Search

Objective: To identify the optimal hysterectomy approach for large uteri in gynecologic surgery for benign indications from a perioperative morbidity standpoint., Data Sources: PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception through September 19, 2022. Meta-analyses were conducted as feasible., Methods of Study Selection: This review included studies that compared routes of hysterectomy with or without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for large uteri (12 weeks or more or 250 g or more) and excluded studies with any concurrent surgery for pelvic organ prolapse, incontinence, gynecologic malignancy, or any obstetric indication for hysterectomy., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: The review included 25 studies comprising nine randomized trials, two prospective, and 14 retrospective nonrandomized comparative studies. Studies were at high risk of bias. There was lower operative time for total vaginal hysterectomy compared with laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) (mean difference 39 minutes, 95% CI, 18-60) and total vaginal hysterectomy compared with total laparoscopic hysterectomy (mean difference 50 minutes, 95% CI, 29-70). Total laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with much greater risk of ureteral injury compared with total vaginal hysterectomy (odds ratio 7.54, 95% CI, 2.52-22.58). There were no significant differences in bowel injury rates between groups. There were no differences in length of stay among the laparoscopic approaches. For LAVH compared with total vaginal hysterectomy, randomized controlled trials favored total vaginal hysterectomy for length of stay. When rates of blood transfusion were compared between these abdominal hysterectomy and robotic-assisted total hysterectomy routes, abdominal hysterectomy was associated with a sixfold greater risk of transfusion than robotic-assisted total hysterectomy (6.31, 95% CI, 1.07-37.32). Similarly, single studies comparing robotic-assisted total hysterectomy with LAVH, total laparoscopic hysterectomy, or total vaginal hysterectomy all favored robotic-assisted total hysterectomy for reduced blood loss., Conclusion: Minimally invasive routes are safe and effective and have few complications. Minimally invasive approach (vaginal, laparoscopic, or robotic) results in lower blood loss and shorter length of stay, whereas the abdominal route has a shorter operative time., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021233300., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Shunaha Kim-Fine received payments from Duschenay Pharma, Lupin Pharmaceuticals, and Searchlight Pharma. Linda Yang received payment from KLAAS, Inc. David Sheyn received payment from Calder Medical, Medtronic, and Axonics. Danielle Antosh received payment from La Grippe research as a consultant to a surgical robot usability study. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To systematically review the literature to evaluate clinical and surgical outcomes for technologies that facilitate vaginal surgical procedures., Data Sources: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1990 to May 2022., Methods of Study Selection: Comparative and single-arm studies with data on contemporary tools or technologies facilitating intraoperative performance of vaginal gynecologic surgical procedures for benign indications were included. Citations were independently double screened, and eligible full-text articles were extracted by two reviewers. Data collected included study characteristics, technology, patient demographics, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Risk of bias for comparative studies was assessed using established methods, and restricted maximum likelihood model meta-analyses were conducted as indicated., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: The search yielded 8,658 abstracts, with 116 eligible studies that evaluated pedicle sealing devices (n=32), nonrobotic and robotic vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (n=64), suture capture devices (n=17), loop ligatures (n=2), and table-mounted telescopic cameras (n=1). Based on 19 comparative studies, pedicle sealing devices lowered vaginal hysterectomy operative time by 15.9 minutes (95% CI, -23.3 to -85), blood loss by 36.9 mL (95% CI, -56.9 to -17.0), hospital stay by 0.2 days (95% CI, -0.4 to -0.1), and visual analog scale pain scores by 1.4 points on a subjective 10-point scale (95% CI, -1.7 to -1.1). Three nonrandomized comparative studies and 53 single-arm studies supported the feasibility of nonrobotic vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for hysterectomy, adnexal surgery, pelvic reconstruction, and myomectomy. Data were limited for robotic vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, suture capture devices, loop ligatures, and table-mounted cameras due to few studies or study heterogeneity., Conclusion: Pedicle sealing devices lower operative time and blood loss for vaginal hysterectomy, with modest reductions in hospital stay and pain scores. Although other technologies identified in the literature may have potential to facilitate vaginal surgical procedures and improve outcomes, additional comparative effectiveness research is needed., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42022327490., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Tamara Grisales reported receiving past payments from Hinge Health. Kate V. Meriwether is a board member-at-large for the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, for which she receives travel support and holds a voting board position, and editor for Elsevier Publishing, for which she receives royalties, and a paid consultant for RBI Medical. Ethan M. Balk is a paid methodology consultant to the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group. Jeannine M. Miranne is an advisor for Attn: Grace. Danielle Antosh reported receiving past payments from LaGrippe Research Inc. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To systematically review the literature on outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery in patients from various body mass index (BMI) categories to determine the association between obesity and surgical outcomes., Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to April 12, 2022; ClinicalTrials.gov was searched in September 2022 (PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022326255). Randomized and nonrandomized studies of urogynecologic POP surgery outcomes were accepted in which categories of BMI or obesity were compared., Methods of Study Selection: In total, 9,037 abstracts were screened; 759 abstracts were identified for full-text screening, and 31 articles were accepted for inclusion and data were extracted., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Studies were extracted for participant information, intervention, comparator, and outcomes, including subjective outcomes, objective outcomes, and complications. Outcomes were compared among obesity categories (eg, BMI 30-34.9, 35-40, higher than 40), and meta-analysis was performed among different surgical approaches. Individual studies reported varying results as to whether obesity affects surgical outcomes. By meta-analysis, obesity (BMI 30 or higher) is associated with an increased odds of objective prolapse recurrence after vaginal prolapse repair (odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% CI, 1.14-1.67) and after prolapse repair from any surgical approach (OR 1.31, 95% CI, 1.12-1.53) and with complications such as mesh exposure after both vaginal and laparoscopic POP repair (OR 2.10, 95% CI, 1.01-4.39)., Conclusion: Obesity is associated with increased likelihood of prolapse recurrence and mesh complications after POP repair., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022326255., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Alexandriah Alas received payments for expert testimony. Sadikah Behbehani received payments from Intuitive