D&C in the OR was significantly more expensive than medication management.8 However, MVA in the office was less expensive than medication management, due largely to the increased cost of managing medication failures.

In addition, a recent, well-designed decision model study demonstrated that offering women with early pregnancy failure a greater array of management options decreases costs.9 The study compared the costs when women were offered the most common options, expectant management or uterine evacuation in the OR, versus the costs when additional options were also offered. When options were expanded to include medication management and MVA in the office, costs decreased by nearly 20% overall.9

3 Office-based procedures are more patient centered

The benefits of surgical management of an early pregnancy failure include very high success rates (98%) and convenient timing. Among women who elect surgical management, a desire to expedite the process in a predictable fashion is a common factor in their decision.10,11 It is unsurprising then that 68% of patients will select an office-based procedure if they do not perceive that the clinician has a setting preference.6

When surgical management is performed in the OR, scheduling delays are common. Such delays can be clinically important: Women progressing to a miscarriage while awaiting surgical treatment may be at risk for urgent, unplanned interval procedures for incomplete abortion, and they may be dissatisfied with the inability to access the desired management. While women are highly satisfied after treatment for early pregnancy failure in general,6 OR treatment can cause dissatisfaction because patients miss more work days or need assistance at home.12 In a cross-sectional study, patients who elected office-based aspiration reported less delay to treatment (less than 2 hours) compared with women who elected OR procedures (more than 12 hours), and shorter time to procedure initiation was a satisfier.13

Women also note fear of the hospital setting and general anesthesia, and they tend to see hospital-based services as more invasive.11 Clinicians can offer anesthesia in the outpatient setting with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications and a paracervical block, oral sedation with an anxiolytic, or in some cases intravenous (IV) sedation with conscious sedation.

Continue to: Our process for office-based uterine aspiration

 

 

Our process for office-based uterine aspiration

We follow the step-by-step process outlined below for performing office-based uterine aspiration. Clinicians should review their clinic’s protocols prior to implementing such a plan.

Review the patient history and pregnancy dating. Patients with serious medical conditions, such as history of postabortion hemorrhage or a bleeding disorder, may not be appropriate candidates for an office-based procedure. We perform bedside ultrasonography to confirm pregnancy dating and diagnosis of pregnancy failure.

Review consent for the procedure and sedation. Risks of office-based uterine aspiration are the same as those for D&C: bleeding, uterine perforation, and failure to fully evacuate the uterus. Benefits include rapid, safe evacuation of the pregnancy. Alternative treatments include expectant or medical management.

For pain management, we start by discussing expectations with the patient. Providing general anesthesia in the outpatient setting is not safe; many women are satisfied, however, with local anesthesia with or without sedation.

Local anesthesia may be given using a paracervical block with 2 mL of 1% lidocaine at the tenaculum site followed by 18 mL divided between the 4 and 8 o’clock positions. In our practice, we are trained providers of conscious sedation, so additionally we offer IV fentanyl 100 μg and IV midazolam 2 mg given prior to the procedure.

Provide antibiotic prophylaxis. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Family Planning recommend doxycycline 200 mg orally as a preoperative prophylaxis for office-based uterine aspiration.14,15 Metronidazole is an acceptable alternative for patients who have medication allergies.

Prepare the surgical field. To complete this procedure, you will need the following equipment:

  • one MVA kit that includes an aspirator, curettes, and dilators (FIGURE)
  • 20 mL 1% lidocaine, divided into two 10-mL syringes with a 22-gauge 3.5-inch spinal needle
  • speculum
  • cervical antiseptic prep
  • single-tooth tenaculum
  • ring forceps.

Perform the MVA procedure. A full description of how to perform the MVA procedure using the Ipas MVA Plus Aspirator device is available online at http://provideaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/4Performing-MVA-Us ing-the-Ipas-MVA-Plus.pdf.

A good option for many women

A D&C in the OR remains an appropriate option for patients who are clinically unstable due to heavy vaginal bleeding. With highly sensitive home urine pregnancy tests, pregnancies often are diagnosed before clinically apparent miscarriage. In fact, many such patients are diagnosed with pregnancy failure in the office, as was our patient in the case scenario. For such women, office-based management of early pregnancy failure is preferred because it is safe, cost-effective, and patient centered.


The “Break This Practice Habit” series is spearheaded by Dr. Lauren Demosthenes, who makes overarching high value cost decisions in her role as Medical Director of High Value Care and Innovation, Department of ObGyn at Greenville Health System in Greenville, South Carolina. Watch for quarterly case presentations of low value, low evidence practices that should be questioned in current day, followed by reasons why that practice should be abandoned. If you would like to contribute to this series, please submit your query to Dr. Demosthenes at [email protected].

 

CASE Patient with early pregnancy failure opts for surgical management

A 36-year-old woman (G3P2) at 9 weeks from her last menstrual period presents for an initial obstetric examination. On transvaginal ultrasound, her ObGyn notes an embryo measuring 9 weeks without cardiac activity. The ObGyn informs her of the early pregnancy failure diagnosis and offers bereavement support, and then reviews the available options: expectant management with follow-up in 2 weeks, medical management with mifepristone and misoprostol, and surgical management with a dilation and curettage (D&C). The patient is interested in expedited treatment and thus selects D&C, and the staff books the next available operating room (OR) slot for her the subsequent week. Over the weekend, the patient calls to report heavy bleeding and passage of clots, and the ObGyn’s practice partner takes her to the OR for a D&C for incomplete abortion.

Early pregnancy failure occurs in about 1 in 5 pregnancies. Treatment options include expectant, medical, or surgical management. Surgical management is classically offered in the OR via D&C. With the advent of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) using a 60-mL handheld syringe aspirator, office-based treatment of pregnancy failure has become more widely available.

