Endometrial scratch injury before intrauterine insemination: is it time to re-evaluate its value? Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of endometrial scratch injury (ESI) on the outcomes of intrauterine insemination (IUI) stimulated cycles. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Infertile women undergoing one or more IUI stimulated cycles. INTERVENTION(S): Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by searching electronic databases. We included RCTs comparing ESI (i.e., intervention group) during the course of IUI stimulated cycle (C-ESI) or during the menstrual cycle preceding IUI treatment (P-ESI) with controls (no endometrial scratch). The summary measures were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence-interval (CI). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate. RESULT(S): Eight trials were included in the meta-analysis, comprising a total of 1,871 IUI cycles. Endometrial scratch injury was associated with a higher clinical pregnancy rate (OR 2.27) and ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 2.04) in comparison with the controls. No higher risk of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.09), miscarriage (OR 0.80), or ectopic pregnancy (OR 0.82) was observed in patients receiving ESI. Subgroup analysis based on ESI timing showed higher clinical pregnancy rate (OR 2.57) and ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 2.27) in patients receiving C-ESI and no advantage in patients receiving P-ESI. CONCLUSION(S): Available data suggest that ESI performed once, preferably during the follicular phase of the same cycle of IUI with flexible aspiration catheters, may improve clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rates in IUI cycles. Endometrial scratch injury does not appear to increase the risk of multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, or ectopic pregnancy

Uterine fibroid size modifications during pregnancy and puerperium: evidence from the first systematic review of literature

PURPOSE: The influence of pregnancy on uterine fibroid size still remains an unsolved dilemma. Basing on current knowledge, physicians are not able to inform patients about the likelihood of uterine fibroids to modify their size during pregnancy. Study aim was to summarize available evidence concerning the size modifications of uterine fibroids during each trimester of pregnancy and during puerperium. METHODS: The review was reported following the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42017071117). A literature search was conducted in electronic database (PubMed, Embase, Sciencedirect, the Cochrane library and Clinicaltrials.gov) until July 2017. All studies evaluating fibroids' changes during pregnancy and puerperium by ultrasound or magnetic-resonance-imaging were included. Descriptive characteristics of studies and patients were collected. The modifications of uterine fibroid diameter and volume were the outcome measures. RESULTS: Concerning the first trimester of pregnancy, all authors reported a significant growth of uterine fibroids. Contradictory evidence was found about uterine fibroid modifications during the second and third trimesters, mainly supporting a slowdown during mid pregnancy and a subsequent size reduction during late pregnancy. Concerning the overall modifications during pregnancy and puerperium, poor evidence quality suggests that uterine fibroids do not modify their volume/slightly enlarge during pregnancy and subsequently reduce in size during puerperium. CONCLUSIONS: Uterine fibroids seem to be subject to a non-linear trend of modifications during pregnancy and puerperium, which may vary from myoma to myoma. Adequate evidence supports uterine fibroid systematic enlargement during the first trimester of pregnancy, while inconsistent evidence is available about the changes of uterine fibroids during second and third trimesters. In addition, the overall modifications of myomas during pregnancy and puerperium remain unclear

How future surgery will benefit from SARS-COV-2-related measures: a SPIGC survey conveying the perspective of Italian surgeons

COVID-19 negatively affected surgical activity, but the potential benefits resulting from adopted measures remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in surgical activity and potential benefit from COVID-19 measures in perspective of Italian surgeons on behalf of SPIGC. A nationwide online survey on surgical practice before, during, and after COVID-19 pandemic was conducted in March-April 2022 (NCT:05323851). Effects of COVID-19 hospital-related measures on surgical patients' management and personal professional development across surgical specialties were explored. Data on demographics, pre-operative/peri-operative/post-operative management, and professional development were collected. Outcomes were matched with the corresponding volume. Four hundred and seventy-three respondents were included in final analysis across 14 surgical specialties. Since SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, application of telematic consultations (4.1% vs. 21.6%; p < 0.0001) and diagnostic evaluations (16.4% vs. 42.2%; p < 0.0001) increased. Elective surgical activities significantly reduced and surgeons opted more frequently for conservative management with a possible indication for elective (26.3% vs. 35.7%; p < 0.0001) or urgent (20.4% vs. 38.5%; p < 0.0001) surgery. All new COVID-related measures are perceived to be maintained in the future. Surgeons' personal education online increased from 12.6% (pre-COVID) to 86.6% (post-COVID; p < 0.0001). Online educational activities are considered a beneficial effect from COVID pandemic (56.4%). COVID-19 had a great impact on surgical specialties, with significant reduction of operation volume. However, some forced changes turned out to be benefits. Isolation measures pushed the use of telemedicine and telemetric devices for outpatient practice and favored communication for educational purposes and surgeon-patient/family communication. From the Italian surgeons' perspective, COVID-related measures will continue to influence future surgical clinical practice

Colorectal Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy

IMPORTANCE Delays in screening programs and the reluctance of patients to seek medical attention because of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 could be associated with the risk of more advanced colorectal cancers at diagnosis. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was associated with more advanced oncologic stage and change in clinical presentation for patients with colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all 17 938 adult patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 (pandemic period), and from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic period), in 81 participating centers in Italy, including tertiary centers and community hospitals. Follow-up was 30 days from surgery. EXPOSURES Any type of surgical procedure for colorectal cancer, including explorative surgery, palliative procedures, and atypical or segmental resections. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was advanced stage of colorectal cancer at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, T4 stage, aggressive biology (defined as cancer with at least 1 of the following characteristics: signet ring cells, mucinous tumor, budding, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymphangitis), stenotic lesion, emergency surgery, and palliative surgery. The independent association between the pandemic period and the outcomes was assessed using multivariate random-effects logistic regression, with hospital as the cluster variable. RESULTS A total of 17 938 patients (10 007 men [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.2] years) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer: 7796 (43.5%) during the pandemic period and 10 142 (56.5%) during the prepandemic period. Logistic regression indicated that the pandemic period was significantly associated with an increased rate of advanced-stage colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .03), aggressive biology (OR, 1.32; 95%CI, 1.15-1.53; P < .001), and stenotic lesions (OR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study suggests a significant association between the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the risk of a more advanced oncologic stage at diagnosis among patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and might indicate a potential reduction of survival for these patients

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy vs Supracervical Hysterectomy

To compare operative and postoperative results of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH

MIOMECTOMIA ISTEROSCOPICA

Il video presenta l'aportazione di un mioma G2 per via isteroscopica in un unico tempo, senza pretrattamento con gli analoghi