Surgical. Jon Pennycuff receives consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Coloplast, Corneille Law, LLC, and ICA, Inc. David Sheyn received payments from Caldera Medical, and his institution received payment from Medtronic and Axonics. Bela Kudish has served as a consultant for Proctor for Intuitive Surgical. Mikio Nihira received payment from HealthTrust and Shield Therapeutics. Cara Grimes received payments from Provepharm, Inc for consultant work and from Johnson and Johnson as an expert witness and is an SGS Board member. Ethan M. Balk receives funding from SGS as a consultant methodologist to the Systematic Review Group. Danielle Antosh received past payments from LaGrippe Research Inc. The other authors did not report any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess and compile the current level of evidence regarding successful surgical treatment of vesicovaginal fistulae and how these perioperative interventions affect anatomic, patient-centered, and adverse outcomes., Data Sources: PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception through September 9, 2022., Methods of Study Selection: This review included comparative studies (of any sample size) and single-group studies (1,000 or more participants) of primary or recurrent vesicovaginal fistula (ie, vesicovaginal fistula, urethrovaginal fistula, and bladder neck-vaginal fistula). We evaluated preintervention assessment or management, various techniques for intraoperative management, and postoperative management. Outcomes of interest included anatomic and objective outcomes (such as successful repair, fistula closure, urinary incontinence, recurrent fistula, perioperative complications) and subjective outcomes (such as voiding symptoms and quality of life). Abstracts and full-text articles were screened in duplicate, and study descriptions and findings were extracted into standardized extraction forms. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two investigators and adjudicated by a third. Study quality was summarized with standardized tools. We conducted random-effects model and restricted maximum-likelihood meta-analyses of relative risks when at least three studies compared similar interventions and reported similar outcome measures., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Forty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were categorized into 11 domains: 1) preoperative assessment, 2) preoperative and postoperative physical therapy, 3) route of surgery, 4) incorporation of a flap, 5) trimming, 6) layered closure, 7) intraoperative antibiotics, 8) fibrin glue, 9) fascial sling, 10) postoperative Foley catheter duration, and 11) quality of life. Although the strength of the data is insufficient, preoperative phenazopyridine, physical therapy, layered closure, and intraoperative antibiotics seemed to improve the rate of successful fistula repair. Route of surgery (vaginal vs abdominal laparotomy) was determined primarily by surgeon preference and showed no difference in successful fistula repair. In addition, use of interpositional flaps, trimming fistula edges, fibrin glue, and fascial sling did not show significant improvement in rates of fistula cure. Overall, quality-of-life scores improved postoperatively regardless of route of repair and use of interpositional flaps., Conclusion: Our findings highlight the limited information available to guide evidence-based treatment of vesicovaginal fistula repair. Overall, high-quality evidence is lacking to provide guidelines; therefore, expert opinion remains the primary influence for fistula repair recommendations., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021214948., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Alexandriah Alas received payment for expert testimony. Kate V. Meriwether has been a consultant for RBI Medical. She received book editor royalties from Elsevier Publishing and has been an Executive Board member for the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and received travel reimbursement. Her institution received funding from Caldera (522 study research). Jeannine M. Miranne disclosed money was paid to her from Attn: Grace. Danielle D. Antosh disclosed money was paid to her from La Grippe Consulting. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore how markers of health care disparity are associated with access to care and outcomes among patients seeking and undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications., Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through January 23, 2022., Methods of Study Selection: The population of interest included patients in the United States who sought or underwent hysterectomy by any approach for benign indications. Health care disparity markers included race, ethnicity, geographic location, insurance status, and others. Outcomes included access to surgery, patient level outcomes, and surgical outcomes. Eligible studies reported multivariable regression analyses that described the independent association between at least one health care disparity risk marker and an outcome. We evaluated direction and strengths of association within studies and consistency across studies., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Of 6,499 abstracts screened, 39 studies with a total of 46 multivariable analyses were included. Having a Black racial identity was consistently associated with decreased access to minimally invasive, laparoscopic, robotic, and vaginal hysterectomy. Being of Hispanic ethnicity and having Asian or Pacific Islander racial identities were associated with decreased access to laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy. Black patients were the only racial or ethnic group with an increased association with hysterectomy complications. Medicare insurance was associated with decreased access to laparoscopic hysterectomy, and both Medicaid and Medicare insurance were associated with increased likelihood of hysterectomy complications. Living in the South or Midwest or having less than a college degree education was associated with likelihood of prior hysterectomy., Conclusion: Studies suggest that various health care disparity markers are associated with poorer access to less invasive hysterectomy procedures and with poorer outcomes for patients who are undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications. Further research is needed to understand and identify the causes of these disparities, and immediate changes to our health care system are needed to improve access and opportunities for patients facing health care disparities., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021234511., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Cara L. Grimes is the research chair for the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (board position, travel support), Consultant, Provepharm Inc. and she received institutional research support from Reia. Ethan M. Balk received funding from SGS for methodology consultation. Amanda White reports receiving payment from Boston Scientific. Kate Meriwether is the research chair for the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (board position, travel support). She received book royalties from Elsevier Publishing, has been a consultant for RBI Medical (industry device company, paid position), and received research support from Cook Myosure and Caldera Medical. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To systematically review the literature and provide clinical practice guidelines regarding various nonestrogen therapies for treatment of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM)., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov , and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to July 2021. We included comparative and noncomparative studies. Interventions and comparators were limited to seven products that are commercially available and currently in use (vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone [DHEA], ospemifene, laser or energy-based therapies, polycarbophil-based vaginal moisturizer, Tibolone, vaginal hyaluronic acid, testosterone). Topical estrogen, placebo, other nonestrogen products, as well as no treatment were considered as comparators., Methods of Study Selection: We double-screened 9,131 abstracts and identified 136 studies that met our criteria. Studies were assessed for quality and strength of evidence by the systematic review group., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Information regarding the participants, details on the intervention and comparator and outcomes were extracted from the eligible studies. Alternative therapies were similar or superior to estrogen or placebo with minimal increase in adverse events. Dose response was noted with vaginal DHEA and testosterone. Vaginal DHEA, ospemifene, erbium and fractional carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) laser, polycarbophil-based vaginal moisturizer, tibolone, hyaluronic acid, and testosterone all improved subjective and objective signs of atrophy. Vaginal DHEA, ospemifene, tibolone, fractional CO 2 laser, polycarbophil-based vaginal moisturizer, and testosterone improved sexual function., Conclusion: Most nonestrogen therapies are effective treatments for the various symptoms of GSM. There are insufficient data to compare nonestrogen options to each other., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Alexandriah Alas reports receiving payment for expert testimony. Ethan Balk reports receiving funding from SGS for methodology consultation. Alexis A. Dieter reports that she received payment as an expert witness and research grants were paid to her institution. David R. Rahn received the grant support from the National Institutes of Health R01 AG047290; Bridge Award from American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Foundation and American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology; and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. He also received an investigator-initiated award from Pfizer for provision of study drug (Premarin vaginal cream). The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To systematically review the effects of postpartum health care-delivery strategies on health care utilization and maternal outcomes., Data Sources: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies in the United States or Canada from inception to November 16, 2022., Methods of Study Selection: We used duplicate screening for studies comparing health care-delivery strategies for routine postpartum care on health care utilization and maternal outcomes. We selected health care utilization, clinical, and harm outcomes prioritized by stakeholder panels., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: We found 64 eligible studies (50 randomized controlled trials, 14 nonrandomized comparative studies; N=543,480). For general postpartum care, care location (clinic, at home, by telephone) did not affect depression or anxiety symptoms (low strength of evidence), and care integration (by multiple types of health care professionals) did not affect depression symptoms or substance use (low strength of evidence). Providing contraceptive care earlier (compared with later) was associated with greater implant use at 6 months (summary effect size 1.36, 95% CI 1.13-1.64) (moderate strength of evidence). Location of breastfeeding care did not affect hospitalization, other unplanned care utilization, or mental health symptoms (all low strength of evidence). Peer support was associated with higher rates of any or exclusive breastfeeding at 1 month and any breastfeeding at 3-6 months (summary effect size 1.10-1.22) but not other breastfeeding measures (all moderate strength of evidence). Care by a lactation consultant was associated with higher breastfeeding rates at 6 months (summary effect size 1.43, 95% CI 1.07-1.91) but not exclusive breastfeeding (all moderate strength of evidence). Use and nonuse of information technology for breastfeeding care were associated with comparable rates of breastfeeding (moderate strength of evidence). Testing reminders for screening or preventive care were associated with greater adherence to oral glucose tolerance testing but not random glucose or hemoglobin A 1c testing (moderate strength of evidence)., Conclusion: Various strategies have been shown to improve some aspects of postpartum care, but future research is needed on the most effective care delivery strategies to improve postpartum health., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42022309756 ., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure: Alison Stuebe and Alex Peahl have published research studies that were considered for inclusion in this systematic review. Dr. Peahl is a paid consultant for Maven Clinic. As a result, they did not participate in screening or determination of studies to be included in the systematic review, assessing risk of bias in studies, extracting data from studies, or grading of the strength of evidence. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the effect of procedural interventions for leiomyomas on pelvic floor symptoms., Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to January 12, 2023, searching for leiomyoma procedures and pelvic floor disorders and symptoms, restricted to primary study designs in humans., Methods of Study Selection: Double independent screening for studies of any study design in all languages that reported pelvic floor symptoms before and after surgical (hysterectomy, myomectomy, radiofrequency volumetric thermal ablation) or radiologic (uterine artery embolization, magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasonography, high-intensity focused ultrasonography) procedures for management of uterine leiomyomas. Data were extracted, with risk-of-bias assessment and review by a second researcher. Random effects model meta-analyses were conducted, as feasible., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Six randomized controlled trials, one nonrandomized comparative study, and 25 single-group studies met criteria. The overall quality of the studies was moderate. Only six studies, reporting various outcomes, directly compared two procedures for leiomyomas. Across studies, leiomyoma procedures were associated with decreased symptom distress per the UDI-6 (Urinary Distress Inventory, Short Form) (summary mean change -18.7, 95% CI -25.9 to -11.5; six studies) and improved quality of life per the IIQ-7 (Incontinence Impact Questionnaire, Short Form) (summary mean change -10.7, 95% CI -15.8 to -5.6; six studies). There was a wide range of resolution of urinary symptoms after procedural interventions (7.6-100%), and this varied over time. Urinary symptoms improved in 19.0-87.5% of patients, and the definitions for improvement varied between studies. Bowel symptoms were inconsistently reported in the literature., Conclusion: Urinary symptoms improved after procedural interventions for uterine leiomyomas, although there is high heterogeneity among studies and few data on long-term outcomes or comparing different procedures., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021272678., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Ethan Balk is a paid consultant to the Society for Gynecologic Research Systematic Review Group for his role as methodology expert. Sadikah Behbehani received payment from Intuitive Surgical. Mikio Nihira received payment from HealthTrust. David Sheyn receives research support from Renalis and consulting fees from Caldera Medical. He also received payment from CollaMedix. Alexandriah Alas receives payments for expert testimony and consulting. Kate Meriwether receives royalties from Elsevier publishing, is a consultant for RBI Medical and an unpaid investigator for Caldera Medical. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of postpartum home blood pressure (BP) monitoring compared with clinic-based follow-up and the comparative effectiveness of alternative home BP-monitoring regimens., Data Sources: Search of Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 1, 2022, searching for home BP monitoring in postpartum individuals., Methods of Study Selection: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomized comparative studies, and single-arm studies that evaluated the effects of postpartum home BP monitoring (up to 1 year), with or without telemonitoring, on postpartum maternal and infant outcomes, health care utilization, and harm outcomes. After double screening, we extracted demographics and outcomes to SRDR+., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Thirteen studies (three RCTs, two nonrandomized comparative studies, and eight single-arm studies) met eligibility criteria. All comparative studies enrolled participants with a diagnosis of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. One RCT compared home BP monitoring with bidirectional text messaging with scheduled clinic-based BP visits, finding an increased likelihood that at least one BP measurement was ascertained during the first 10 days postpartum for participants in the home BP-monitoring arm (relative risk 2.11, 95% CI 1.68-2.65). One nonrandomized comparative study reported a similar effect (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 1.59, 95% CI 1.36-1.77). Home BP monitoring was not associated with the rate of BP treatment initiation (aRR 1.03, 95% CI 0.74-1.44) but was associated with reduced unplanned hypertension-related hospital admissions (aRR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-0.96). Most patients (83.3-87.0%) were satisfied with management related to home BP monitoring. Home BP monitoring, compared with office-based follow-up, was associated with reduced racial disparities in BP ascertainment by approximately 50%., Conclusion: Home BP monitoring likely improves ascertainment of BP, which is necessary for early recognition of hypertension in postpartum individuals, and may compensate for racial disparities in office-based follow-up. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that home BP monitoring reduces severe maternal morbidity or mortality or reduces racial disparities in clinical outcomes., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42022313075., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Alex F. Peahl reports receiving payment for the Maven Clinic as a consultant. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objective: To compare benefits and harms of televisits and in-person visits in people receiving routine antenatal care., Data Sources: A search was conducted of PubMed, Cochrane databases, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 12, 2022, for antenatal (prenatal) care, pregnancy, obstetrics, telemedicine, remote care, smartphones, telemonitoring, and related terms, as well as primary study designs. The search was restricted to high-income countries., Methods of Study Selection: Double independent screening was done in Abstrackr for studies comparing televisits and in-person routine antenatal care visits for maternal, child, health care utilization, and harm outcomes. Data were extracted into SRDRplus with review by a second researcher., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Two randomized controlled trials, four nonrandomized comparative studies, and one survey compared visit types between 2004 and 2020, three of which were conducted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Number, timing, and mode of televisits and who provided care varied across studies. Low-strength evidence from studies comparing hybrid (televisits and in-person visits) and all in-person visits did not indicate differences in rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission of the newborn (summary odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.82-1.28) or preterm births (summary OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84-1.03). However, the studies with stronger, although still statistically nonsignificant, associations between use of hybrid visits and preterm birth compared the COVID-19 pandemic and prepandemic eras, confounding the association. There is low-strength evidence that satisfaction with overall antenatal care was greater in people who were pregnant and receiving hybrid visits. Other outcomes were sparsely reported., Conclusion: People who are pregnant may prefer hybrid televisits and in-person visits. Although there is no evidence of differences in clinical outcomes between hybrid visits and in-person visits, the evidence is insufficient to evaluate most outcomes., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021272287., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Alex Friedman Peahl is a paid consultant for Maven Clinic. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess differences in maternal and child outcomes in studies comparing reduced routine antenatal visit schedules with traditional schedules., Data Sources: A search was conducted of PubMed, Cochrane databases, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 12, 2022, searching for antenatal (prenatal) care, pregnancy, obstetrics, telemedicine, remote care, smartphones, telemonitoring, and related terms, as well as primary study designs. The search was restricted to high-income countries., Methods of Study Selection: Double independent screening was done in Abstrackr for studies comparing televisits and in-person routine antenatal care visits for maternal, child, health care utilization, and harm outcomes. Data were extracted into SRDRplus with review by a second researcher., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Five randomized controlled trials and five nonrandomized comparative studies compared reduced routine antenatal visit schedules with traditional schedules. Studies did not find differences between schedules in gestational age at birth, likelihood of being small for gestational age, likelihood of a low Apgar score, likelihood of neonatal intensive care unit admission, maternal anxiety, likelihood of preterm birth, and likelihood of low birth weight. There was insufficient evidence for numerous prioritized outcomes of interest, including completion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists-recommended services and patient experience measures., Conclusion: The evidence base is limited and heterogeneous and allowed few specific conclusions. Reported outcomes included, for the most part, standard birth outcomes that do not have strong plausible biological connection to structural aspects of antenatal care. The evidence did not find negative effects of reduced routine antenatal visit schedules, which may support implementation of fewer routine antenatal visits. However, to enhance confidence in this conclusion, future research is needed, particularly research that includes outcomes of most importance and relevance to changing antenatal care visits., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021272287., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Alex Friedman Peahl is a paid consultant for Maven Clinic. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To describe the psychometric properties of existing patient-reported outcome measures for women with prolapse using the COSMIN (Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) framework. Additional objectives were to describe the patient-reported outcome scoring method or interpretation, methods of administration, and to compile a list of the non-English languages in which the patient-reported outcomes are reportedly validated., Data Sources: PubMed and EMBASE was searched through September 2021. Study characteristics, patient-reported outcome details, and psychometric testing data were extracted. Methodologic quality was assessed with COSMIN guidelines., Methods of Study Selection: Studies reporting the validation of a patient-reported outcome in women with prolapse (or women with pelvic floor disorders that included a prolapse assessment) and reporting psychometric testing data on English-language patient-reported outcome for at least one measurement property per COSMIN and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services definitions were included, as well as studies reporting the translation of an existing patient-reported outcome into another language, a new method of patient-reported outcome administration, or a scoring interpretation. Studies reporting only pretreatment and posttreatment scores, only content or face validity, or only findings for nonprolapse domains of the patient-reported outcome were excluded., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Fifty-four studies covering 32 patient-reported outcomes were included; 106 studies assessing translation into a non-English language were excluded from the formal review. The number of validation studies per patient-reported outcome (one version of one questionnaire) ranged from 1 to 11. Reliability was the most reported measurement property, and most measurement properties received an average rating of sufficient. The condition-specific patient-reported outcomes had on average more studies and reported data across more measurement properties compared with adapted and generic patient-reported outcomes., Conclusion: Although measurement property data vary on patient-reported outcomes for women with prolapse, most data were of good quality. Overall, condition-specific patient-reported outcomes had more studies and reported data across more measurement properties., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021278796., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Jon F. Pennycuff reports receiving payment from Corneille Law, LLC. Rebecca G. Rogers reports receiving royalties from UpToDate, IUGA, and ABOG. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the amount of opioid medication used by patients and the prevalence of persistent opioid use after discharge for gynecologic surgery for benign indications., Data Sources: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to October 2020., Methods of Study Selection: Studies with data on gynecologic surgical procedures for benign indications and the amount of outpatient opioids consumed, or the incidence of either persistent opioid use or opioid-use disorder postsurgery were included. Two reviewers independently screened citations and extracted data from eligible studies., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Thirty-six studies (37 articles) met inclusion criteria. Data were extracted from 35 studies; 23 studies included data on opioids consumed after hospital discharge, and 12 studies included data on persistent opioid use after gynecologic surgery. Average morphine milligram equivalents (MME) used in the 14 days after discharge were 54.0 (95% CI 39.9-68.0, seven tablets of 5-mg oxycodone) across all gynecologic surgery types, 35.0 (95% CI 0-75.12, 4.5 tablets of 5-mg oxycodone) after a vaginal hysterectomy, 59.5 (95% CI 44.4-74.6, eight tablets of 5-mg oxycodone) after laparoscopic hysterectomy, and 108.1 (95% CI 80.5-135.8, 14.5 tablets of 5-mg oxycodone) after abdominal hysterectomy. Patients used 22.4 MME (95% CI 12.4-32.3, three tablets of 5-mg oxycodone) within 24 hours of discharge after laparoscopic procedures without hysterectomy and 79.8 MME (95% CI 37.1-122.6, 10.5 tablets of 5-mg oxycodone) from discharge to 7 or 14 days postdischarge after surgery for prolapse. Persistent opioid use occurred in about 4.4% of patients after gynecologic surgery, but this outcome had high heterogeneity due to variation in populations and definitions of the outcome., Conclusion: On average, patients use the equivalent of 15 or fewer 5-mg oxycodone tablets (or equivalent) in the 2 weeks after discharge after major gynecologic surgery for benign indications. Persistent opioid use occurred in 4.4% of patients who underwent gynecologic surgery for benign indications. Our findings could help surgeons minimize overprescribing and reduce medication diversion or misuse., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42020146120., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Kristen A. Matteson is an advisor for Myovant and a nonpaid researcher for Bayer; Megan O. Schimpf receives an editorial stipend from Wolters-Kluwer and receives a reviewer stipend for UpToDate; Peter C. Jeppson is a product liability consultant for Ethicon; Amanda B. White is a consultant for Boston Scientific; Kate V. Meriwether is a consultant for RBI Medical, receives book royalties from Elsevier Publishing, is research chair for the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, is a board member of Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, isa nonpaid researcher for Cook MyoSure and Caldera Medical. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To systematically review patient, partner or family, and clinician perspectives, preferences, and experiences related to prenatal care visit schedules and televisits for routine prenatal care., Data Sources: PubMed, the Cochrane databases, EMBASE, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov , PsycINFO, and SocINDEX from inception through February 12, 2022., Methods of Study Selection: This review of qualitative research is a subset of a larger review on both the qualitative experiences and quantitative benefits and harms of reduced prenatal care visit schedules and televisits for routine prenatal care that was produced by the Brown Evidence-based Practice Center for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. For the qualitative review, we included qualitative research studies that examined perspectives, preferences, and experiences about the number of scheduled visits and about televisits for routine prenatal care., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: We synthesized barriers and facilitators to the implementation of reduced care visits or of televisits into 1 of 14 domains defined by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and a Best Fit Framework approach. We summarized themes within TDF domains. We assessed our confidence in the summary statements using the GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) tool. Four studies addressed the number of scheduled routine prenatal visits, and five studies addressed televisits. Across studies, health care professionals believed fewer routine visits may be more convenient for patients and may increase clinic capacity to provide additional care for patients with high-risk pregnancies. However, both patients and clinicians had concerns about potential lesser care with fewer visits, including concerns about quality of care and challenges with implementing new delivery-of-care models., Conclusion: Although health care professionals and patients had some concerns about reduced visit schedules and use of televisits, several potential benefits were also noted. Our synthesis of qualitative evidence provides helpful insights into the perspectives, preferences, and experiences of important stakeholders with respect to implementing changes to prenatal care delivery that may complement findings of traditional quantitative evidence syntheses., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021272287., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Kristin J. Konnyu disclosed receiving payment from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute for analysis of a diabetes quality improvement systematic review and an audit and feedback systematic review. Alex Friedman Peahl is a paid consultant for Maven Clinic. The other authors did not disclose any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Written work prepared by employees of the Federal Government as part of their official duties is, under the U.S. Copyright Act, a “work of the United States Government” for which copyright protection under Title 17 of the United States Code is not available. As such, copyright does not extend to the contributions of employees of the Federal Government.)

