Search

Background: Second-stage caesarean sections, of which there are around 34,000 per year in the UK, have greater maternal and perinatal morbidity than those in the first stage. The fetal head is often deeply impacted in the maternal pelvis, and extraction can be difficult. Numerous techniques are reported, but the superiority of one over another is contentious and there is no national guidance. Objective To determine the feasibility of a randomised trial of different techniques for managing an impacted fetal head during emergency caesarean. Design A scoping study with five work packages: (1) national surveys to determine current practice and acceptability of research in this area, and a qualitative study to determine acceptability to women who have experienced a second-stage caesarean; (2) a national prospective observational study to determine incidence and rate of complications; (3) a Delphi survey and consensus meeting on choice of techniques and outcomes for a trial; (4) the design of a trial; and (5) a national survey and qualitative study to determine acceptability of the proposed trial. Setting Secondary care. Participants Health-care professionals, pregnant women, women who have had a second-stage caesarean, and parents. Results Most (244/279, 87%) health-care professionals believe that a trial in this area would help guide their practice, and 90% (252/279) would be willing to participate in such a trial. Thirty-eight per cent (98/259) of parents reported that they would take part. Women varied in which technique they thought was most acceptable. Our observational study found that impacted head is common (occurring in 16% of second-stage caesareans) and leads to both maternal (41%) and neonatal (3.5%) complications. It is most often treated by an assistant pushing the head up vaginally. We designed a randomised clinical trial comparing the fetal pillow with the vaginal push technique. The vast majority of health-care professionals, 83% of midwives and 88% of obstetricians, would be willing to participate in the trial proposed, and 37% of parents reported that they would take part. Our qualitative study found that most participants thought the trial would be feasible and acceptable. Limitations Our survey is subject to the limitation that, although responses refer to contemporaneous real cases, they are self-reported by the surgeon and collected after the event. Willingness to participate in a hypothetical trial may not translate into recruitment to a real trial. Conclusions We proposed a trial to compare a new device, the fetal pillow, with a long-established procedure, the vaginal push technique. Such a trial would be widely supported by health-care professionals. We recommend that it be powered to test an effect on important short term maternal and baby outcomes which would require 754 participants per group. Despite the well-known difference between intent and action, this would be feasible within the UK. Future work We recommend a randomised controlled trial of two techniques for managing an impacted fetal head with an in-built internal pilot phase and alongside economic and qualitative substudies. Study registration This study is registered as Research Registry 4942. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Plain language summary: One-quarter of UK pregnant women have a caesarean section. Most of these procedures are straightforward, but in a small number of cases unexpected complications can make the birth difficult. One complication, an impacted fetal head, may happen when caesarean sections are done in the second ‘pushing’ stage of labour. If the baby’s head is low and wedged in the woman’s pelvis, lifting it can be difficult, which can result in damage to the mother’s womb and vagina, and to her baby. Occasionally, babies die. There are different techniques doctors and midwives can use to make these births easier, but there is uncertainty around which is best. To plan a trial to test these techniques, we needed to know how often impacted head happens, what techniques are used to manage it and whether or not research is acceptable to parents and health-care professionals. We surveyed doctors and midwives to find out which techniques they use and what training they need. We surveyed parents and pregnant women and interviewed women who had experienced a second-stage caesarean. We collected information from UK hospitals to find out how common this is and the impact on women and babies. We found out the following: Around 7% of caesareans take place in second stage, and impacted fetal head occurs in 16% of these births. One-third of women would consent to take part in a trial, if the complication happened to them. Nearly all midwives and doctors thought that this research was important and would be willing to take part. Using all of the information we collected, we designed a clinical trial. We wanted to compare two techniques for managing an impacted fetal head. The first is the vaginal push technique, where the doctor or midwife puts their hand into the mother’s vagina to push her baby’s head up, and the second is the fetal pillow, a device inserted into the mother’s vagina before the operation starts to dislodge the baby’s head upwards. Scientific summary: Background Emergency caesarean section (CS) performed in the second stage of labour, which occurs in 34,000 births per annum in the UK, has greater perinatal and maternal morbidity than CS performed in the first stage. Second-stage CS may be complicated by the fetal head being deeply impacted in the maternal pelvis, which occurs in 1.5% of all emergency CSs. Complications include longer delivery times, uterine tears, injury to the baby and even, albeit rarely, death. Numerous techniques to assist in delivery of an impacted fetal head (IFH) are reported. The superiority of one technique over another is contentious. At present, there is no national guidance on what techniques to employ. Research questions What are the current practice, level of experience and training requirements for managing an IFH during emergency CS among UK obstetricians, obstetric anaesthetists