In this article we make the case for why, in appropriate clinical situations, office-based uterine aspiration, compared with uterine aspiration in the OR, should be the standard for surgical management of early pregnancy failure, for these reasons:

1. equivalent safety profile

2. reduced costs, and 

3. patient-centered characteristics.

1 Office-based procedures are safe

Suction curettage is one of the most common surgical procedures for a woman to undergo during her lifetime, and it has an excellent safety profile. Authors of a recent systematic review found that major surgical complications, including transfusion and uterine perforation requiring repair, occurred in less than 0.1% of all uterine aspiration procedures.1 Importantly, this complication rate did not differ by inpatient or outpatient site of procedure.

Anesthesia-related complications at the time of aspiration also are extremely rare, and they are less likely to occur in the office setting than in surgical centers or hospital-based clinics (<0.2% and <0.5%, respectively).1 This may be a result of the types of anesthesia offered at varying locations, given that local analgesia or moderate sedation is likely used in office-based procedures while deep sedation or general anesthesia may be employed at other practice locations.

Studies specifically designed to determine the safety of suction aspiration by practice location have yielded similar results. Researchers who conducted a systematic review comparing the safety of procedures done at ambulatory surgical centers with office-based procedures found no difference in safety between procedures performed in these 2 settings.2 These findings were confirmed by results from a large retrospective cohort study that reviewed more than 50,000 aspiration procedures performed in ambulatory surgical centers versus private offices.3 In that study, only 0.32% of women had any major adverse event, and there were no statistically significant differences in complication rates between settings.3

Complication rates based on procedure type are similar for MVA and electric suction aspiration. Early studies revealed no difference in the need for reaspiration or other complications for MVA compared with electric suction.4 This was later confirmed by a systematic review that found no significant differences in safety by type of suction overall, and a possible trend toward fewer uterine perforations with MVA.5 When procedures were assessed by gestational age, additional trends toward the safety of MVA emerged. For example, in procedures performed at less than 50 days’ gestational age, estimated blood loss and severe pain occurred less commonly during procedures performed using MVA.5

Continue to: 2 Office-based procedures are less expensive

 

 

2 Office-based procedures are less expensive

There has been a trend in recent decades to obtain cost savings by moving appropriately selected gynecologic procedures from the operative suite to the outpatient setting. Because of MVA’s minimal up-front and ongoing costs, office-based suction aspiration is one of the most cost-effective procedures performed in the outpatient setting.

Dalton and colleagues, for example, demonstrated that in women diagnosed with early pregnancy failure, suction curettage is 50% less expensive when performed in the office as compared to in the operating suite.6 Likewise, in a cohort of patients who presented to the emergency department with an incomplete abortion, Blumenthal and colleagues showed a 41% procedural cost reduction by offering D&C in the outpatient setting instead of the OR.7 Waiting times and mean procedure times also were reduced by nearly half.

Recent studies have broadened cost analyses beyond the comparison of inpatient versus outpatient procedures. A multicenter trial of women with first-trimester pregnancy failure compared the costs of medication management with those of surgical procedures; as expected, the cost of D&C in the OR was significantly more expensive than medication management.8 However, MVA in the office was less expensive than medication management, due largely to the increased cost of managing medication failures.

In addition, a recent, well-designed decision model study demonstrated that offering women with early pregnancy failure a greater array of management options decreases costs.9 The study compared the costs when women were offered the most common options, expectant management or uterine evacuation in the OR, versus the costs when additional options were also offered. When options were expanded to include medication management and MVA in the office, costs decreased by nearly 20% overall.9

3 Office-based procedures are more patient centered

The benefits of surgical management of an early pregnancy failure include very high success rates (98%) and convenient timing. Among women who elect surgical management, a desire to expedite the process in a predictable fashion is a common factor in their decision.10,11 It is unsurprising then that 68% of patients will select an office-based procedure if they do not perceive that the clinician has a setting preference.6

When surgical management is performed in the OR, scheduling delays are common. Such delays can be clinically important: Women progressing to a miscarriage while awaiting surgical treatment may be at risk for urgent, unplanned interval procedures for incomplete abortion, and they may be dissatisfied with the inability to access the desired management. While women are highly satisfied after treatment for early pregnancy failure in general,6 OR treatment can cause dissatisfaction because patients miss more work days or need assistance at home.12 In a cross-sectional study, patients who elected office-based aspiration reported less delay to treatment (less than 2 hours) compared with women who elected OR procedures (more than 12 hours), and shorter time to procedure initiation was a satisfier.13

Women also note fear of the hospital setting and general anesthesia, and they tend to see hospital-based services as more invasive.11 Clinicians can offer anesthesia in the outpatient setting with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications and a paracervical block, oral sedation with an anxiolytic, or in some cases intravenous (IV) sedation with conscious sedation.

Continue to: Our process for office-based uterine aspiration

 

 

Our process for office-based uterine aspiration

We follow the step-by-step process outlined below for performing office-based uterine aspiration. Clinicians should review their clinic’s protocols prior to implementing such a plan.

Review the patient history and pregnancy dating. Patients with serious medical conditions, such as history of postabortion hemorrhage or a bleeding disorder, may not be appropriate candidates for an office-based procedure. We perform bedside ultrasonography to confirm pregnancy dating and diagnosis of pregnancy failure.

Review consent for the procedure and sedation. Risks of office-based uterine aspiration are the same as those for D&C: bleeding, uterine perforation, and failure to fully evacuate the uterus. Benefits include rapid, safe evacuation of the pregnancy. Alternative treatments include expectant or medical management.

For pain management, we start by discussing expectations with the patient. Providing general anesthesia in the outpatient setting is not safe; many women are satisfied, however, with local anesthesia with or without sedation.