Objective: To assess whether some, or all, of the mesh needs to be removed when a midurethral sling is removed for complications., Data Sources: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from January 1, 1996, through May 1, 2021, were searched for articles that met the eligibility criteria with total, partial, or a combination of anti-incontinence mesh removal., Methods of Study Selection: All study designs were included (N≥10), and a priori criteria were used for acceptance standards. Studies were extracted for demographics, operative outcomes, and adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed when possible., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: We double-screened 11,887 abstracts; 45 eligible and unique studies were identified. Thirty-five were single-group studies that evaluated partial mesh removal, five were single-group studies that evaluated total mesh removal, and five were studies that compared partial mesh removal with total mesh removal. All of the studies were retrospective in nature; there were no randomized controlled studies. Comparative studies demonstrated that partial mesh removal had lower rates of postoperative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) than total mesh removal (odds ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.22-0.96). Single-group studies supported lower rates of postoperative SUI with partial mesh removal compared with total mesh removal (19.2% [95% CI 13.5-25.7] vs 48.7% [95% CI 31.2-66.4]). Both methods were similar with respect to associated pain, bladder outlet obstruction, mesh erosion or exposure, and lower urinary tract symptoms. Adverse events were infrequent., Conclusion: Postoperative SUI may be lower with partial mesh removal compared with total mesh removal. Other outcomes were similar regardless of the amount of mesh removed., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD 42018093099., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Paula Jaye Doyle is the Chief Medical Officer of EndoGlow, LLC. Cara L. Grimes provided expert testimony for Johnson and Johnson, Consultant Provepharm, Inc. Ethan M. Balk has been a consultant for Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. Bela Kudish disclosed receiving payment from Intuitive Surgical (consultancy for training in robotic surgery, unrelated to the content of this article). Kate V. Meriwether has been a consultant for RBI Medical, and received travel reimbursement from SGS (voting board member as research chair) and book editing and authorship royalties from Elsevier. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We aimed to systematically review the literature to describe sexual activity and function before and after prolapse surgery., Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from inception to April 2018., Methods of Study Selection: Prospective, comparative studies of reconstructive pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgeries that reported sexual function outcomes were included. Studies were extracted for population characteristics, sexual function outcomes, and methodologic quality. Data collected included baseline and postoperative sexual activity, dyspareunia, and validated sexual function questionnaire scores. Change in validated scores were used to categorize overall sexual function as improved, unchanged, or worsened after surgery., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: The search revealed 3,124 abstracts and identified 74 articles representing 67 original studies. The overall quality of evidence was moderate to high. Studies reporting postoperative results found higher rates of sexual activity than studies reporting preoperative sexual activity in all POP surgeries except sacrospinous suspension, transvaginal mesh, and sacrocolpopexy. The prevalence of dyspareunia decreased after all prolapse surgery types. The risk of de novo dyspareunia ranged from 0% to 9% for all POP surgeries except posterior repair, which lacked sufficient data. Overall sexual function based on PISQ-12 (Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12) scores improved for mixed native tissue repairs, anterior repairs, uterosacral suspensions, sacrospinous suspensions, and sacrocolpopexy; scores were similar for posterior repairs, transvaginal mesh, and biologic grafts. Sexual function did not worsen after any POP surgeries., Conclusion: Sexual function improves or remains unchanged after all types of reconstructive POP surgeries and does not worsen for any surgery type. Prevalence of total dyspareunia was lower after all POP surgery types, and de novo dyspareunia was low ranging 0-9%. This information can help surgeons counsel patients preoperatively., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42019124308.

Objective: To create evidence-based clinical practice guidelines based on a systematic review of published literature regarding the risks and benefits of available preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative technical steps and interventions at the time of vaginal hysterectomy for benign indications., Data Sources: We systematically searched the literature to identify studies that compared technical steps or interventions during the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods surrounding vaginal hysterectomy. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessments, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception until April 10, 2016, using the MeSH term "Hysterectomy, Vaginal" and associated text words. We included comparative studies, single-group studies, and systematic reviews published in English., Methods of Study Selection: We double-screened 4,250 abstracts, identifying 60 eligible studies. Discrepancies were adjudicated by a third reviewer. We followed standard systematic review methodology and the Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the evidence and generate guideline recommendations., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Because of limited literature, only 16 perioperative risks, technical steps, and interventions were identified: obesity, large uteri, prior surgery, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, vaginal antisepsis, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, morcellation, apical closure, uterine sealers, hemostatic injectants, hot cone, retractor, cystoscopy, vaginal packing, bladder management, and accustimulation. We organized and reported these as four domains: patient selection, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative. We did not identify any patient characteristics precluding a vaginal approach; chlorhexidine or povidone is appropriate for vaginal antisepsis; vasopressin decreases blood loss by 130 cc; tissue-sealing devices decrease blood loss by 44 cc and operative time by 15 minutes with uncertain complication implications; vertical cuff closure results in 1-cm increased vaginal length; either peritoneum or epithelium can be used for colpotomy closure; and routine vaginal packing is not advised., Conclusion: Minimal data exist to guide surgeons with respect to planning and performing a vaginal hysterectomy. This study identifies available information and future areas for investigation.