and midwives? What are the views of pregnant women and their partners on research in this area? How acceptable is a randomised trial in this area to women who have experienced a second-stage caesarean birth, and what are their views on the different proposed techniques for managing an IFH? What is the incidence of IFH and maternal and neonatal complications arising from IFH in the UK? What techniques and outcomes do health-care professionals and parents think should be included in a randomised trial in IFH? What should the design be for a randomised trial in IFH? How acceptable is the randomised trial we have designed to health-care professionals, women who have experienced a second-stage caesarean birth and pregnant women? Methods We undertook a national survey of obstetricians, trainee obstetricians, obstetric anaesthetists and midwives to determine current practice, level of experience and training requirements for managing IFH during emergency CS. We also undertook a national survey of parents to determine their views on this topic. Individual face-to-face interviews with women who have experienced a second-stage CS were carried out to determine the acceptability of a randomised trial in this area and their views on the different proposed techniques for managing IFH. A national, prospective UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) surveillance study was undertaken to determine the incidence and consequences of IFH in the UK. Based on the findings of previous work packages, we conducted a Delphi survey followed by a virtual consensus meeting of experts and important stakeholders to decide which techniques should be tested in any trial and which outcomes should be included. A randomised trial of different techniques for managing IFH during emergency CS was designed. We undertook a national survey of lead obstetricians, pregnant women and midwives to determine the feasibility and acceptability of the randomised trial designed. Three sets of individual telephone or video interviews were carried out with lead obstetricians/senior obstetric trainees, women who have experienced a second-stage CS and primiparous women to determine the acceptability and feasibility of the planned trial. Results The majority (89%) of health-care professionals stated that a clinical trial in this area would help to guide their clinical practice, and 87% would be willing to participate in such a trial. In addition, 37% of parents reported that they would be either likely or very likely to take part, or neutral. Women varied in which technique they thought was most acceptable, and their trust in medical expertise and prioritising the safety of the baby were important moderators of acceptability. Our national prospective observational study found that impacted head is common, occurring in 16% of second-stage caesarean births in the UK, and leads to both maternal and neonatal complications. Overall, 230 (41%) women and 20 babies (3.5%) experienced complications. Thirteen babies (2%) died or sustained severe injury. Seven suffered bony fracture, two brachial plexus injury and one facial palsy. Three had moderate or severe hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, and seven were cooled. Four babies died: one prior to the caesarean, one with multiple abnormalities and two as a direct result of complications caused by IFH. IFH is currently most often treated by an assistant pushing the head up vaginally during the CS. Data from earlier work packages were used throughout the project, culminating in the design of a randomised clinical trial. Our proposed trial would compare a new device, the fetal pillow, with a procedure used for many years, the vaginal push technique, for preventing IFH. Most doctors and midwives believed that such a trial would be important and were willing to recruit participants to one. About one in three women said that they would be willing to join such a trial. The only interventions that were more popular with patients were tocolysis and the head-down technique. Both of these are adjunct techniques used by all obstetricians and, therefore, are not suitable for evaluation in a trial. The required sample size of such a trial depends on whether it is powered to show a difference in severe maternal morbidity (control event rate 2.3%, 4698 participants per group), a difference in fetal short-term morbidity (control event rate 13.7%, 754 participants per group) or only a difference in less severe maternal events, including haemorrhage over 1000 ml (control event rate 27%, 322 participants per group). We believe that it is not feasible to conduct the trial powered on severe maternal morbidity. However, parents and doctors believe that a trial to test the effect of different procedures on meaningful baby outcomes is important. We therefore recommend that the required sample size would be 754 per group. The vast majority of midwives (83%) and obstetricians (88%) would be willing to participate in the clinical trial proposed. In addition, 37% of parents reported that they would be either likely or very likely to take part, or neutral. Our qualitative study found that most participants thought that the trial would be feasible and acceptable. Conclusions We recommend that a randomised trial with an internal pilot phase comparing a new device, the fetal pillow, with a procedure used for many years, the vaginal push technique, for managing IFH be conducted. This trial is widely supported by health-care professionals. We recommend that the definitive trial be powered to test an effect on important short-term maternal and baby outcomes, which would require 754 participants per group. A sufficient number of women would be willing to be join such a trial to make it likely to be feasible in the UK. Study registration This study is registered as Research Registry 4942. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Rates of infertility are rising, and informed decision making is an essential part of reproductive life planning with the knowledge that ART success decreases dramatically while a woman's age increases and that high costs can often be incurred during fertility treatment. We aimed to determine the current knowledge of infertility and its treatments in the general public through an online survey. We received 360 complete responses. The average age of respondents was 35 years with most respondents being female (90%), heterosexual (88%), white (85%) and university educated (79%). Of the total, 49% had children and 23% had a condition that affects their fertility; 41% had concerns about future fertility and 78% knew someone who had had fertility treatment. Participants' understanding of basic reproductive biology and causes of infertility varied with correct responses to questions ranging from 44% to 93%. Understanding of IVF outcomes was poorer with only 32% to 55% of responses being correct, and 76% of respondents felt that their education in fertility was inadequate. This survey highlights the inconsistencies in the general public's understanding of infertility in this relatively educated population. With increasing demands on fertility services and limited public funds, better education is essential to ensure patients are fully informed with regard to their reproductive life planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION Does endometrial compaction (EC) help predict pregnancy outcomes in those undergoing ART? SUMMARY ANSWER EC is associated with a significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR), but this does not translate to live birth rate (LBR). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY EC describes the progesterone-induced decrease in endometrial thickness, which may be observed following the end of the proliferative phase, prior to embryo transfer. EC is proposed as a non-invasive tool to help predict pregnancy outcome in those undergoing ART, however, published data is conflicting. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A literature search was carried out by two independent authors using PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception of databases to May 2023. All peer-reviewed studies reporting EC and pregnancy outcomes in patients undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment were included. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The primary outcome is LBR. Secondary outcomes included other pregnancy metrics (positive pregnancy test (PPT), CPR, OPR, miscarriage rate (MR)) and rate of EC. Comparative meta-analyses comparing EC and no EC were conducted for each outcome using a random-effects model if I 2 > 50%. The Mantel–Haenszel method was applied for pooling dichotomous data. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Out of 4030 screened articles, 21 cohort studies were included in the final analysis (n = 27 857). No significant difference was found between LBR in the EC versus the no EC group (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87–1.04). OPR was significantly higher within the EC group (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.09–2.38), particularly when EC ≥ 15% compared to no EC (OR 3.52; 95% CI 2.36–5.23). CPR was inconsistently defined across the studies, affecting the findings. When defined as a viable intrauterine pregnancy <12 weeks, the EC group had significantly higher CPR than no EC (OR 1.83; 95% CI 1.15–2.92). No significant differences were found between EC and no EC for PPT (OR 1.54; 95% CI 0.97–2.45) or MR (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.92–1.56). The pooled weighted incidence of EC across all studies was 32% (95% CI 26–38%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Heterogeneity due to differences between reported pregnancy outcomes, definition of EC, method of ultrasound, and cycle protocol may account for the lack of translation between CPR/OPR and LBR findings; thus, all pooled data should be viewed with an element of caution. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS In this dataset, the significantly higher CPR/OPR with EC does not translate to LBR. Although stratification of women according to EC cannot currently be recommended in clinical practice, a large and well-designed clinical trial to rigorously assess EC as a non-invasive predictor of a successful pregnancy is warranted. We urge for consistent outcome reporting to be mandated for ART trials so that data can be pooled, compared, and concluded on. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) H.A. was supported by the Hewitt Fertility Centre. S.G.P. and J.W. were supported by the Liverpool University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. D.K.H. was supported by a Wellbeing of Women project grant (RG2137) and MRC clinical research training fellowship (MR/V007238/1). N.T. was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. D.K.H. had received honoraria for consultancy for Theramex and has received payment for presentations from Theramex and Gideon Richter. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to report. REGISTRATION NUMBER PROSPERO CRD42022378464 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Human endometrium remains a poorly understood tissue of the female reproductive tract. The superficial endometrial functionalis, the site of embryo implantation, is repeatedly shed with menstruation, and the stem cell-rich deeper basalis is postulated to be responsible for the regeneration of the functionalis. Two recent manuscripts have demonstrated the 3D architecture of endometrial glands. These manuscripts have challenged and replaced the prevailing concept that these glands end in blind pouches in the basalis layer that contain stem cells in crypts, as in the intestinal mucosa, providing a new paradigm for endometrial glandular anatomy. This necessitates re-evaluation of the available evidence on human endometrial regeneration in both health and disease in the context of this previously unknown endometrial glandular arrangement.Objective and Rationale: The aim of this review is to determine if the recently discovered glandular arrangement provides plausible explanations for previously unanswered questions related to human endometrial biology. Specifically, it