Local anesthesia may be given using a paracervical block with 2 mL of 1% lidocaine at the tenaculum site followed by 18 mL divided between the 4 and 8 o’clock positions. In our practice, we are trained providers of conscious sedation, so additionally we offer IV fentanyl 100 μg and IV midazolam 2 mg given prior to the procedure.

Provide antibiotic prophylaxis. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Family Planning recommend doxycycline 200 mg orally as a preoperative prophylaxis for office-based uterine aspiration.14,15 Metronidazole is an acceptable alternative for patients who have medication allergies.

Prepare the surgical field. To complete this procedure, you will need the following equipment:

  • one MVA kit that includes an aspirator, curettes, and dilators (FIGURE)
  • 20 mL 1% lidocaine, divided into two 10-mL syringes with a 22-gauge 3.5-inch spinal needle
  • speculum
  • cervical antiseptic prep
  • single-tooth tenaculum
  • ring forceps.

Perform the MVA procedure. A full description of how to perform the MVA procedure using the Ipas MVA Plus Aspirator device is available online at http://provideaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/4Performing-MVA-Us ing-the-Ipas-MVA-Plus.pdf.

A good option for many women

A D&C in the OR remains an appropriate option for patients who are clinically unstable due to heavy vaginal bleeding. With highly sensitive home urine pregnancy tests, pregnancies often are diagnosed before clinically apparent miscarriage. In fact, many such patients are diagnosed with pregnancy failure in the office, as was our patient in the case scenario. For such women, office-based management of early pregnancy failure is preferred because it is safe, cost-effective, and patient centered.


The “Break This Practice Habit” series is spearheaded by Dr. Lauren Demosthenes, who makes overarching high value cost decisions in her role as Medical Director of High Value Care and Innovation, Department of ObGyn at Greenville Health System in Greenville, South Carolina. Watch for quarterly case presentations of low value, low evidence practices that should be questioned in current day, followed by reasons why that practice should be abandoned. If you would like to contribute to this series, please submit your query to Dr. Demosthenes at [email protected].

 

References
  1. White K, Carroll E, Grossman D. Complications from first-trimester aspiration abortion: a systematic review of the literature. Contraception. 2015;92:422-438.
  2. Berglas NF, Battistelli MF, Nicholson WK, et al. The effect of facility characteristics on patient safety, patient experience, and service availability for procedures in non-hospital affiliated outpatient settings: a systematic review. PloS One. 2018;13:e0190975.
  3. Roberts SC, Upadhyay UD, Liu G, et al. Association of facility type with procedural-related morbidities and adverse events among patients undergoing induced abortions. JAMA. 2018;319:2497-2506.
  4. Goldberg AB, Dean G, Kang MS, et al. Manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for early first-trimester abortion: a controlled study of complication rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:101-107.
  5. Wen J, Cai QY, Deng F, et al. Manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for first-trimester abortion: a systematic review. BJOG. 2008;115:5-13.
  6. Dalton VK, Harris L, Weisman CS, et al. Patient preferences, satisfaction, and resource use in office evacuation of early pregnancy failure. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:103-110.
  7. Blumenthal PD, Remsburg RE. A time and cost analysis of the management of incomplete abortion with manual vacuum aspiration. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1994;45:261-267.
  8. Rausch M, Lorch S, Chung K, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of surgical versus medical management of early pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:355-360.
  9. Dalton VK, Liang A, Hutton DW, et al. Beyond usual care: the economic consequences of expanding treatment options in early pregnancy loss. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:177.e1-6.
  10. Schreiber CA, Chavez V, Whittaker PG, et al. Treatment decisions at the time of miscarriage diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:1347-1356.
  11. Smith LF, Frost J, Levitas R, et al. Women’s experiences of three early miscarriage management options: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2006;56:198-205.
  12. Edwards S, Tureck R, Fredrick M, et al. Patient acceptability of manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for early pregnancy loss. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007;16:1429-1436.
  13. Dodge LE, Hofler LG, Hacker MR, et al. Patient satisfaction and wait times following outpatient manual vacuum aspiration compared to electric vacuum aspiration in the operating room: a cross-sectional study. Contracept Reprod Med. 2017;2:18.
  14. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 195: Prevention of infection after gynecologic procedures. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e172-e189.
  15. Achilles SL, Reeves MF; Society of Family Planning. Prevention of infection after induced abortion. Contraception. 2011;837:295–309.
References
  1. White K, Carroll E, Grossman D. Complications from first-trimester aspiration abortion: a systematic review of the literature. Contraception. 2015;92:422-438.
  2. Berglas NF, Battistelli MF, Nicholson WK, et al. The effect of facility characteristics on patient safety, patient experience, and service availability for procedures in non-hospital affiliated outpatient settings: a systematic review. PloS One. 2018;13:e0190975.
  3. Roberts SC, Upadhyay UD, Liu G, et al. Association of facility type with procedural-related morbidities and adverse events among patients undergoing induced abortions. JAMA. 2018;319:2497-2506.
  4. Goldberg AB, Dean G, Kang MS, et al. Manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for early first-trimester abortion: a controlled study of complication rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:101-107.
  5. Wen J, Cai QY, Deng F, et al. Manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for first-trimester abortion: a systematic review. BJOG. 2008;115:5-13.
  6. Dalton VK, Harris L, Weisman CS, et al. Patient preferences, satisfaction, and resource use in office evacuation of early pregnancy failure. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:103-110.
  7. Blumenthal PD, Remsburg RE. A time and cost analysis of the management of incomplete abortion with manual vacuum aspiration. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1994;45:261-267.
  8. Rausch M, Lorch S, Chung K, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of surgical versus medical management of early pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:355-360.
  9. Dalton VK, Liang A, Hutton DW, et al. Beyond usual care: the economic consequences of expanding treatment options in early pregnancy loss. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:177.e1-6.
  10. Schreiber CA, Chavez V, Whittaker PG, et al. Treatment decisions at the time of miscarriage diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:1347-1356.
  11. Smith LF, Frost J, Levitas R, et al. Women’s experiences of three early miscarriage management options: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2006;56:198-205.
  12. Edwards S, Tureck R, Fredrick M, et al. Patient acceptability of manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for early pregnancy loss. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007;16:1429-1436.
  13. Dodge LE, Hofler LG, Hacker MR, et al. Patient satisfaction and wait times following outpatient manual vacuum aspiration compared to electric vacuum aspiration in the operating room: a cross-sectional study. Contracept Reprod Med. 2017;2:18.
  14. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 195: Prevention of infection after gynecologic procedures. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e172-e189.
  15. Achilles SL, Reeves MF; Society of Family Planning. Prevention of infection after induced abortion. Contraception. 2011;837:295–309.
Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Page Number
38, 40, 42, 44
Page Number
38, 40, 42, 44
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
BREAK THIS PRACTICE HABIT
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