Objective: To compare the long-term risks associated with salpingo-oophorectomy with ovarian conservation at the time of benign hysterectomy., Data Sources: MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to January 30, 2015. We included prospective and retrospective comparative studies of women with benign hysterectomy who had either bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) or conservation of one or both ovaries., Methods of Study Selection: Reviewers double-screened 5,568 citations and extracted eligible studies into customized forms. Twenty-six comparative studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were assessed for results, quality, and strength of evidence., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Studies were extracted for participant, intervention, comparator, and outcomes data. When compared with hysterectomy with BSO, prevalence of reoperation and ovarian cancer was higher in women with ovarian conservation (ovarian cancer risk of 0.14-0.7% compared with 0.02-0.04% among those with BSO). Hysterectomy with BSO was associated with a lower incidence of breast and total cancer, but no difference in the incidence of cancer mortality was found when compared with ovarian conservation. All-cause mortality was higher in women younger than age 45 years at the time of BSO who were not treated with estrogen replacement therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.92). Coronary heart disease (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.04-1.54) and cardiovascular death were higher among women with BSO (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.27-2.68), especially women younger than 45 years who were not treated with estrogen. Finally, there was an increase in the prevalence of dementia and Parkinson disease among women with BSO compared with conservation, especially in women younger than age 50 years. Clinical practice guidelines were devised based on these results., Conclusion: Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy offers the advantage of effectively eliminating the risk of ovarian cancer and reoperation but can be detrimental to other aspects of health, especially among women younger than age 45 years., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

Objective: To update clinical practice guidelines on graft and mesh use in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair based on systematic review., Data Sources: Eligible studies, published through April 2015, were retrieved through ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases and bibliography searches., Methods of Study Selection: We included studies of transvaginal prolapse repair that compared graft or mesh use with either native tissue repair or use of a different graft or mesh with anatomic and symptomatic outcomes with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Study data were extracted by one reviewer and confirmed by a second reviewer. Studies were classified by vaginal compartment (anterior, posterior, apical, or multiple), graft type (biologic, synthetic absorbable, synthetic nonabsorbable), and outcome (anatomic, symptomatic, sexual function, mesh complications, and return to the operating room). We found 66 comparative studies reported in 70 articles, including 38 randomized trials; quality of the literature has improved over time, but some outcomes still show heterogeneity and limited power. In the anterior vaginal compartment, synthetic nonabsorbable mesh consistently showed improved anatomic and bulge symptom outcomes compared with native tissue repairs based on meta-analyses. Other subjective outcomes, including urinary incontinence or dyspareunia, generally did not differ. Biologic graft or synthetic absorbable mesh use did not provide an advantage in any compartment. Synthetic mesh use in the posterior or apical compartments did not improve success. Mesh erosion rates ranged from 1.4-19% at the anterior vaginal wall, but 3-36% when mesh was placed in multiple compartments. Operative mesh revision rates ranged from 3-8%., Conclusion: Synthetic mesh augmentation of anterior wall prolapse repair improves anatomic outcomes and bulge symptoms compared with native tissue repair. Biologic grafts do not improve prolapse repair outcomes in any compartment. Mesh erosion occurred in up to 36% of patients, but reoperation rates were low.

Objective: To systematically review outcomes after mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repairs in women with apical prolapse., Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 4, 2012., Methods of Study Selection: For anatomic and functional analyses, we included studies comparing mesh sacrocolpopexy to native tissue vaginal repairs with at least 6 months follow-up. The primary outcome was anatomic "success" after surgery. Secondary outcomes were reoperation and symptom outcomes. We included large case series and comparative studies with shorter follow-up to increase power for adverse event analyses., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Evidence quality was assessed with the Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Meta-analyses were performed when at least three studies reported the same outcome. We included 13 comparative studies for anatomic success, reoperation, and symptom outcomes. Moderate-quality evidence supports improved anatomic outcomes after mesh sacrocolpopexy; very low-quality evidence shows no differences in reoperation between sacrocolpopexy and native tissue vaginal repairs. Evidence was insufficient regarding which procedures result in improved bladder or bowel symptoms. Low-quality evidence showed no differences in postoperative sexual function. Adverse event data were compiled and meta-analyzed from 79 studies. When including larger noncomparative studies, ileus or small bowel obstruction (2.7% compared with 0.2%, P<.01), mesh or suture complications (4.2% compared with 0.4%, P<.01), and thromboembolic phenomena (0.6% compared with 0.1%, P=.03) were more common after mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repairs., Conclusion: When anatomic durability is a priority, we suggest that mesh sacrocolpopexy may be the preferred surgical option. When minimizing adverse events or reoperation is the priority, there is no strong evidence supporting one approach over the other.

Objective: To comprehensively review and critically assess the literature on vaginal estrogen and its alternatives for women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause and to provide clinical practice guidelines., Data Sources: MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to April 2013. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective comparative studies. Interventions and comparators included all commercially available vaginal estrogen products. Placebo, no treatment, systemic estrogen (all routes), and nonhormonal moisturizers and lubricants were included as comparators., Methods of Study Selection: We double-screened 1,805 abstracts, identifying 44 eligible studies. Discrepancies were adjudicated by a third reviewer. Studies were individually and collectively assessed for methodologic quality and strength of evidence., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Studies were extracted for participant, intervention, comparator, and outcomes data, including patient-reported atrophy symptoms (eg, vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, dysuria, urgency, frequency, recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI), and urinary incontinence), objective signs of atrophy, urodynamic measures, endometrial effects, serum estradiol changes, and adverse events. Compared with placebo, vaginal estrogens improved dryness, dyspareunia, urinary urgency, frequency, and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). Urinary tract infection rates decreased. The various estrogen preparations had similar efficacy and safety; serum estradiol levels remained within postmenopausal norms for all except high-dose conjugated equine estrogen cream. Endometrial hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma were extremely rare among those receiving vaginal estrogen. Comparing vaginal estrogen with nonhormonal moisturizers, patients with two or more symptoms of vulvovaginal atrophy were substantially more improved using vaginal estrogens, but those with one or minor complaints had similar symptom resolution with either estrogen or nonhormonal moisturizer., Conclusion: All commercially available vaginal estrogens effectively relieve common vulvovaginal atrophy-related complaints and have additional utility in patients with urinary urgency, frequency or nocturia, SUI and UUI, and recurrent UTIs. Nonhormonal moisturizers are a beneficial alternative for those with few or minor atrophy-related symptoms and in patients at risk for estrogen-related neoplasia., Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, CRD42013006656.