will focus on re-appraising the theories related to endometrial regeneration, location of stem/progenitor cells and endometrial pathologies in the context of this recently unravelled endometrial glandular organization.Search Methods: An extensive literature search was conducted from inception to April 2021 using multiple databases, including PubMed/Web of Science/EMBASE/Scopus, to select studies using keywords applied to endometrial glandular anatomy and regeneration, and the references included in selected publications were also screened. All relevant publications were included.Outcomes: The human endometrial glands have a unique and complex architecture; branched basalis glands proceed in a horizontal course adjacent to the myometrium, as opposed to the non-branching, vertically coiled functionalis glands, which run parallel to each other as is observed in intestinal crypts. This complex network of mycelium-like, interconnected basalis glands is demonstrated to contain endometrial epithelial stem cells giving rise to single, non-branching functionalis glands. Several previous studies that have tried to confirm the existence of epithelial stem cells have used methodologies that prevent sampling of the stem cell-rich basalis. More recent findings have provided insight into the efficient regeneration of the human endometrium, which is preferentially evolved in humans and menstruating upper-order primates.Wider Implications: The unique physiological organization of the human endometrial glandular element, its relevance to stem cell activity and scarless endometrial regeneration will inform reproductive biologists and clinicians to direct their future research to determine disease-specific alterations in glandular anatomy in a variety of endometrial pathological conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An increased body mass index (BMI) can lead to subfertility; however, current literature fails to exclude the effect of other confounding medical conditions, raising questions regarding the direct link between increased BMI and fertility outcomes., Objectives: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to elucidate the effects of increased BMI on fertility outcomes in females with no other comorbidities., Search Strategy: A comprehensive search was conducted using EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane library from January 2000 until July 2023., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed study quality. Odds ratio (OR) (dichotomous data), standardised mean difference (SMD) (continuous data) and 95% CIs were calculated., Main Results: Nine eligible studies were identified: one natural conception and eight assisted reproductive technology (ART). Aggregated data revealed women with BMI ≥25 were less likely to attain clinical pregnancy (OR 0.76, 95% CIs 0.62 to 0.93, p=0.007), with BMI ≥30 associated with a further decreased likelihood of clinical pregnancy (OR 0.61, 95% CIs 0.39 to 0.98, p=0.04). Women with raised BMI required longer duration of stimulation (SMD=0.08, 95% CIs 0.00 to 0.16, p=0.04) and obtained reduced oocytes (SMD=-0.11, 95% CIs -0.18 to -0.04, p=0.002)., Conclusions: These data demonstrate an adverse impact of being overweight/obese on ART outcomes in women with no other diagnosed medical comorbidities and highlight the distinct lack of data concerning the effects of isolated obesity on natural conception. Infertility represents an enormous burden for couples and society; it is essential to identify and tackle modifiable risk factors to improve chances of conception., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42022293631., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: D.K.H. has received honoraria for consultancy for Theramex and has received payment for presentations from Theramex and Gideon Richter. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Abstract: Embryo implantation is vital for successful conception but remains to be fully understood. Trophoblast invasion is key for implantation, with anchorage and depth of placentation determined by its extent. There is a dearth of synchronous information regarding IVF, implantation site, and trophoblastic thickness (TT). Our aim was to determine whether pregnancy implantation site and TT, had an impact on outcomes of IVF pregnancies. This prospective observational study was undertaken at a tertiary referral UK fertility unit over 14 months, collecting data on implantation site and TT from three-dimensional (3D) images of the uterus following early pregnancy scan. Of the 300 women recruited, 277 (92%) had live births, 20 (7%) miscarried, 2 (0.7%) had stillbirths, and 1 (0.3%) had a termination. Significantly more pregnancies that resulted in miscarriage (7/20, 35%) were located in the lower uterine cavity when compared to ongoing pregnancies (15/277, 5%) (P < 0.01). TT was significantly higher in ongoing pregnancies when compared with those who miscarried (7.2 mm vs 5.5 mm; P < 0.01). Implantation in the lower half of the uterine cavity and decreased TT are significantly associated with an increased rate of miscarriage. Identification of those at risk should prompt increased monitoring with the aim of supporting these pregnancies., Lay Summary: Implantation of an embryo in the womb is vital for a successful pregnancy. We wanted to find out whether findings on an ultrasound scan in early pregnancy had an impact on outcomes of IVF pregnancies. Three hundred women were recruited to the study, 277 (92%) had live births and unfortunately 20 (7%) had a miscarriage, 2 (0.7%) had stillbirths, and 1 (0.3%) had a termination. Many more of the pregnancies that miscarried implanted in the lower part of the womb. The thickness of the infiltration of the pregnancy into the womb was significantly higher in the ongoing pregnancies. We concluded that implantation in the lower half of the womb and reduced infiltration of the pregnancy seen on scan are associated with an increased rate of miscarriage. We propose that when we identify those at risk, we should increase monitoring, with the aim of supporting these pregnancies.