How do you feel about expectantly managing a well-dated pregnancy past 41 weeks’ gestation?

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 02/11/2019 - 10:43

Most people know that preterm birth is a major contributor to perinatal morbidity and mortality. Consequently, strict guidelines have been enforced to prevent non–medically indicated scheduled deliveries before 39 weeks’ gestation. Fewer people recognize that late-term birth is also an important and avoidable contributor to perinatal morbidity. To improve pregnancy outcomes, we may need enhanced guidelines about minimizing expectant management of pregnancy beyond 41 weeks’ gestation.

For the fetus, what is the optimal duration of a healthy pregnancy?

When pregnancy progresses past the date of the confinement, the risk of fetal or newborn injury or death increases, especially after 41 weeks’ gestation. Analysis of this risk, day by day, suggests that after 40 weeks’ and 3 days’ gestation there is no medical benefit to the fetus to remain in utero because, compared with induced delivery, expectant management of the pregnancy is associated with a greater rate of fetal and newborn morbidity and mortality.1

The fetal and newborn benefits of delivery, rather than expectant management, at term include: a decrease in stillbirth and perinatal death rates, a decrease in admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), a decrease in meconium-stained amniotic fluid and meconium aspiration syndrome, a decrease in low Apgar scores, and a decrease in problems related to uteroplacental insufficiency, including oligohydramnios.2 In a comprehensive meta-analysis, induction of labor at or beyond term reduced the risk of perinatal death or stillbirth by 67%, the risk of a 5-minute Apgar score below 7 by 30%, and the risk of NICU admission by 12%.2 The number of women that would need to be induced to prevent 1 perinatal death was estimated to be 426.2

Maternal benefits of avoiding late-term pregnancy

The maternal benefits of avoiding continuing a pregnancy past 41 weeks’ gestation include a reduction in labor dystocia and the risk of cesarean delivery (CD).2,3 In one clinical trial, 3,407 women with low-risk pregnancy were randomly assigned to induction of labor at 41 weeks’ gestation or expectant management, awaiting the onset of labor with serial antenatal monitoring (nonstress tests and assessment of amniotic fluid volume).4 The CD rate was lower among the women randomized to induction of labor at 41 weeks’ (21.2% vs 24.5% in the expectant management group, P = .03). The rate of meconium-stained fluid was lower in the induction of labor group (25.0% vs 28.7%, P = .009). The rate of CD due to fetal distress also was lower in the induction of labor group (5.7% vs 8.3%, P = .003). The risks of maternal postpartum hemorrhage, sepsis, and endometritis did not differ between the groups. There were 2 stillbirths in the expectant management group (2/1,706) and none in the induction of labor group (0/1,701). There were no neonatal deaths in this study.4

Obstetric management, including accurate dating of pregnancy and membrane sweeping at term, can help to reduce the risk that a pregnancy will progress beyond 41 weeks’ gestation.5

Continue to: Routinely use ultrasound to accurately establish gestational age

 

 

Routinely use ultrasound to accurately establish gestational age

First trimester ultrasound should be offered to all pregnant women because it is a more accurate assessment of gestational age and will result in fewer pregnancies that are thought to be at or beyond 41 weeks’ gestation.5 In a meta-analysis of 8 studies, including 25,516 women, early ultrasonography reduced the rate of intervention for postterm pregnancy by 42% (31/1,000 to 18/1,000 pregnant women).6

Membrane sweeping (or stripping)

Membrane sweeping, which causes the release of prostaglandins, has been reported to reduce the risk of late-term and postterm induction of labor.7,8 In the most recent Cochrane review on the topic, sweeping membranes reduced the rate of induction of labor at 41 weeks by 41% and at 42 weeks by 72%.7 To avoid one induction of labor for late-term or postterm pregnancy, sweeping of membranes would need to be performed on 8 women. In a recent meta-analysis, membrane sweeping reduced the rate of induction of labor for postmaturity by 48%.9

Membrane sweeping is associated with pain and an increased rate of vaginal bleeding.10 It does not increase the rate of maternal or neonatal infection, however. It also does not reduce the CD rate. In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends that all clinicians have a discussion of membrane sweeping with their patients at 38 weeks’ gestation and offer membrane stripping at 40 weeks to increase the rate of timely spontaneous labor and to avoid the risks of prolonged pregnancy.11 Of note, in one randomized study of women planning a trial of labor after CD, membrane sweeping did not impact the duration of pregnancy, onset of spontaneous labor, or the CD rate.12

Steps from an expert. A skillfull midwife practicing in the United Kingdom provides the following guidance on how to perform membrane sweeping.13

  1. Prepare the patient. Explain the procedure, have the patient empty her bladder, and encourage relaxed breathing if the vaginal examination causes pain.
  2. Abdominal exam. Assess uterine size, fetal lie and presentation, and fetal heart tones.
  3. Vaginal exam. Ascertain cervical dilation, effacement, and position. If the cervix is closed a sweep may not be possible. In this case, massaging the vaginal fornices may help to release prostaglandins and stimulate uterine contractions. If the cervix is closed but soft, massage of the cervix may permit the insertion of a finger. If the cervix is favorable for sweeping, insert one finger in the cervix and rotate the finger in a circle to separate the amnion from the cervix.
  4. After the procedure. Provide the woman with a sanitary pad and recommend acetaminophen and a warm bath if she has discomfort or painful contractions. Advise her to come to the maternity unit in the following situations: severe pain, significant bleeding, or spontaneous rupture of the membranes.