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of nonsurgical abnormal uterine bleeding treatments for bleeding control, quality of life (QOL), pain, sexual health, patient satisfaction, additional treatments needed, and adverse events., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception to May 2012. We included randomized controlled trials of nonsurgical treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to endometrial dysfunction and abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to ovulatory dysfunction. Interventions included the levonorgestrel intrauterine system, combined oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), progestins, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and antifibrinolytics. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, danazol, and placebo were allowed as comparators., Methods of Study Selection: Two reviewers independently screened 5,848 citations and extracted eligible trials. Studies were assessed for quality and strength of evidence., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Twenty-six articles met inclusion criteria. For reduction of menstrual bleeding in women with abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to endometrial dysfunction, the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (71-95% reduction), combined OCPs (35-69% reduction), extended cycle oral progestins (87% reduction), tranexamic acid (26-54% reduction), and NSAIDs (10-52% reduction) were all effective treatments. The levonorgestrel intrauterine system, combined OCPs, and antifibrinolytics were all superior to luteal-phase progestins (20% increase in bleeding to 67% reduction). The levonorgestrel intrauterine system was superior to combined OCPs and NSAIDs. Antifibrinolytics were superior to NSAIDs for menstrual bleeding reduction. Data were limited on other important outcomes such as QOL for women with abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to endometrial dysfunction and for all outcomes for women with abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to ovulatory dysfunction., Conclusion: For the reduction in mean blood loss in women with heavy menstrual bleeding presumed secondary to abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to endometrial dysfunction, we recommend the use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system over OCPs, luteal-phase progestins, and NSAIDs. For other outcomes (QOL, pain, sexual health, patient satisfaction, additional treatments needed, and adverse events) and for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to ovulatory dysfunction, we were unable to make recommendations based on the limited available data.

Objective: To comprehensively review and critically assess the available gynecologic surgery venous thromboembolism prophylaxis literature and provide clinical practice guidelines., Data Sources: MEDLINE and Cochrane databases from inception to July 2010. We included randomized controlled trials in gynecologic surgery populations. Interventions and comparators included graduated compression stockings, intermittent pneumatic compression, unfractionated heparin, and low molecular weight heparin; placebo and routine postoperative care were allowed as comparators., Methods of Study Selection: One thousand two hundred sixty-six articles were screened, and 14 randomized controlled trials (five benign gynecologic, nine gynecologic oncology) met eligibility criteria. In addition, nine prospective or retrospective studies with at least 150 women were identified and provided data on venous thromboembolism risk stratification, gynecologic laparoscopy, and urogynecologic populations., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Two reviewers independently screened articles with discrepancies adjudicated by a third. Eligible randomized controlled trials were extracted for these characteristics: study, participant, surgery, intervention, comparator, and outcomes data, including venous thromboembolism incidence and bleeding complications. Studies were individually and collectively assessed for methodologic quality and strength of evidence. Overall incidence of clinical venous thromboembolism was 0-2% in the benign gynecologic population. With use of intermittent pneumatic compression for benign major procedures, venous thromboembolism incidence was less than 1%. No venous thromboembolisms were identified in prospective studies of benign laparoscopic procedures. Overall quality of evidence in the benign gynecologic literature was poor. Gynecologic-oncology randomized controlled trials reported venous thromboembolism incidence (including "silent" venous thromboembolisms) of 0-14.8% with prophylaxis and up to 34.6% without prophylaxis. Fair quality of evidence supports that unfractionated heparin and intermittent pneumatic compression are both superior to placebo or no intervention but insufficient to determine whether heparins are superior to intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboembolism prevention. Combining two of three risks (aged 60 years or older, cancer, or personal venous thromboembolism history) substantially elevated the risk of venous thromboembolism., Conclusion: Intermittent pneumatic compression provides sufficient prophylaxis for the majority of gynecology patients undergoing benign surgery. Additional risk factors warrant the use of combined mechanical and pharmacologic prophylaxis.

Objective: To estimate the anatomic and symptomatic efficacy of graft use in transvaginal prolapse repair and to estimate the rates and describe the spectrum of adverse events associated with graft use., Data Sources: Eligible studies, published between 1950 and November 27, 2007, were retrieved through Medline and bibliography searches., Methods of Study Selection: To assess anatomic and symptomatic efficacy of graft use, we used transvaginal prolapse repair studies that compared graft use with either native tissue repair or repair with a different graft. To estimate rates of adverse events from graft use, all comparative studies and case series with at least 30 participants were included. For spectrum of adverse events, all study designs were included., Tabulation, Integration and Results: Eligible studies were extracted onto standardized forms by one reviewer and confirmed by a second reviewer. Comparative studies were classified by vaginal compartment (anterior, posterior, apical, or multiple), graft type (biologic, synthetic-absorbable, synthetic nonabsorbable) and outcome (anatomic, symptomatic). We found 16 comparative studies, including six randomized trials, 37 noncomparative studies with at least 30 women, 11 case series with fewer than 30 women, and 10 case reports of adverse events. One randomized trial and one prospective comparative study evaluating synthetic, nonabsorbable graft use in the anterior compartment reported favorable anatomic and symptomatic outcomes with graft use. Data regarding graft use for posterior and apical compartments or for biologic or synthetic absorbable graft use in the anterior compartment were insufficient to determine efficacy. Rates and spectrum of adverse events associated with graft use included bleeding (0-3%), visceral injury (1-4%), urinary infection (0-19%), graft erosion (0-30%), and fistula (1%). There were insufficient data regarding dyspareunia, sexual, voiding, or defecatory dysfunction., Conclusion: Overall, the existing evidence is limited to guide decisions regarding whether to use graft materials in transvaginal prolapse surgery. Adequately powered randomized trials evaluating anatomic and symptomatic efficacy as well as adverse events are needed.