Objective(s): To understand current practice, expertise and training requirements for management of an impacted fetal head (IFH) at caesarean section (CS) in the UK, and whether a clinical trial of techniques to manage an IFH is acceptable., Study Design: Five hundred and thirty-eight online surveys were completed by obstetricians (n = 206), obstetric anaesthetists (n = 38), midwives (n = 35) and parents (n = 259). Data was collected on incidences of CS and IFH, current use of techniques, and acceptability of a clinical trial to manage an IFH from health care professionals. Information on incidences of CS and recollection of an IFH, acceptability of techniques, and likelihood of taking part in a clinical trial were sought from parents., Results: The most common technique used by obstetricians (84%) and midwives (69%) was the 'push technique'. Eighty-seven percent of health care professionals would be willing to participate in a clinical trial, with 89% confirming that results would guide their clinical practice. Most parents expressed reluctance regarding participation in a clinical trial during labour (62%), due to preferring a doctor to adopt the technique they felt most comfortable with (63%)., Conclusion(s): Given the lack of national guidance on appropriate techniques, no formal training, and no consensus on best practice for the management of an IFH during emergency CS, it is perhaps not surprising that the majority of heath care professionals would be willing to participate in a clinical trial, where results will guide their clinical practice. The future development of clinical trials, involving relevant stakeholders in the design of such trials, is crucial to improve upon the guidance and training provided to staff who may encounter an IFH., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Malposition complicates 2-13% of births at delivery, leading to increased obstetric interventions (cesarean section and instrumental delivery) and higher rates of adverse fetal and maternal outcomes. Limited data are available regarding the likely rates of obstetric intervention and subsequent neonatal and maternal outcomes of births with babies in persistent occiput posterior position vs those in persistent occiput transverse position. The UK Audit and Research trainee Collaborative in Obstetrics and Gynecology (UK-ARCOG) network set out to collect data prospectively at delivery on final mode of delivery and immediate outcomes., Material and Methods: The UK-ARCOG network collected data on all births with malposition of the fetal head complicating the second stage of labor (n = 838) (occiput posterior/occiput transverse) requiring rotational vaginal operative birth or emergency cesarean to expedite delivery across 66 participating UK National Health Service maternity units over a 1-month period. The outcomes considered were the need for emergency cesarean section without a trial of instrumental delivery, success of the first method of delivery employed in achieving a vaginal delivery and neonatal/maternal outcomes., Results: Obstetricians regarded assistance with an operative vaginal delivery method to be unsafe in 15% of babies in occiput posterior position and 6.1% of babies in occiput transverse position, and they were delivered by primary emergency cesarean section. When vaginal delivery was deemed safe (defined as attempted assisted vaginal rotational delivery), the first instrument attempted was successful in 74.4% of occiput posterior babies and 79.3% of occiput transverse babies., Conclusions: Our data facilitates decision making by obstetricians to increase safety of assisted rotational operative delivery of a malpositioned baby at initial assessment and in counseling women. Until data from a well-designed randomized controlled trial of instrumental delivery vs emergency cesarean section are available, this manuscript provides contemporaneous national data from a high resource setting within a structured training program, to assist the selection of an appropriate instrument/method for the delivery of a malpositioned baby., (© 2019 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).)