Membrane sweeping can be performed as frequently as every 3 days. Formal cervical ripening and induction of labor may need to be planned if membrane sweeping does not result in the initiation of regular contractions.

Continue to: Collaborative decision making

 

 

Collaborative decision making

All clinicians recognize the primacy of patient autonomy.14 Competent patients have the right to select the course of care that they believe is optimal. When a patient decides to continue her pregnancy past 41 weeks, it is helpful to endorse respect for the decision and inquire about the patient’s reasons for continuing the pregnancy. Understanding the patient’s concerns may begin a conversation that will result in the patient accepting a plan for induction near 41 weeks’ gestation. If the patient insists on expectant management well beyond 41 weeks, the medical record should contain a summary of the clinician recommendation to induce labor at or before 41 weeks’ gestation and the patient’s preference for expectant management and her understanding of the decision’s risks.

Obstetricians and midwives constantly face the challenge of balancing the desire to avoid meddlesome interference in a pregnancy with the need to act to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes. The challenge is daunting. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the benefit of induction of labor at or beyond term, estimated that 426 inductions would need to be initiated to prevent one perinatal death.2 From one perspective it is meddlesome to intervene on more than 400 women to prevent one perinatal death. However, substantial data indicate that expectant management of a well-dated pregnancy at 41 weeks’ gestation will result in adverse outcomes that likely could be prevented by induction of labor. If you ran an airline and could take an action to prevent one airplane crash for every 400 flights, you would likely move heaven and earth to try to prevent that disaster. Unless the patient strongly prefers expectant management, well-managed induction of labor at or before 41 weeks’ gestation is likely to reduce the rate of adverse pregnancy events and, hence, is warranted.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

References
  1. Divon MY, Ferber A, Sanderson M, et al. A functional definition of prolonged pregnancy based on daily fetal and neonatal mortality rates. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23:423-426. 
  2. Middleton P, Shepherd E, Crowther CA. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5:CD004945. 
  3. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, et al. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:252-263. 
  4. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hellmann J, et al; Canadian Multicenter Post-term Pregnancy Trial Group.  Induction of labor as compared with serial antenatal monitoring in post-term pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:1587-1592. 
  5. Delaney M, Roggensack A. No. 214-Guidelines for the management of pregnancy at 41+0 to 42+0 weeks. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017;39:e164-e174. 
  6. Whitworth M, Bricker L, Mullan C. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;7:CD007058. 
  7. Boulvain M, Stan C, Irion O. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;1:CD000451. 
  8. Berghella V, Rogers RA, Lescale K. Stripping of membranes as a safe method to reduce prolonged pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87:927-931. 
  9. Avdiyovski H, Haith-Cooper M, Scally A. Membrane sweeping at term to promote spontaneous labour and reduce the likelihood of a formal induction of labour for postmaturity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018:1-9. 
  10. de Miranda E, van der Bom JG, Bonsel G, et al. Membrane sweeping and prevention of post-term pregnancy in low-risk pregnancies: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2006;113:402-408. 
  11. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. NICE Guideline 70. Induction of labour; July 2008. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg70/evidence/cg70-induction-of-labour-full-guideline2. Accessed January 23, 2019. 
  12. Hamdan M, Sidhu K, Sabir N, et al. Serial membrane sweeping at term in planned vaginal birth after cesarean: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:745-751.  
  13. Gibbon K. How to perform a stretch and sweep. Midwives Magazine. 2012. https://www.rcm.org.uk/news-views-and-analysis/analysis/how-to%E2%80%A6-perform-a-stretch-and-sweep. Accessed January 23, 2019. 
  14. Ryan KJ. Erosion of the rights of pregnant women: in the interest of fetal well-being. Womens Health Issues. 1990;1:21-24.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Robert L. Barbieri, MD 

Editor in Chief, OBG Management
Chair, Obstetrics and Gynecology
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Kate Macy Ladd Professor of Obstetrics,
Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Harvard Medical School, Boston

Dr. Barbieri reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
10, 12-13
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Robert L. Barbieri, MD 

Editor in Chief, OBG Management
Chair, Obstetrics and Gynecology
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Kate Macy Ladd Professor of Obstetrics,
Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Harvard Medical School, Boston

Dr. Barbieri reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Robert L. Barbieri, MD 

Editor in Chief, OBG Management
Chair, Obstetrics and Gynecology
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Kate Macy Ladd Professor of Obstetrics,
Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Harvard Medical School, Boston

Dr. Barbieri reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Most people know that preterm birth is a major contributor to perinatal morbidity and mortality. Consequently, strict guidelines have been enforced to prevent non–medically indicated scheduled deliveries before 39 weeks’ gestation. Fewer people recognize that late-term birth is also an important and avoidable contributor to perinatal morbidity. To improve pregnancy outcomes, we may need enhanced guidelines about minimizing expectant management of pregnancy beyond 41 weeks’ gestation.

For the fetus, what is the optimal duration of a healthy pregnancy?

When pregnancy progresses past the date of the confinement, the risk of fetal or newborn injury or death increases, especially after 41 weeks’ gestation. Analysis of this risk, day by day, suggests that after 40 weeks’ and 3 days’ gestation there is no medical benefit to the fetus to remain in utero because, compared with induced delivery, expectant management of the pregnancy is associated with a greater rate of fetal and newborn morbidity and mortality.1

The fetal and newborn benefits of delivery, rather than expectant management, at term include: a decrease in stillbirth and perinatal death rates, a decrease in admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), a decrease in meconium-stained amniotic fluid and meconium aspiration syndrome, a decrease in low Apgar scores, and a decrease in problems related to uteroplacental insufficiency, including oligohydramnios.2 In a comprehensive meta-analysis, induction of labor at or beyond term reduced the risk of perinatal death or stillbirth by 67%, the risk of a 5-minute Apgar score below 7 by 30%, and the risk of NICU admission by 12%.2 The number of women that would need to be induced to prevent 1 perinatal death was estimated to be 426.2

Maternal benefits of avoiding late-term pregnancy

The maternal benefits of avoiding continuing a pregnancy past 41 weeks’ gestation include a reduction in labor dystocia and the risk of cesarean delivery (CD).2,3 In one clinical trial, 3,407 women with low-risk pregnancy were randomly assigned to induction of labor at 41 weeks’ gestation or expectant management, awaiting the onset of labor with serial antenatal monitoring (nonstress tests and assessment of amniotic fluid volume).4 The CD rate was lower among the women randomized to induction of labor at 41 weeks’ (21.2% vs 24.5% in the expectant management group, P = .03). The rate of meconium-stained fluid was lower in the induction of labor group (25.0% vs 28.7%, P = .009). The rate of CD due to fetal distress also was lower in the induction of labor group (5.7% vs 8.3%, P = .003). The risks of maternal postpartum hemorrhage, sepsis, and endometritis did not differ between the groups. There were 2 stillbirths in the expectant management group (2/1,706) and none in the induction of labor group (0/1,701). There were no neonatal deaths in this study.4

Obstetric management, including accurate dating of pregnancy and membrane sweeping at term, can help to reduce the risk that a pregnancy will progress beyond 41 weeks’ gestation.5

Continue to: Routinely use ultrasound to accurately establish gestational age

 

 

Routinely use ultrasound to accurately establish gestational age

First trimester ultrasound should be offered to all pregnant women because it is a more accurate assessment of gestational age and will result in fewer pregnancies that are thought to be at or beyond 41 weeks’ gestation.5 In a meta-analysis of 8 studies, including 25,516 women, early ultrasonography reduced the rate of intervention for postterm pregnancy by 42% (31/1,000 to 18/1,000 pregnant women).6

Membrane sweeping (or stripping)

Membrane sweeping, which causes the release of prostaglandins, has been reported to reduce the risk of late-term and postterm induction of labor.7,8 In the most recent Cochrane review on the topic, sweeping membranes reduced the rate of induction of labor at 41 weeks by 41% and at 42 weeks by 72%.7 To avoid one induction of labor for late-term or postterm pregnancy, sweeping of membranes would need to be performed on 8 women. In a recent meta-analysis, membrane sweeping reduced the rate of induction of labor for postmaturity by 48%.9

Membrane sweeping is associated with pain and an increased rate of vaginal bleeding.10 It does not increase the rate of maternal or neonatal infection, however. It also does not reduce the CD rate. In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends that all clinicians have a discussion of membrane sweeping with their patients at 38 weeks’ gestation and offer membrane stripping at 40 weeks to increase the rate of timely spontaneous labor and to avoid the risks of prolonged pregnancy.11 Of note, in one randomized study of women planning a trial of labor after CD, membrane sweeping did not impact the duration of pregnancy, onset of spontaneous labor, or the CD rate.12

Steps from an expert. A skillfull midwife practicing in the United Kingdom provides the following guidance on how to perform membrane sweeping.13

  1. Prepare the patient. Explain the procedure, have the patient empty her bladder, and encourage relaxed breathing if the vaginal examination causes pain.
  2. Abdominal exam. Assess uterine size, fetal lie and presentation, and fetal heart tones.
  3. Vaginal exam. Ascertain cervical dilation, effacement, and position. If the cervix is closed a sweep may not be possible. In this case, massaging the vaginal fornices may help to release prostaglandins and stimulate uterine contractions. If the cervix is closed but soft, massage of the cervix may permit the insertion of a finger. If the cervix is favorable for sweeping, insert one finger in the cervix and rotate the finger in a circle to separate the amnion from the cervix.
  4. After the procedure. Provide the woman with a sanitary pad and recommend acetaminophen and a warm bath if she has discomfort or painful contractions. Advise her to come to the maternity unit in the following situations: severe pain, significant bleeding, or spontaneous rupture of the membranes.

Membrane sweeping can be performed as frequently as every 3 days. Formal cervical ripening and induction of labor may need to be planned if membrane sweeping does not result in the initiation of regular contractions.

Continue to: Collaborative decision making

 

 

Collaborative decision making

All clinicians recognize the primacy of patient autonomy.14 Competent patients have the right to select the course of care that they believe is optimal. When a patient decides to continue her pregnancy past 41 weeks, it is helpful to endorse respect for the decision and inquire about the patient’s reasons for continuing the pregnancy. Understanding the patient’s concerns may begin a conversation that will result in the patient accepting a plan for induction near 41 weeks’ gestation. If the patient insists on expectant management well beyond 41 weeks, the medical record should contain a summary of the clinician recommendation to induce labor at or before 41 weeks’ gestation and the patient’s preference for expectant management and her understanding of the decision’s risks.

Obstetricians and midwives constantly face the challenge of balancing the desire to avoid meddlesome interference in a pregnancy with the need to act to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes. The challenge is daunting. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the benefit of induction of labor at or beyond term, estimated that 426 inductions would need to be initiated to prevent one perinatal death.2 From one perspective it is meddlesome to intervene on more than 400 women to prevent one perinatal death. However, substantial data indicate that expectant management of a well-dated pregnancy at 41 weeks’ gestation will result in adverse outcomes that likely could be prevented by induction of labor. If you ran an airline and could take an action to prevent one airplane crash for every 400 flights, you would likely move heaven and earth to try to prevent that disaster. Unless the patient strongly prefers expectant management, well-managed induction of labor at or before 41 weeks’ gestation is likely to reduce the rate of adverse pregnancy events and, hence, is warranted.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Most people know that preterm birth is a major contributor to perinatal morbidity and mortality. Consequently, strict guidelines have been enforced to prevent non–medically indicated scheduled deliveries before 39 weeks’ gestation. Fewer people recognize that late-term birth is also an important and avoidable contributor to perinatal morbidity. To improve pregnancy outcomes, we may need enhanced guidelines about minimizing expectant management of pregnancy beyond 41 weeks’ gestation.

For the fetus, what is the optimal duration of a healthy pregnancy?

When pregnancy progresses past the date of the confinement, the risk of fetal or newborn injury or death increases, especially after 41 weeks’ gestation. Analysis of this risk, day by day, suggests that after 40 weeks’ and 3 days’ gestation there is no medical benefit to the fetus to remain in utero because, compared with induced delivery, expectant management of the pregnancy is associated with a greater rate of fetal and newborn morbidity and mortality.1

The fetal and newborn benefits of delivery, rather than expectant management, at term include: a decrease in stillbirth and perinatal death rates, a decrease in admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), a decrease in meconium-stained amniotic fluid and meconium aspiration syndrome, a decrease in low Apgar scores, and a decrease in problems related to uteroplacental insufficiency, including oligohydramnios.2 In a comprehensive meta-analysis, induction of labor at or beyond term reduced the risk of perinatal death or stillbirth by 67%, the risk of a 5-minute Apgar score below 7 by 30%, and the risk of NICU admission by 12%.2 The number of women that would need to be induced to prevent 1 perinatal death was estimated to be 426.2

Maternal benefits of avoiding late-term pregnancy

The maternal benefits of avoiding continuing a pregnancy past 41 weeks’ gestation include a reduction in labor dystocia and the risk of cesarean delivery (CD).2,3 In one clinical trial, 3,407 women with low-risk pregnancy were randomly assigned to induction of labor at 41 weeks’ gestation or expectant management, awaiting the onset of labor with serial antenatal monitoring (nonstress tests and assessment of amniotic fluid volume).4 The CD rate was lower among the women randomized to induction of labor at 41 weeks’ (21.2% vs 24.5% in the expectant management group, P = .03). The rate of meconium-stained fluid was lower in the induction of labor group (25.0% vs 28.7%, P = .009). The rate of CD due to fetal distress also was lower in the induction of labor group (5.7% vs 8.3%, P = .003). The risks of maternal postpartum hemorrhage, sepsis, and endometritis did not differ between the groups. There were 2 stillbirths in the expectant management group (2/1,706) and none in the induction of labor group (0/1,701). There were no neonatal deaths in this study.4

Obstetric management, including accurate dating of pregnancy and membrane sweeping at term, can help to reduce the risk that a pregnancy will progress beyond 41 weeks’ gestation.5

Continue to: Routinely use ultrasound to accurately establish gestational age

 

 

Routinely use ultrasound to accurately establish gestational age

First trimester ultrasound should be offered to all pregnant women because it is a more accurate assessment of gestational age and will result in fewer pregnancies that are thought to be at or beyond 41 weeks’ gestation.5 In a meta-analysis of 8 studies, including 25,516 women, early ultrasonography reduced the rate of intervention for postterm pregnancy by 42% (31/1,000 to 18/1,000 pregnant women).6

Membrane sweeping (or stripping)

Membrane sweeping, which causes the release of prostaglandins, has been reported to reduce the risk of late-term and postterm induction of labor.7,8 In the most recent Cochrane review on the topic, sweeping membranes reduced the rate of induction of labor at 41 weeks by 41% and at 42 weeks by 72%.7 To avoid one induction of labor for late-term or postterm pregnancy, sweeping of membranes would need to be performed on 8 women. In a recent meta-analysis, membrane sweeping reduced the rate of induction of labor for postmaturity by 48%.9

Membrane sweeping is associated with pain and an increased rate of vaginal bleeding.10 It does not increase the rate of maternal or neonatal infection, however. It also does not reduce the CD rate. In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends that all clinicians have a discussion of membrane sweeping with their patients at 38 weeks’ gestation and offer membrane stripping at 40 weeks to increase the rate of timely spontaneous labor and to avoid the risks of prolonged pregnancy.11 Of note, in one randomized study of women planning a trial of labor after CD, membrane sweeping did not impact the duration of pregnancy, onset of spontaneous labor, or the CD rate.12

Steps from an expert. A skillfull midwife practicing in the United Kingdom provides the following guidance on how to perform membrane sweeping.13

  1. Prepare the patient. Explain the procedure, have the patient empty her bladder, and encourage relaxed breathing if the vaginal examination causes pain.
  2. Abdominal exam. Assess uterine size, fetal lie and presentation, and fetal heart tones.
  3. Vaginal exam. Ascertain cervical dilation, effacement, and position. If the cervix is closed a sweep may not be possible. In this case, massaging the vaginal fornices may help to release prostaglandins and stimulate uterine contractions. If the cervix is closed but soft, massage of the cervix may permit the insertion of a finger. If the cervix is favorable for sweeping, insert one finger in the cervix and rotate the finger in a circle to separate the amnion from the cervix.
  4. After the procedure. Provide the woman with a sanitary pad and recommend acetaminophen and a warm bath if she has discomfort or painful contractions. Advise her to come to the maternity unit in the following situations: severe pain, significant bleeding, or spontaneous rupture of the membranes.

Membrane sweeping can be performed as frequently as every 3 days. Formal cervical ripening and induction of labor may need to be planned if membrane sweeping does not result in the initiation of regular contractions.

Continue to: Collaborative decision making

 

 

Collaborative decision making

All clinicians recognize the primacy of patient autonomy.14 Competent patients have the right to select the course of care that they believe is optimal. When a patient decides to continue her pregnancy past 41 weeks, it is helpful to endorse respect for the decision and inquire about the patient’s reasons for continuing the pregnancy. Understanding the patient’s concerns may begin a conversation that will result in the patient accepting a plan for induction near 41 weeks’ gestation. If the patient insists on expectant management well beyond 41 weeks, the medical record should contain a summary of the clinician recommendation to induce labor at or before 41 weeks’ gestation and the patient’s preference for expectant management and her understanding of the decision’s risks.

Obstetricians and midwives constantly face the challenge of balancing the desire to avoid meddlesome interference in a pregnancy with the need to act to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes. The challenge is daunting. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the benefit of induction of labor at or beyond term, estimated that 426 inductions would need to be initiated to prevent one perinatal death.2 From one perspective it is meddlesome to intervene on more than 400 women to prevent one perinatal death. However, substantial data indicate that expectant management of a well-dated pregnancy at 41 weeks’ gestation will result in adverse outcomes that likely could be prevented by induction of labor. If you ran an airline and could take an action to prevent one airplane crash for every 400 flights, you would likely move heaven and earth to try to prevent that disaster. Unless the patient strongly prefers expectant management, well-managed induction of labor at or before 41 weeks’ gestation is likely to reduce the rate of adverse pregnancy events and, hence, is warranted.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

References
  1. Divon MY, Ferber A, Sanderson M, et al. A functional definition of prolonged pregnancy based on daily fetal and neonatal mortality rates. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23:423-426. 
  2. Middleton P, Shepherd E, Crowther CA. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5:CD004945. 
  3. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, et al. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:252-263. 
  4. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hellmann J, et al; Canadian Multicenter Post-term Pregnancy Trial Group.  Induction of labor as compared with serial antenatal monitoring in post-term pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:1587-1592. 
  5. Delaney M, Roggensack A. No. 214-Guidelines for the management of pregnancy at 41+0 to 42+0 weeks. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017;39:e164-e174. 
  6. Whitworth M, Bricker L, Mullan C. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;7:CD007058. 
  7. Boulvain M, Stan C, Irion O. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;1:CD000451. 
  8. Berghella V, Rogers RA, Lescale K. Stripping of membranes as a safe method to reduce prolonged pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87:927-931. 
  9. Avdiyovski H, Haith-Cooper M, Scally A. Membrane sweeping at term to promote spontaneous labour and reduce the likelihood of a formal induction of labour for postmaturity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018:1-9. 
  10. de Miranda E, van der Bom JG, Bonsel G, et al. Membrane sweeping and prevention of post-term pregnancy in low-risk pregnancies: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2006;113:402-408. 
  11. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. NICE Guideline 70. Induction of labour; July 2008. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg70/evidence/cg70-induction-of-labour-full-guideline2. Accessed January 23, 2019. 
  12. Hamdan M, Sidhu K, Sabir N, et al. Serial membrane sweeping at term in planned vaginal birth after cesarean: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:745-751.  
  13. Gibbon K. How to perform a stretch and sweep. Midwives Magazine. 2012. https://www.rcm.org.uk/news-views-and-analysis/analysis/how-to%E2%80%A6-perform-a-stretch-and-sweep. Accessed January 23, 2019. 
  14. Ryan KJ. Erosion of the rights of pregnant women: in the interest of fetal well-being. Womens Health Issues. 1990;1:21-24.
References
  1. Divon MY, Ferber A, Sanderson M, et al. A functional definition of prolonged pregnancy based on daily fetal and neonatal mortality rates. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23:423-426. 
  2. Middleton P, Shepherd E, Crowther CA. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5:CD004945. 
  3. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, et al. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:252-263. 
  4. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hellmann J, et al; Canadian Multicenter Post-term Pregnancy Trial Group.  Induction of labor as compared with serial antenatal monitoring in post-term pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:1587-1592. 
  5. Delaney M, Roggensack A. No. 214-Guidelines for the management of pregnancy at 41+0 to 42+0 weeks. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017;39:e164-e174. 
  6. Whitworth M, Bricker L, Mullan C. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;7:CD007058. 
  7. Boulvain M, Stan C, Irion O. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;1:CD000451. 
  8. Berghella V, Rogers RA, Lescale K. Stripping of membranes as a safe method to reduce prolonged pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87:927-931. 
  9. Avdiyovski H, Haith-Cooper M, Scally A. Membrane sweeping at term to promote spontaneous labour and reduce the likelihood of a formal induction of labour for postmaturity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018:1-9. 
  10. de Miranda E, van der Bom JG, Bonsel G, et al. Membrane sweeping and prevention of post-term pregnancy in low-risk pregnancies: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2006;113:402-408. 
  11. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. NICE Guideline 70. Induction of labour; July 2008. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg70/evidence/cg70-induction-of-labour-full-guideline2. Accessed January 23, 2019. 
  12. Hamdan M, Sidhu K, Sabir N, et al. Serial membrane sweeping at term in planned vaginal birth after cesarean: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:745-751.  
  13. Gibbon K. How to perform a stretch and sweep. Midwives Magazine. 2012. https://www.rcm.org.uk/news-views-and-analysis/analysis/how-to%E2%80%A6-perform-a-stretch-and-sweep. Accessed January 23, 2019. 
  14. Ryan KJ. Erosion of the rights of pregnant women: in the interest of fetal well-being. Womens Health Issues. 1990;1:21-24.
Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Issue
OBG Management - 31(2)
Page Number
10, 12-13
Page Number
10, 12-13
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media